GraysonAC wrote:3E provides gameplay that gets a lot closer to being balanced than 1st and 2nd Edition versions did. How that is used is up to the DM, and the players. I think if you talk to some folks that actually play the system, you'll find just as many unbalanced encounters. The difference is that the unbalanced in the encounter will be intentional, rather than the result of a DM guessing how strong a given monster is.

Although the CR system is mathematically balanced in 3E, this is only true if the players have the amount of magic that 3E expects the party to have for their required levels.  If the DM gives out magic at less than the generous rates that 3E expects, he is back to a guessing game on encounters(except that the CR is an upper bound for difficulty).

As I've stated before, I actually prefer 3.x to the previous editions.



*** (ducking thrown boots and rotten vegetables, here) ***



As in every other edition, you can do whatever you want. Here is my take on it:



*  Combat mechanic is basically reversed - AC10 = AC10, AC0 = AC20, AC-10 = AC30,etc (making it easier to teach to a newbie).

*  Easier saves (dex,wis, and con based). No more trying to figure if the save was a spell effect, or from a rod or breath weapon.

*  Dice rolling - higher is always better - no more "roll under your (insert ability score here) or you're screwed" type rolls.

*  Arcane Magic - While a bit unbalanced (overpowered) for my taste, in your world, mages can be rare or nearly non-existant bookworms that never leave their studies/labs.  (In this case you have to compensate with extra treasure so they can hire an NPC)

*  Priestly Magic - Have your NPC's heal no one not attached to their faith in some way. i.e., the paladin in the group will get healing for a reduced fee from an aligned good church.

*  Everything Else - No one said it better than Gary - "If you don't want to do it in your game, don't. There is no right or wrong way to play. The point is to have a good time."



The last point was me paraphrasing, as my 1e books are out of reach at the moment.





While I love these forums as a second home, I really don't need to see another flame war start on the virtues of one system versus the other. If you're into flaming I suggest that we take it over to En World (or the WOTC boards). These forums are for the collectors - all of us.



Sorry if I missed a point or two, I didn't read the whole thread.

That being said, the posts I did read were flame-free and came from thoughful adults trying to state their viewpoint.



Anyway - Back to the discussion at hand.

Munchkins have been around forever.  I say in a private game, what the hell, who cares how you play.  The only bad part is shame on the DM for grooming a munchkin.



In my last game, there was a ' 9th level Half-Bugbear/Half-elf, War priest, martial artist with 18/00 str, 17+ dex, 17+ con ac -3, thaco 3.  This guy could move 15", could unerringly find traps, had healing, could deal 30 points of damage (w/ a thaco 3 almost unerringly).



He got mad when the DM told him he couldn't wade through a forest with thick underbrush and attack as well, since even though he was 300 pounds, he had tumbling and blind fighting.



He was always in front of the theif, out magiking the mage, out blasting the Paladin.  With him, you didn't need a party, he was the party.



Min-maxer, that is being nice.

I started logging all of his skills, I have them all written down.  It was much sicker than my description.  Of course, he carried a bastard sword.  Aptly named .

Actually, I find there are a lot of aspects I like about 3E, but I honestly miss many things about 1E.



I do admire the fact that with 3E they ironed out alot of the internal contradictions and came up with a much cleaner and unified rules set. It is also a lot more regimented, which I tend to prefer for the most part. Unfortunately, as has been noted, they went and added a bunch of extraneous rules... in my experience, this has caused our play sessions with 3E to bog down significantly as a result, as we are spending many minutes at a time looking up some sort of minutia.



I actually consider 1E to be perhaps better able to handle high level adventurers provided one actually follows the rules to the letter. There are a number of play balance rules that I suspect were not understood and simply ignored (I noticed 2E did away with them altogether) such as weapon vs. armor adjustments and the "Step" function in the To Hit tables that. The latter in particular really keeps things in line since unless you are very high level many of the negative ACs require a natural 20 to hit no matter what kind of magic/strength bonuses you possess.



As a goofy aside, I am actually writing my own D&D rules based on the original set and Dr. Holmes' "Basic" set, that borrows some ideas from AD&D and 3E, along with some of my own, just as an exercise in game design. Won't ever see the light of day, but I find it entertaining.