What Do You Play?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 712, 3, 4, 5, 67
Author


Prolific Collector

Posts: 424
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 21, 2022
Location: UK

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:55 am 
 

Yes also remembered.

Wasn't it only fighters of a certain (name?) level though?

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5685
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 26, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:00 am 
 

3E.................
My half-dragon/half-mind flayer paladin/sorcerer/druid level 2/1/1 breathes fire. 10d6. Etc. Etc.
The real problem with roleplayiing now is that the kids are not encouraged to use intellect and emotion to play. They only need to crunch numbers. It's Magic the Gathering and Final Fantasy merged and sold as an RPG.  And I agree, marketwise WoTC did the smart thing. So did Metallica when they cut off their hair and started doing love ballads. Doesn't mean they don't suck, though.
3E is NOT roleplaying, it's a paper video game. Look at the term. ROLEplaying. Playing a role. Not playing a paper sheet with numbers, playing an actual character with personality and goals other than the next treasure mound and level.
That being said, if someone prefers to use 3E, not only do I not care, I have no right to bash them. Do what you enjoy. But, I wouldn't harbor any hopes of converting those of us who broke our cherries in the B series. 3E players can never understand what they missed, even if they try AD&D after they try 3E. The experiences don't even compare.
Hell, it's like banging a broad for your first time. If you do a nice, respectable chick (AD&D), you get a taste of the nicer points, and yet you can appreciate the Saturday night sluts later on. If you bang a tramp (3E), you lose respect for the whole process, and see it as just a way to get off without Vaseline. Subsequently, you treat EVERY chick like a 3E chick.
So, treat roleplaying like pussy. Get the best before you get the rest.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5685
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 26, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:02 am 
 

The multi-attack rule was against creatures of less than 1 HD. You could make one attack per level. No name level restriction. I'll get the page for you when I get home.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:13 am 
 

Multi attacks vs. >1HD creatures is in the Players HB and it only applies to fighters. There is a level restriction (Can't quite remember for sure) of maybe 7th or 9th level.

It is an overlooked rule that most people never used or even knew was there. Comparing it to cleave and great cleave is a joke. Sort of like Kerry comparing the war on terror with the problem with prositituion or gambling...

Anyway, Traveler summed it up best.

3.0+ has none of the "feel" of AD&D. At its heart, AD&D really is a simple game. I even thought 2nd Edition lost something.

Some of the best RPGs created often shared one thing in common. The rule system was relatively short and concise. Champions for example. That system was awesome. The entire rule book was what, 64 pages!


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 424
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 21, 2022
Location: UK

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:21 pm 
 

Well I agree to "feel" - why I moved into HackMaster for a while.

But 3e is still IMHO a good game.

And 'round our table there is ROLE-playing as well as combat.

There are a couple of guys who can't role-play but then they couldn't in 1e :wink:

All I'm saying is don't necessarily dismiss it.

  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 681
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 29, 2022
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:40 pm 
 

The 3.0 campaign I was trying to get going was Greyhawk classics, heavily modified, series:  U1-U2-U3-A1-A2-A3-A4-S2-WG4-S4-G1-G2-G3-D1-D2-D3-Q1-S1.  I had restrictions on race and multi-classing to emulate 1E.  Only restrictions on prestige and feats were finding an excuse/mentor.

No bites.  I never even got past the arguing stage with any group.  Which is too bad, because I really wanted to give the new system a chance by giving it a workout in the classics.  I was hoping to run a Greyhawk campaign with the old school feel and new mechanics, so that we got the best of both worlds, and bridged our play styles together.

Ah well.  I was really excited when the game came out, but I don't like it as designed.  Had fun playing 3.5, though.  But I play RPGs on my PS2 with my girlfriend (her faves are Kingdom Hearts and Dark Cloud 2), and I honestly felt 3.5 had more to do with the PS2 than D&D.

:?

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5685
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 26, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:16 pm 
 

3E and D&D aren't even in the same class. No one could really argue that. Sorcerers using crossbows? In a class-based system, that is a huge no-no. Too much power. But then again, 3E is all about player power.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:34 pm 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:3E and D&D aren't even in the same class. No one could really argue that. Sorcerers using crossbows? In a class-based system, that is a huge no-no. Too much power. But then again, 3E is all about player power.

Hmm, maybe I'm going to lose my "old school" D&D badge, but I don't see anything wrong with a sorcerer using a crossbow as a "last ditch" effort.  

Imagine you've used your last spell, and an ogre or something has already broken your dagger/staff, and your lead fighter's just been eaten.  You grab the first relatively dangerous thing you can (a crossbow in this case, though a short bow is more likely because of strength considerations loading the darn thing), and fire.  Probably a -4 or worse penalty to hit, on top of their already pathetic THAC0.  We didn't actually allow crossbows in our campaigns, as they were a couple centuries too advanced...but you get the idea.

 YIM  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:04 pm 
 

Now we are talking game mechanics. Crossbows and wizards. Nope. Doesn't matter what the situation. The non-weapon proficiency alone would be huge!


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:12 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:Now we are talking game mechanics. Crossbows and wizards. Nope. Doesn't matter what the situation. The non-weapon proficiency alone would be huge!


See, that's my point.  I like class archetypes, but sometimes they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.  Why shouldn't a magic-user, especially a higher level one, who has been in combat, seen crossbows used before, be able to try to fire one in a pinch?  After all, a zero-level character could do it, maybe even without a penalty of some kind.  It makes no sense at all for a DM to say "Magic-users can't use crossbows.  It says so in the book."  Now, sure, they're the geeks of the medieval world, so you might say they don't have the strength or technical skill, but that's what to hit penalties are for...

Now clerics, that's a different story, because they have their god to deal with.  "Thou shalt not useth a crossbow" makes sense, because if your god says something, you listen or get smited.  :)

 YIM  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 24, 2022

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:19 pm 
 

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.

Heh, I try to avoid d20 Fantasy like the plague.  The only way I know what Great Cleave does is either through the SRD or via the d20 Star Wars RCR I own that I got for a song and a dime.



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5685
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 26, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:28 pm 
 

Page 25, Player's Handbook. Just under the attacks/round chart:
This excludes melee combat with monsters of less than one hit die and non-exceptional (Level 0) humans and semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each of his or her experience levels.

So goblins qualify, being 1d8-1.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 24, 2022

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:50 pm 
 

Shingen wrote:
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.


I haven't asserted that. i have said some people are refusing to see it any different, even possible, without even trying it. I am not trying to evangelize, which is just ridiculous. I heard some players sya they didn't like d20, and attempted to correct inaccuracies, and try to get some people who may have been misinformed to look at it differently. And most people have been open minded, and willing to just say "I'm comfortable with what I got, but you make good points." You are the only one becoming so heated about it.

No one has to evangelize the old systems to me, because I have them. Simple.

I figured since this was a RP collectible site, people might play roleplaying games. But apparently, only talk about certain systems is acceptable.

Whatever. Since most people have been cool, I feel this was a cool thread, because everyone experessed an opinion, and defended it, in good faith. But this overtly hostile gesture, telling me what has no place in this forum, sours me. I'm done talking about it. Sorry for polluting your forum with divergent thoughts.

I guess I struck a nerve. :roll:

I will not presume to tell anyone what this site is about, as that is the province of one man, and one man only: the site owner.  However, the words "to me" do in fact mean that it is my opinion.  It may seem like it is splitting hairs, and if that is the case, then it's a very fine line that divides our viewpoints.  You chose to see the statements I made as hostile.  I chose to express my opinions, which is what they are.  In the end, I really do not care if you like my opinions, or anything I have to say.

Therefore, I wish you well in your future endeavors.

Now, to the membership in general, I have this to say: if ANYONE on this message board has an issue with the things I've said in this thread, by all means don't hesitate to shoot me a PM and tell me what your issue is.

[Dons bullet proof vest and waits.]



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5685
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 26, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:35 pm 
 

PM? Just post it. That is what a forum is all about.
I didn't see anything to take offense over in your post.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:41 am 
 

deimos3428 wrote:
bbarsh wrote:Now we are talking game mechanics. Crossbows and wizards. Nope. Doesn't matter what the situation. The non-weapon proficiency alone would be huge!


See, that's my point.  I like class archetypes, but sometimes they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.  Why shouldn't a magic-user, especially a higher level one, who has been in combat, seen crossbows used before, be able to try to fire one in a pinch?  After all, a zero-level character could do it, maybe even without a penalty of some kind.  It makes no sense at all for a DM to say "Magic-users can't use crossbows.  It says so in the book."  Now, sure, they're the geeks of the medieval world, so you might say they don't have the strength or technical skill, but that's what to hit penalties are for...

Now clerics, that's a different story, because they have their god to deal with.  "Thou shalt not useth a crossbow" makes sense, because if your god says something, you listen or get smited.  :)





Without game mechanics you have no game. With that rational, any character who witnessed a thief open a lock for a long period of time could do the same...sure Mr. Wizard can pick up the crossbow and fire it ... say at a -90 to hit and a natural 20 equals a close miss...
Weapon restrictions, as well as others, are there for a reason. 3.0+ put an end to that, I understand. Great for people who can't live within a rules structure. Not for me though; I can live with rules and restrictions that make a game work. The everthing for everybody game just holds no interest for me.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7975
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 25, 2022
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:37 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:
deimos3428 wrote:
See, that's my point.  I like class archetypes, but sometimes they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.  Why shouldn't a magic-user, especially a higher level one, who has been in combat, seen crossbows used before, be able to try to fire one in a pinch?  After all, a zero-level character could do it, maybe even without a penalty of some kind.  It makes no sense at all for a DM to say "Magic-users can't use crossbows.  It says so in the book."  Now, sure, they're the geeks of the medieval world, so you might say they don't have the strength or technical skill, but that's what to hit penalties are for...

Now clerics, that's a different story, because they have their god to deal with.  "Thou shalt not useth a crossbow" makes sense, because if your god says something, you listen or get smited.  :)





Without game mechanics you have no game. With that rational, any character who witnessed a thief open a lock for a long period of time could do the same...sure Mr. Wizard can pick up the crossbow and fire it ... say at a -90 to hit and a natural 20 equals a close miss...
Weapon restrictions, as well as others, are there for a reason. 3.0+ put an end to that, I understand. Great for people who can't live within a rules structure. Not for me though; I can live with rules and restrictions that make a game work. The everthing for everybody game just holds no interest for me.


I think the regular game mechanics in 1st & 2nd edition take care of this pretty well.  Any Mage who picks up a crossbow in my campaign and starts firing at -5 to hit (on his already crappy THACO tables) into a melee would get his ass handed to him after the battle was over by his own "buddies" (who would probably have suffered with a few fudged die rolls to get crossbow bolts in the butt just because it would have given me a giggle).
   Unfortunately I game with a lot of characters who used to ask "Why does this..." quite a bit (stupid engineers) so instead of saying "Just because..." a lot, I merely enforce the already standing game mechanics that in most cases balances things out perfectly IF APPLIED IN EVERY SITUATION EVENLY.  Instead of saying clerics can't use swords, I made a god whose followers use swords.  Everything is a trade off; they get to use swords, their clerics dont' get a lot of healing spells to choose from (to die gloriously in battle for your God of War is the greatest honor). I don't think your rationale for the watching the thief pick the lock holds up very well; watching someone, say, cast a spell, or swing a sword, or even swim, doesn't make you an expert at that activitiy (otherwise by this time I could play football as good as Emmitt Smith).  Rather than artificial game mechanics, come up with a logical rationale (Why on earth would your fighter WANT to sit at a door playing with tumblers when he can just bash it in?) based on character class and desire. Let the lunkhead attempt to pick a lock at skill of 5% and modifiers for DEX and such.  It's more fun anyway (for both the players and the DM) to watch the guy screw up: "Ok, Thurl the half/orc thief tries to pick the lock at 5%  instead of the thief who has 65%; unfortunately, he finds the poison needle trap almost immediately that jabs his huge, unskilled, unthiefly thumb and he starts screaming in pain...I guess that takes away the element of surprise, eh?"

Mike B.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:39 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:Without game mechanics you have no game. With that rational, any character who witnessed a thief open a lock for a long period of time could do the same...sure Mr. Wizard can pick up the crossbow and fire it ... say at a -90 to hit and a natural 20 equals a close miss...
Weapon restrictions, as well as others, are there for a reason. 3.0+ put an end to that, I understand. Great for people who can't live within a rules structure. Not for me though; I can live with rules and restrictions that make a game work. The everthing for everybody game just holds no interest for me.

Yes, and this is where game mechanics are in fact guidelines.  They must always give way in the face of common sense, and common sense dictates that even a two-year old could figure out how to fire a pre-loaded crossbow.  Why did I say pre-loaded?  Because we don't know the STR score of the magic-user, it could be 3, it could be 18.  Main Point:  Crossbows aren't under some terrible anti-magic curse that causes magic-users to crumble to dust when they pick them up!  

Where the game mechanics come into play is the penalties for using the crossbow.  I certainly wouldn't allow any XP whilst using a crossbow.  I'd apply a reasonable penalty to hit.  You might even go so far as to suggest the magic-user can't figure out how to use a crossbow, but come on.  These guys are supposed to be intelligent.  Now, if the MU consistently utilized a crossbow, he'd get better at it.  He'd progress towards a dual-class 1st level fighter over time.  The DM would have to make a call as to when this occurs.

Picking a lock is an incredibly difficult task in comparison.  Obviously you couldn't watch someone do it once and figure it out.  But could our magic-user pick a lock after spending years watching a thief do so?  Yes, actually, of course he could.  Assume a 9th level magic-user becomes obsessed with his 9th level thief friend's trade.  He watches his every move, he breathes down his neck while the thief opens the locks, etc, etc.  How is this any different than a 0th level human studying under a master thief?  The more the wizard does this, the closer he gets to becoming a 1st level dual-class thief.  (I don't like the way dual/multi-classing was treated in 1e, but that's a whole new thread).

It's much more reasonable to make a logical DM ruling than to just defer to the "it's game mechanics/game balance/I can't figure out why not but it will screw up my game" answer.

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5685
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 26, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:50 am 
 

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with a mage using a bow in desperation, but there IS something wrong when he can be proficient in it.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 712, 3, 4, 5, 67