The former Tomb of Horrors / current 3e debate thread
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 6 of 9123, 4, 5, 6, 789
Author

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:46 pm 
 

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).


in my 1E games, i dont have race restrictions or level capping either. stupid rule if you ask me and i allow ppl to play what they want.

mind you, i dont allow any of the new classes tho either....classic 1E and thats it :)

seems odd tho...in 3E you can do a true resurrection and not even have the body??!! wow how does that work then? go from memory? :D

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:48 pm 
 

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 :D

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


so 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.



  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 29, 2020

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:55 pm 
 

harami2000 wrote:(And here's me thinking you read everything, Traveller :)) *friendly jab* ^^

OWWW!  Quiddit!  :lol:

I did have to downplay its importance, because for the gist of my argument about the consequences of Raise Dead between earlier editions and d20 Fantasy, it really is a minor thing. :wink:



  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:57 pm 
 

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 :D

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


so 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.

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.)

For a ranger, I'd let the character retain the class, with some sort of penalty to advancement (-5-10% xp).  For a paladin, no way -- that class is heavily based on image/status, you'd have to become a standard fighter.  Maybe a quest to retain the status.

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:28 pm 
 

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.)


so deim, wouldnt that be like saying then that the raise dead spell wont work?

so you would need to use a reincarnation spell to have any chance of success?

like the idea of the fighter tho and a quest to regain....good one!

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5613
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 23, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:51 pm 
 

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?


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

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3590
Joined: Dec 20, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 23, 2021
Location: Canada

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:04 pm 
 

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?


In 3.5 humans also get special abilities.  They get extra feats and can multi-class(once one multiclass) with no XP penalty.

3.5 plays very well.

J


Games can get you through times of no money but money can not get you through times of no games!!

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 29, 2020

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:18 pm 
 

I just was cleaning out my hard drive a bit, and I found something rather interesting, regarding how to simplify d20 Fantasy. Granted Castles & Crusades already simplified d20, but for those who aren't interested in the retro feel of that system but want to make their lives a little bit easier, this might have appeal. It also is rather universal in that it can be applied to any d20 core ruleset from WotC (d20 Fantasy, d20 Modern, d20 Future, and d20 Star Wars).

[Note: The title actually is unwieldly, not to mention grammatically out of whack. It should actually be called "Simplifying the d20 System" or at worst, "Uncomplexifying the d20 System".]

Jack Bird wrote:Uncomplexificating the D20 System
Jack Bird
03 Apr 2004 10:51 p.m. PST


Somebody 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.



  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 25, 2019

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:57 pm 
 

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. :twisted:

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?! :D


Seriously, imagine that! Trying not to get your character killed through skillful playing. :o  Where is that damn reset button with these tabletop games at anyway. :twisted:  What no cheat codes either?! This game sucks!! :P  :lol:


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:09 pm 
 

bclarkie wrote:Seriously, imagine that! Trying not to get your character killed through skillful playing. :o Where is that damn reset button with these tabletop games at anyway. :twisted: What no cheat codes either?! This game sucks!! :P :lol:

I think such players might be advised to hire a team of high-level clerics to tag along and "Word of Recall" them out, should things look like they're going to get that bad.
Will cost more than a quarter, though! :D

  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:22 pm 
 

Nice article, Traveller.
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.

Heh. Or just use Rolemaster (original flavor) for both scenarios.

Not that I know 3e, but just from browsing a character sheet it kinda looks like a bastardised version of that, plus whatever was left from the ashes of 2e... 8O

:P


(Not that I'm saying it's not possible to RP well with most any given system, whatever the mechanics...)

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 29, 2020

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:32 pm 
 

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).



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5613
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 23, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:35 pm 
 

To each his own. I prefer systems to be as realistic as possible. That doesn't mean that unrealistic systems are wrong, I just don't prefer them. Not to Xbox, anyways.


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

 WWW  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:42 pm 
 

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).

Hard-pushed to see the relics of RQ on that sheet. Location-based hits would be fun with 133 points of damage meted out in a single round! :)

Yeah, I didn't manage to win John's copies cheap, so still waiting for a 3e PHB to go with Monte Cook's DMG. Oops, almost forgot about that... *goes to fetch/read* :oops:

Maybe some day...

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:00 pm 
 

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?


Precisely. Which is why I don't like that particular aspect - you're choosing something not based on it's strenghts, but on avoiding it's weaknesses.

In 3.5, humans get no mod to stats, and get some minor bonuses. Other races get more signifigant bonuses, and a small penalty (most races get +2 to one stat, and -2 to another, plus racial abilities).

An elven fighter is as good, but not the same, as a human fighter.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 21, 2020
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:22 pm 
 

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?


It seems that Dead and I are the only disciples of the old faith.

I know this may be hard pill for most rpgers to swallow, but games require mechanics to work. That is, there are systems of balance and counter-balance. In the old days, games were designed with certain mechanics in place (i.e. dwarves can't be rangers). The problem (for some people) is that game mechanics don't always make sense or are just plain stupid. But they make the game work - there is balance of a sort. That's 1e AD&D.

3e AD&D is not so much about mechanics (even though the game is extremely rule heavy) but about fluff. The characters are - as Dead so easily points out - video game personas and are, essentially "the game."

Conversely, 1e characters are simply "tools" that are used to play the game. And therein lies the difference between the two games.

I am of the old school. I enjoy the game of AD&D and solving problems (as a player) or developing the the story (as the DM). 3e has changed all that to make the characters the focus of the game. And that is fine, its just not what AD&D or D&D used to be. Playing through a module was about surviving or succeeding; now it has turned into how cool my 11th level Barbarian/Sorcerer/Rogue with 187 hip point is...


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

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 29, 2020

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:33 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:It seems that Dead and I are the only disciples of the old faith.

I highly doubt that.  Just because I speak of the game I had a (small) hand in creating doesn't mean that I've given up on OD&D, B/X D&D, or AD&D.



  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:08 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:...now it has turned into how cool my 11th level Barbarian/Sorcerer/Rogue with 187 hip point is...

"Hip points" as a measure of "cool". Now yer showing your age! :D
(Or possibly been playing this one).

Yup, am still in general agreement with the videogame analogy/observation, even though I'm somewhat on the periphery nowadays and know well it's not a clear-cut old/new "style" debate.

Still, it seems somewhat ironic that the potential for "developing the story" was perhaps, if anything, more easily exploited under the simplistic ancienne régimes than some of the newer systems that claim to be "storytelling" but provide more than enough videogame trappings to divert players from such a goal on a grander scale *cough White Wolf cough*.

</removes rose-tinted spectacles>

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 21, 2020
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:50 pm 
 

Traveller wrote:
bbarsh wrote:It seems that Dead and I are the only disciples of the old faith.

I highly doubt that. Just because I speak of the game I had a (small) hand in creating doesn't mean that I've given up on OD&D, B/X D&D, or AD&D.


I am not saying that at all. In fact, I am not trying to knock down the new game, either. Just pointing out, what I feel, is a major disconnect between the two.


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: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Jul 24, 2020

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:08 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:Ship,

Did you say with a straight face that a 11th level Barbarian character in your current campaign has 187 hit points! 8O  

And that same character can be killed by Cloud Giant in one round!


    Did I say 187?  I was exagerating...it is something more like 137, with the possiblity of temporary hit points when the character is berserk.  You never stop getting hit dice in 3.5.  187 would be more like 15th level...which is still playable in 3.5.

    The cloud giant would have to roll pretty well...or there could be two of 'em!  Two rounds is probably more realistic.   :lol:

    It has been fun debating this topic.  Sort of like the old arguments over whether or not Orcus could beat Asmodeus in a fight....or a copy of Gods and Demi-Gods with the gods that have been killed by player characters crossed off.   8O  (Where did I just read that one?)

    I have to say I really hate the presentation of 3.5.  It is too slick and lacks the amateur sense of joy of the early books.

    Funny to read Gary Gygax flaming the new system...he was a snob about the 1st edition as well.  Remember some of the things he used to publish in his column in Dragon?

     I will be sad to see 3.5 go...mainly because that will mean I have to buy 4.0!   8)


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 6 of 9123, 4, 5, 6, 789