MShipley88 wrote:   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:

temporary hit points for going berserk  8O
i dont see what the problem is with increasing to hit and decreasing AC - do you need more than that?

and i STILL cant believe you have a easy time killing a cloud giant! unreal man!

back in the day, when we were winding down from a game, we all used to open up deities & demigods and pick out a god/demigod/hero etc and have a knockout melee tournament and fight them against each other. was great fun and i managed to win once or twice. I always chose Athena as first choice, and if i couldnt have her, my next were Ukko and then Lemminkainen or Vainomoinen

Al

Ma Yuan was the best. Can't beat having an amulet that changes into anything.
The last gaming session I DMed in 3E, one of the characters, a 5th level fighter, had a round of attacks which I deem typical of 3E. He moved 10', attacked a monster, ran 20' to a set of stairs (tumbling past an attack), up the stairs (another tumble past an attacker), and attacked the priest at the top. He had boots of speed or some shit. And it was all legal.
This is the same guy who got all upset because he charged his paladin into battle on the top of Bone Hill (which I adapted), and was getting hammered by magic missiles every round. He didn't agree that the evil mage would see him as the greatest threat, and try to dispose of him first.
The evidence is clear that 3E was designed and geared toward a video game-weaned populace. I don't particularly care, WotC is perfectly within its rights to make money however they want. But to take the name of the greatest game system designed in order to boost sales because of a reputation earned by gaming geniuses 20 years ago is a phuqing insult to them and to humanity in general. It says "Well, people know the D&D name, so if we use it on our new system, they will buy it" (because they are dumbass sheep).
When Janet Jackson whipped out her left tit at the Superbowl, I was insulted. Not because she nippleized the world, but because she actually thought that people would be impressed by it. I am not some lame steer who lets society dictate my every move. And what WotC did is not a heck of a lot different than what Michael/Janet did. It's insulting.
To top it off, they pull the stunt of releasing 3.0, then 3.5 months later. Sorry man, if I want to pay to get screwed I'll get a hooker.

bbarsh wrote:

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.

Bleh! I hope you understand I was referring to Castles & Crusades and not d20 Fantasy, despite the fact that C&C is built from the d20 System Resource Document (it's an OGL game though, or else there would be no character generation rules in it). I enjoy the fact that I hold true to the old school way of things, especially as I've gone right back to the very beginning, and play OD&D. It has the flexibility I want in a game while feeling very much like AD&D. Its only stumbling block is the organization, which is why I had asked myalbinogorilla some time back for a copy of that index in the OCE he had gotten off of ebay.



Since I'm the type that doesn't use every rule in the book, rather than having to slog through six booklets of OD&D repeatedly (and wear them out!), I'm putting together one rulebook with the rules I want to use. And I will be happy, for I will have made the game my own.



Now, why did I feel the need to explain that? Partly it was to show bbarsh that I had read his entire post the second time around (after having only skimmed it the first time ), and also to come to the biggest difference between d20 Fantasy and Dungeons & Dragons.



The biggest difference between the two is in the amount of difficulty involved in truly making the game your own. d20 Fantasy is rather difficult to truly make your own, because of the problems inherent in a set of rules that are interdependent. Of the Dungeons & Dragons game systems, the closer you are to the death of TSR, the more difficulty involved in house ruling things. I can see the progression here. OD&D was very easily house ruled and in fact was EXPECTED to be house ruled. B/X was very easy to house rule, but unlike OD&D, there was no expectation that the game would be house ruled. AD&D was a tournament system, and thus was specifically NOT to be house ruled, but gamers did it anyway with relative ease. However, 2d Edition AD&D and BECMI D&D seemed to be more difficult to house rule, especially BECMI, as it was all inclusive, with all the levels to 36 defined. Yet they still could be readily tinkered with.



d20 Fantasy doesn't encourage real tinkering with the rules, and that's because the rules as written are so "tight". Really, the only way to loosen d20 Fantasy up to bring back that element of being able to make the game your own back into a gamer's life is to do what I and a lot of other people did together, and that's to systematically tear apart the SRD and write C&C. The thing about C&C that makes it most appealing is its "rosetta stone" effect, or the ability to take any Dungeons & Dragons module from the past, and any d20 Fantasy module from the present or future, and run them with one rule system that has all the benefits of the d20 system, with none of its liabilities.



My games of choice (OD&D and C&C) allow me to truly make the game my own by not filling in all the little gaps. Both are flexible (OD&D in my opinon a bit more flexible than C&C) which to me is an absolute must in a fantasy role playing game. Finally, in both, the rules stay in the background, allowing the players to focus on their roleplay.



Can d20 Fantasy claim any of that? In my mind, no. Therefore, d20 Fantasy is not a good choice for me.

Deadlord36 wrote:Ma Yuan was the best. Can't beat having an amulet that changes into anything.
The last gaming session I DMed in 3E, one of the characters, a 5th level fighter, had a round of attacks which I deem typical of 3E. He moved 10', attacked a monster, ran 20' to a set of stairs (tumbling past an attack), up the stairs (another tumble past an attacker), and attacked the priest at the top. He had boots of speed or some shit. And it was all legal.

    Some sort of mega-haste spell?  A 10' move would be a move action....followed by one swing (standard action) and he's done.

    It is a basic rule...a full attack option in which you get multiple attacks (if that is possible for your character) so long as you do not move farther than a 5' step.  Or, you can do a basic move action and then get one swing.  You don't get both, and it is certainly not possible to move-attack-move-attack in the 3.5 rules.

    Battles with cloud giants aside, I hear too many criticisms of 3.5 that involve mis-quotes and mis-understandings of the rules.  The game is pretty well balanced and the math is the exact same math that governed 1st edition.

Who said 3e lacks imagination and/or stifles creativity?



http://cgi.ebay.com/DUNGEONS-DRAGONS-PL ... dZViewItem

have to say in all the years i have played, i have never had one character anywhere near the same.

to me thats the whole point to roleplaying.

funnily enough as well, bar for one or two times, i have ALWAYS been human too...more often than not a fighter as well

Al

...and it seemed fine to me!  Granted, I mostly skimmed through it, but it's a cool update of a killer dungeon.

As far as 3.5 goes, I played it this summer for the first time with a friend who's been DM'ing 3.0 and 3.5 for a while, and I have to say that once I got past "unlearning" all the 1st and 2nd Ed rules, I found the new version to be a lot more streamlined, especially for someone who was brand new to the game (like my partner, who tried learning 1st Ed rules a few years back and was quite lost).

My friend/DM took us through a simple scenario, kind of your standard low-level dungeon crawl to "show us the ropes."

I can see why the new system has its followers and detractors, just as the 1st and 2nd Editions do as well.  I think I could grow to like it, if I played it long enough.

I rolled up an elven bard named Misofa Latydo, my partner came up with an elven sorcerer, and the third player created a halfling paladin.

One of the things that initially threw me about 3rd Edition was how any race could now be any class.  Granted, in R.A. Salvatore's Cleric Quintet he had a dwarf who yearned to be a druid, but to see this sort of "flouting" made official, was somewhat mind-boggling.  Likewise the idea of evil rangers and evil druids!

Still, I secretly love the idea of things like gnome monks, elven barbarians, half-orc paladins, dwarven wizards, etc.

Cheers,
John
aka Wandering Monster

Deadlord36 wrote:I want a half-dragon/half-mind flayer paladin/rogue/arcane archer. With a flipper growing out of his back that is +22 vs. aquatic creatures and lets him swim at double speed. I think if I take the right skills and feats I can do 22-120 damage by level 3.....

    You see...there is a difference between sarcasm and a good argument.

    Again, you gotta read the rules and quote them accurately.  You are probably confusing the bonuses "to hit" in 1st edition with the total "to hit" in 3.5.  

    In 3.5 you would most certainly have characters that are +22 "to hit" because you do not read from a chart and then add bonuses...instead,  you reckon your entire total to hit as one number.  For instance...fighter of 11th level (+11), 18 strength (+4), +3 sword (+3) and the weapon focus feat (+1) for a total of +19 "to hit."

    The math is the same as 1st edition, you just don't read part of it off of a chart or start by figuring your THACO.

    Also...I don't get why it would be so bad if someone wanted to try to experiment with a half-dragon/half-mind flayer paladin/rogue/arcane archer with a fin growing out of his back.  And, if the dude is willing to put up with the fin, and all the people trying to massacre him for being a mind flayer, why not a bonus to swimming speed?

    How about a whole campaign of similar characters seeking to find their path in a world of monsters mutated by nuclear war?  (Although...that sounds kind of like Metamorphosis Alpha.)

   Of course, to be an arcane archer the PC would need to add a spellcasting class to the list, but it could be done.

    I am not sure why limiting demi-humans in level and reading a chart to figure out what you need to hit is "creative" and 3.5's wide-open system "stifles creativity."

    Being a curmudgeon can be fun and amusing, but it is possible to take it too far.  Double-check and watch out...you may be starting to sound like your own father did back in 1977.

Blackmoor wrote:My last comment on this thread

Mine too, this is just starting to get silly.  Maybe we should rename it the "Thread of Horrors".  :roll: