The former Tomb of Horrors / current 3e debate thread
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 7 of 91234, 5, 6, 7, 89
Author

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7956
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 14, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:41 am 
 

radagast wrote:I don't like weapon mastery, I don't like multiclass characters, I don't like the proliferation of rules and options of 3.5 ... I think that when we had only seven classes (fighter, priest, wizard, thief, elf, dwarf, halfling) there was much more freedom than if we can be paladin, ninja, half elf/demi orc etc. My Gandalf was quite different from my friend's Saruman just because I am different from him.
but this is simply what I like :wink: . Every people likes what he likes, isn't it?! :D


Amen!  I cant' tell you how many different times one of my brothers has played a mage, and the other a fighter...and in 20+ years, they were totally different characters. No one needed any specific rules, they just gamed them differently.  


And more rules or less rules ... cannot make an important difference. DM and the players can.

And, BTW, I love D&D at low levels. When characters reach Name-level they become to powerful for adventure against monsters, but a campaign with rulers, diplomatics, etc etc (a companion level campaign) needs too time and energies. :( I cannot be a full time player (even if I love to :wink: ).


Low Level play is always fun because any hit could be your last.  I feel the new game is missing a bit of this, you are low level a very short period of time...


Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

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

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:42 am 
 

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



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7956
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 14, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:53 am 
 

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?



Anyone who wants to actually roleplay and not min/max just for the helluva it. We haven't used level limits in our D&D campaigns since almost the very beginning, and it's never effected the amount of human characters that have been rolled up.  As a matter of fact, I have a brother who won't roll up a Dwarven or Elven character, just because he doesn't like Dwarven or Elven characters. As a matter of fact he doesn't really like non human characters period.  He had a half-orc fighter once and that's about it, and it was for roleplaying purposes only (playing an outcast to society forced to help that very same society, something along those lines).  I never thought the old Gygaxian argument "if there are no level limit's no one will ever play a human!" ever held much water.  Besides, if everyone in the group wants to play Elves, Dwarves and Halflings, then let them, who cares anyway as long as everyone is having fun.  

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5629
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 08, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:06 am 
 

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.


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

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7956
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 14, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:12 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:
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.
...


    I never felt giving characters unlimited advancement ever hurt our 1st ed campaigns at all. First of all, how often did characters really get high enough level for it to even matter.  Second, who was thinking that far ahead when they started out.  We still played that elves couldn't be raised from the dead back then, so there wasn't a huge rush to play elven characters. Dwarves and halflings and gnomes are still short little fucks, you'd be surprised at how many people hated to play short characters simply because, well, they were so short (like playing a dwarve would cause you to shrink in real life). I guess once we played for a few years we never really trusted tht the creators were all that concerned about game balance or mechanics (as a lot of 1st ed was broke we thought even back then).  If a game mechanic doesn't make sense or is stupid, then it doesn't make sense or its stupid to use it without trying something different. We had fun with a lot of rules adjustments back then, some good, some bad, but we were always tinkering when we felt the PHB or DMG had "missed the boat".
 I felt and still feel a lot of the so called "game balance" from first edition was very arbitrary.  Our changes and tweaks and home brews only made a great game even better, at least everyone who ever rolled dice at my table thought so. Heck, we came up with the idea of spells, armor and weapons of clerics being faith/God specific (instead of El Generic cleric of 1st Edition) way back when, and it made the game a lot better (then and now).
I used to run into gamers that bemoaned having to play clerics because they are boring and generic in 1st edition; these types were always amazed at the variety of clerics in my campaign world and wondered why they never did that themselves in their campaigns.

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: May 18, 2021

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:05 am 
 

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.



  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:42 am 
 

bclarkie wrote:
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:

I would have to argue that getting killed has little to do with poor roleplaying.  Characters die.  Sometimes it's the product of good roleplaying (you're roleplaying a moron, or someone overly brave, or whatever) and sometimes it isn't.

The constitution rule was designed so that high level characters could not simply buy immortality.

In our adventures, we did come close to the constitution limit on one occasion.  We were very small party of three greedy, thoroughly evil characters that thought of each other as human shields.  Nobody ever turned on each other, because we needed each other to survive.  Anytime someone died, the survivors kept dragging the corpses back to town.

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:57 am 
 

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.


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

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:04 am 
 

In my most recent campaigns, raise dead has not been available for most the the time because clerics of sufficient power were not available until a PC cleric got high enough level.

    More than that, however, is the general revulsion I have made my players feel for coming back from the dead.  It is considered an evil action to cast raise dead...a perversion of divine law and the natural order.

    The one PC that was raised from the dead in the past five or six years of gaming in my campaigns had psychological problems.  The player role-played the idea that the trauma of death and ressurrection had forced major changes in her character's personality and alighnment.

    There has been a PC viking funeral or two...but my players are pretty good.  They take care not to get killed.  I encourage non-linnear adventuring and making prudent choices about where to go and what to fight.


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

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3795
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 15, 2021

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:41 pm 
 

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



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

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jun 08, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:41 pm 
 

Can we all agree that the argument that 3.5 is better because it lets you create more diverse characters is completely absurd.

In nearly 15 years of playing 1st ed., I can't remember anyone duplicating a character or having problems with character generation from a identity standpoint. That argument is ridiculous. I don't need 50 pages of skills to make my character unique.

Note: We played in an extremely high mortality rate campaign(s), too.


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

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

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:41 pm 
 

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



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6275
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 14, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:18 pm 
 

Big news. WoTC have announced a new upgrade to Dungeons & Dragons. The all new version 3.6.2 (build 1046) will give you a faster better game. If you don't upgrade you'll probably find that the new wave of d20 publications run slower and may even be sh!t.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . chicken and wild rice soup.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 165
Joined: May 15, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 14, 2020
Location: Woonsocket, Rhode Island

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:41 pm 
 

...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

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5629
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 08, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:38 pm 
 

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.....


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

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:33 pm 
 

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.


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

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3593
Joined: Dec 20, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2021
Location: Canada

Post Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:28 am 
 

MShipley88 wrote:   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."


3.5 actually encourages creativety.  1st ed was great in its time, move on and find the game again.  Find 3.5 ed, it really is a great game.  Our group resisted at first now we try and play 1st ed and its like walking in quagmire: slow, restrictive.

My last comment on this thread

J


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

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:09 am 
 

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:

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

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

Post Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:13 am 
 

deimos3428 wrote:
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:


well its a most definite case of "to each their own" isnt it?

i might pull down 3E sometimes and had a bad experience playing it, but am sure with the right group, it isnt that bad. and as there are peeps here, who enjoy it immensely, then cool, the system that was designed, works.

my heart will always be with 1E. it was what i first played and prb will be the only one i will always play (apart from veering off to try other things from time to time).

fantasy RPG for me was always about release from RL, imagination, playing a role and just enjoying it with as few rules as possible. i like that "loose" feel to it and i guess thats why 1E will always suit for me tbh.....

but i have to say grayson/blackmoor and MS88 all put exceptional arguments there, and i have to take my hat off to y'all for standing in the face of something thats been steadfast in ppl's hearts for the best part of 30 years.

some ppl will change and some won't. thats the way it is unfortunately. nobody on either side is wrong.

as long as everyone enjoys whatever it is that is their preference, thats the important thing.

Al



  


Active Collector

Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 03, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 22, 2007
Location: Northampton, England.

Post Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:42 am 
 

My group enjoys 3.5 alot. We're a mature group (I'm the youngest at 34!) and whilst we're all bright to see how the character generation, feats system etc. could be abused we're roleplayers no ROLLplayers. The system isn't the important thing it's the having fun bit that's important!

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 7 of 91234, 5, 6, 7, 89