GraysonAC wrote:There's no race restrictions or level caps in 3E. Personally, I always thought that was one of the least sensical and most annoying things about the old D&D (and later AD&D). I could never think of a particularily good reason why a devout dwarf couldn't be a paladin, or why races other than humans were capped in levels (other than to make playing a human more appealing).
killjoy32 wrote:if you look at the constitution table in the players handbook, it has "minimum scores" for a number of classes and races. if you are any of them, and your score goes lower....what happens then?if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf say youre a 12th level ranger...does it mean you suddenly cant be a ranger?how does everyone approach this situation in their games?Al
harami2000 wrote:(And here's me thinking you read everything, Traveller ) *friendly jab* ^^
killjoy32 wrote:killjoy32 wrote:if you look at the constitution table in the players handbook, it has "minimum scores" for a number of classes and races. if you are any of them, and your score goes lower....what happens then?if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf say youre a 12th level ranger...does it mean you suddenly cant be a ranger?how does everyone approach this situation in their games?Also c'mon all you DMs...how would you handle this situation? am real curious now. its never happened to me and am mulling over what i would do.
deimos3428 wrote:Well, I'd argue that if you can't be a dwarf, you can't be raised as a dwarf. (That's what reincarnation is for, really.)
Deadlord36 wrote:There are level limits on nonhuman characters because they have other bonuses. If they didnt have restrictions, who in the world would want to play a human?
Jack Bird wrote:Uncomplexificating the D20 SystemJack Bird03 Apr 2004 10:51 p.m. PSTSomebody else did a d20 is too complicated post. I agree, and would have placed this post there, except that there are already 32 posts there, and many people would not see it, so here goes.I agree that 3E is much more complex than all that comes before, and what most of us who loved D&D really liked was its simplicity. However, the complexity of 3E really is in the PCs. THis can be done away with by modifying three rules:1. Prestige Classes:Junk 'em. They don't add anything to the game, contribute to excess power-gaming, and focus the players attention too much on his character, rather than the adventure.2. Skills:Every character has all of his core skills at a level equal to his class level, all his cross-class skills at a level equal to half his class level (round up) and no other skills at all.3. Feats:These just translate into a number, equal to the number of feats the character would have on any level. They are used as follows: Any time the character really needs to accomplish something, he can expend one or more feats to represent a truly heroic effort on his part. Before he makes any die roll (for attack, damage, saving throw, skill check, or any other action taken by the character) he can declare the number of feats he is expending. Each feat allows one reroll, and the character can keep the best roll. He must declare ALL feats expended before the roll is made, and all feats so expended are lost, whether he needs the rerolls or not.Each feat is usable once per day of adventuring.Now, while this system has met considerable acclaim among my gaming group, I have heard two complaints about it:1. What?! Without great cleave, power attack, et., my first level character can no longer cause 133 hit points damage per round! This bites!To this one, I reply, tough. Go play d20 Munchkin. [Which can be found at http://www.sjgames.com. Traveller]2. This takes away the individuality of my character. Now I can no longer create him to suit my taste. It is also less realistic, as it makes all characters the same.This complaint is more legitimate, but I still think it fails. For one thing, the individualization of skills is a pretty modern, Western phenomenon. In the 21st century, you pretty much go to college and study what you like, join the military service that you like, learn the trade that you like, etc.For most of human history, things were very different. Knights in the middle ages did not learn to read. This was an unmanly "priest's trick." Peasants did not learn swordsmanship. This was a noble's weapon. When the peasant fought, it was with the glaive, bow, axe, etc. Clerics and scholars did not become rulers (except of particular clerical sees) they were advisers to rulers and lawyers.What's more, there was enormous social pressure NOT to deviate from one's class. A noble who decided to take up shoemaking would be as much frowned upon by his peers as a shoemaker who took up fencing. God put you in a place, and you stayed in that place, and you pretty much learned and did what your class dictated.This all was true in the European middle ages, which, ironically enough, had enormous vertical and horizontal mobility compared to the rest of the world. In India, when Arjuna balks at killing his relatives in battle, Krishna tells him not to worry about it, just do as his class is supposed to do, and he'll be fine. In Japan, the situation is even more extreme, where the Samurai can kill virtually anyone of lower rank for just about any reason or none.In short, whether or not this is realistic really depends on the time and period in which you are playing. For the free-wheeling modern world, I'd say use a skill based system (and here, you're probably better off with GURPS than D20). For a more stratified society, a purely level based system works just fine.
harami2000 wrote:bclarkie wrote:When your System SHock numbers decrease it also means that it is harder to raise you successfully, so dying and ressurecting in 1st edition you kind of get double whammied. Sounds like a good incentive to avoid getting your characters killed in the first place: would have said that might be the biggest "whammy" Gee... a rule designed to encourage sensible roleplaying; who'd've expected that?!
bclarkie wrote:When your System SHock numbers decrease it also means that it is harder to raise you successfully, so dying and ressurecting in 1st edition you kind of get double whammied.
bclarkie wrote:Seriously, imagine that! Trying not to get your character killed through skillful playing. Where is that damn reset button with these tabletop games at anyway. What no cheat codes either?! This game sucks!!
Traveller wrote:In short, whether or not this is realistic really depends on the time and period in which you are playing. For the free-wheeling modern world, I'd say use a skill based system (and here, you're probably better off with GURPS than D20). For a more stratified society, a purely level based system works just fine.
Traveller wrote:More accurately, d20 is a blend of the ashes of 2d Edition, a bit of Alternity, and a heaping dose of RuneQuest (which TSR/WotC owned up until about a year ago).
bbarsh wrote:It seems that Dead and I are the only disciples of the old faith.
bbarsh wrote:...now it has turned into how cool my 11th level Barbarian/Sorcerer/Rogue with 187 hip point is...