Deadlord36 wrote:I never agreed with the "kill the players" idea.
Shingen wrote:Even though I know that nothing I will say will make anyone here give 3e a chance, I will still say some things in its defense.First, on the complexity. The rules are simpler than they have ever been. All rolls go on the same style, and the modifiers are simple and easy to use. Combat has a simple system with set actions. Most of the extra rules I hear talk about have little basis in actual fact. Most of the supplemental rules that come out are Skills, Feats, Prestig Classes, Races and Monsters. No new rules. It is just more optional stuff to use.If you want to talk complexity, lets use all the optional rules in all the 2e books. At least 3/4 of the kits were all broken to hell.Second, on the munchkinry. This system is no less or more predisposed to munchkinry than any other system. As with every system, it has a potential to be munchkined, but the DM maintains control over that fact.Furthermore, the reference to the xp and gold to cast that spell was not showing munchkinry; it was an attempt to show how incredibly impossible that spell is, because none of my damn players could ever cast it. In 2e I saw lots of munchkins too; it just depends on the players and DMs. Third, alot of people dislike the fast leveling. Well, I do too. So I slowed it down. No big deal. No system is perfect. And the DM's perogative is to fix what he dislikes. And I may have made slight miscalculation + oversimplification, but yes, characters level up fast. In my first ongoing game, before tweaking, we had players at 5th level after about 3 months of weekly, 4 hour long games. The system also covers a lot of things I had been dealing with for a long time. The skill system allows your players to actually do things out of combat that make more sense. It is easier to track what they are good at. Furthermore, the dreaded feats allow charcters to actually be different in combat style, unlike characters from previous editions.The Feats system is a bittersweet thing. I know it seems overpowered, but it is actually quite balanced considering all the monsters and NPCs have feats and special abilities too. And that the monsters are a lot beefier than before. It makes combat larger and more dangerous. Feats actually allow a player to make a charcter of his dreams, by customizing what he can do in combat. There are many unbalanced feats, especially those put out by third parties, but DM perogative again.I think that 3e is possibly the best system yet. It has a way to deal withg almost any situation with a small set of rules. All rolls are made off of a d20 to do anything. Characters are much more detailed. You can actually do alot of things out of combat that make more sense. All in all, the system is , like the others as good as the DM allows it to be.I think alot of the sentiement here is a sort of stubborn refusal to change, or give 3.5 a fair shake, because of assuredness that your current system is the only good thing out there. If anyone can provide actual play experience problems with the system, or a more informed argument, instead of "I saw this and didn't like it so I won't try it," I would like to hear it. Just a more complete argument.And BTW, no offense taken on earlier posts either. I hope I have similarly not offended anyone personally.
Traveller wrote:When do I hit?Do I hit?How much damage do I do?One last thing. You mention a small set of rules. If you're a DM, you have 1000+ pages of material in your PHB, DMG, and MM. OD&D and B/X D&D did it in about 100-150 pages apiece. AD&D, being advanced, took about 500 pages to do everything. But most of the DMG was essay material, and not absolutely critical. My personal game involves using the PHB sans psionics and Holmes D&D, with a dash of magic items from the DMG. I figure that I got AD&D cut down to about 200 pages. The D&D Rules Cyclopedia provides pretty much everything (except jousting and artifacts) in 304 pages. All of those are smaller than d20 Fantasy, but they aren't modern games either.Castles & Cruasdes is a full game in 128 pages, including monsters.Oh, I'm not personally offended by what you have said either. I just don't believe you have seen all the alternatives that are available.
Shingen wrote:Traveller wrote:When do I hit?Do I hit?How much damage do I do?One last thing. You mention a small set of rules. If you're a DM, you have 1000+ pages of material in your PHB, DMG, and MM. OD&D and B/X D&D did it in about 100-150 pages apiece. AD&D, being advanced, took about 500 pages to do everything. But most of the DMG was essay material, and not absolutely critical. My personal game involves using the PHB sans psionics and Holmes D&D, with a dash of magic items from the DMG. I figure that I got AD&D cut down to about 200 pages. The D&D Rules Cyclopedia provides pretty much everything (except jousting and artifacts) in 304 pages. All of those are smaller than d20 Fantasy, but they aren't modern games either.Castles & Cruasdes is a full game in 128 pages, including monsters.Oh, I'm not personally offended by what you have said either. I just don't believe you have seen all the alternatives that are available.I have seen all the alternatives. I have played GURPS, Palladium, etc. every system under the sun, including everything to basic D&D. I happen to prefer 3.5 the way darkseraphim prefers older versions of the game; because we have tried the others and chosen what fits us.When do you hit? On your inititive. Rolled once, at teh beginning of combat.Do you hit? Add your modifier to the roll. I'll tell you if it's enough.How much damage?It's right there on your character sheet.All of these things are still provided for. Great Cleave does not provide a bouns to you attack, but an ability. I am completely unable to see how Skills cause munchkinry, which is a consistent argument. It's a skill. if you try to do something, you roll a d20 and add it. If it makes the DC, you do it. The amount and ranks in skill syou have is limited. It has virtually nothing to do with power level.Once again, feats can be problematic. But I have found as both player and DM that they allow you to have many options in the way a pC/NPC works.There is a lot of material. But not that much more than 2e. Darkseraphim: I still try to kill PCs. I am a rough DM, and 3.5 has never limited my ability to be completely in control of the game. I still put them in tough spots, and thye better learn of die.I don't see a problem with a faster, more detailed game. I think some of you are allowing the PCs to much leeway. Just do it your damn self.the miniatures combat I can understand as a problem. We don;t use minis, just dice or little cardboard tiles, but we use the grid. It has eliminated the "where is my guy?" stuff, and makes more sense in combat. The combat actions for the PCs to be much more tactical; they must be aware fo where, how big, and what monsters are doing. That is problem the stickiest part of the game, but it is easily simplified.
Originally available at http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538820p2.htmlGameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.Now, should I tell you what I really think?
darkseraphim wrote: In short, I don't think today's new players want the same things that made me fall in love with D&D 25 years ago. They've basically thrown aside 30 years of history to create a similar game in the same genre. Which is fine, but to anyone who has played D&D for decades, the current game is NOT Dungeons & Dragons - it should be called Heroes & Demigods or something.It's not that I won't give 3.5 a chance, because I have. As a DM, I failed before I got started, multiple times, because groups would not accept me. As a player, I had a good time, while all the while wondering why the game was called D&D. So the game is good. It just isn't what it should be.I don't think it's a fixable issue - people like me will eventually fall by the wayside, and today's 3.5 people will be lamenting the hyper-kinetic kiddies playing D&D 10.0 30 years from now.
Traveller wrote:Oh, and one last thing? Nobody here, with the possible exception of me, is poo pooing your choice of game. However, your pleas to try your game fall upon deaf ears. I'm sure many here have, and have decided against the game. Yet do you see them evangelizing the older systems like d20 Fantasy people such as yourself? Other than in this thread and perhaps one other, have you seen me even discuss Castles & Crusades? I try very hard to avoid peeing in the pool here because my experiences regarding Castles & Crusades as one of its playtesters have no place on a OD&D/AD&D/BXD&D collecting site. To me, d20 Fantasy has no place here either.
Deadlord36 wrote:Actually, you have Cleave wrong. It's much worse. If you KILL an opponent with a swing, it allows you to make an extra attack against another creature within range.And Great Cleave? Same thing, except as long as you keep killing creatures in 1 stroke, you can keep on cleaving! Sort of Like in Kung Pao!! Enter the Fist, when he runs horizontally inside the circle of guys, kicking each one in the face.3E is a joke.