The former Tomb of Horrors / current 3e debate thread
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 912, 3, 4, 5 ... 789
Author

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:29 pm 
 

Actually, yes.

   The strength bonuses were included as part of a magic item description.  If they were meant to apply to the monsters themselves then the strengths of all monsters would have been included, right?

   Not that I don't think giving the giants actual strength bonuses would not have been a great idea...but can you cite a module where the strength bonuses were included in the monster descriptions?


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

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:33 pm 
 

Direct from the 1st edition DMG page 73:

"Combat Tables

Using the Combat Tables
Find the level of the attacker on the appropriate chart and matrix that with the armor class of the defender. The resulting number or greater must be rolled on a d20 for a successful hit. Penalties and bonuses may modify either the die roll or the number need to hit as long as one method is used consistantly"

As a DM it is your responsiblity to play the monster like it is your own character. In a cloud giants situation how manyboulders is he going to hit your fighter with before your fighter even gets close enough to him to use his double weapon specialization? At 2-24 per hit on a fighter with an AC of -4, only a 13 is needed to hit. If the cloud giant gets 1 boulder per round with your fighter standing 60 feet away and leaving himself 1 round to get his own weapon ready for melee, that is at least 5 free attacks if the fighter is running at full speed in his armor at the giant. That means an average of 2 free hits at 2-24 hp before they even engage in one melee round. To me that puts the fighter at a distinct disadvantage. :) Then when you throw in the fact that the giant is both faster than the fighter and has a large reach advantage, let the fun begin....


"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

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 519
Joined: Oct 26, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 19, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:10 pm 
 

I know that lots of folks have strong feelings about the editions they like best.  The new edition has really polarized the older generation of gamers.  But I don't think it has to be an either or situation.  I played 1st edition and I really enjoyed it.  I currently play 3.5, and I enjoy that too.  I say that without denying there's definitely a different "feel" to them both.

I think 3rd Ed gets a very bad rap for being about "Uber Builds" and "Kewl Powers", and it's not completely undeserved, but I believe it got that reputation not because of the rules system but because of the younger generation that have picked it up and started playing it.

The generation that's coming up now is mired in a certain mentality and culture, and they are injecting it into the game, not vice versa.  If TSR had never went under and the rules were still being published unchanged, the young gaming groups would be still be changing it themselves anyway, and you'd hear them crowing about their "Sick Half-Giant Anti-Paladin/Ninja/Assassin" builds in every game shop on the planet.  Just like now.  And if you play with a bunch of kids (or immature adults) that's what you're going to get.

Does the new edition lend itself to this kind of "optimization?"  You bet it does.  There's a new splat book out every month with a half dozen more classes and feats in it.  But remember, Dungeons and Dragons is a product put out by a business, and businesses have to make money.  They have to put out what sells, or they will not be in business for very long.  The young gamers want all these super feats and classes, so that's what WOTC gives them.  And some of them work very well, when they are used correctly within the rules, which many folks using them now do NOT do.  But I've found there's good material in the books, too, in between all the powergaming "crunch."  Now, please don't think I'm knocking any folks who play all "epic" and use every broken prestige class and uber feat combination in every book.  If you love your party of Neutral Evil Half Celestial/Half Dragon Githyanki Shadowdancer Assasin Paladins, hey, have fun.  Munchkin away!  Just count me out.  

I play 3.5 edition, and I like it alot.  I like the new D20 system.  But I think it mostly has to do with the fact that I play it with a good group of mature, intelligent  adults.  Our games are decidedly NOT all about the "Kewl Powers."  We stick pretty much to the core rules.  I have some splat books, and I like them and use them, but mostly for the flavor stuff.  I don't have the time or desire to keep up with every new uber feat and class contained in every supplement.  And I don't have to.  I just have to apply a little judgement as a DM and play the game our group likes to play.  We can use the optional stuff we like and leave out or change what we don't.  3.5 has that flexibility.  It is possible to run a 3.5 game with some of the same "feel" of the earlier editions.  It's about the people you play with.

  


Sage Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 2884
Joined: Nov 04, 2004
Last Visit: May 09, 2020

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:45 pm 
 

Excellent post — it's very refreshing to hear from someone who can be pro-3e without getting so totally defensive about everything. The system will still never work for me personally (unless it comes on CD and has the Neverwinter Nights logo stamped on it), but I enjoyed reading through your arguments.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Jun 16, 2021

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:35 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:I haven't read anything about C&C, but I honestly can't see any game system as "modular". Game balance isn't a series of unconnected factors - doing something like you mentioned, adding the Sorcerer to the game, would affect a lot of other things. Each "module" of the rules would have to be balanced against each other to keep a good game, and that makes them interdependant by their very nature.

I'm one of the playtesters for the system, and I can assure you that perhaps the only side effect of bringing in the sorcerer is to make it less desirable to play a mage. The sorcerer's spontaneous casting ability translates very easily into Castles & Crusades, and the reason it does translate so easily is that Castles & Crusades is based upon d20, but with less rules "crud" (for lack of a better descriptor). There is one other thing about Castles & Crusades that makes it choice for me, and that is the fact that I can take ANY Dungeons & Dragons adventure or game world from the past and use it without modification. I can do the same thing with any d20 Fantasy adventure, with very little conversion.

I'd invite you to look through the forums at http://www.trolllord.com and see just what people are doing with the system. You don't have to do anything special, and people won't jump all over you for not giving up d20 Fantasy (in fact there are some there who still play both). But, if all you're looking to read is some reviews about Castles & Crusades, there are some on RPG.net. There is also quite a bit of active discussion on the forums there discussing the game.



  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:23 pm 
 

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!

That does not resemble anything I recall as AD&D.

I do not think I will ever understand 3.5. What the hell is the point. In 20 year of playing AD&D, we never had a single character hit 100 hit points. Never.

We played through the Giant/Drow series prior to release of any books other than the original three. Everyone lost at least one character if not more - permanently - just during Hill Giant and more died later on. The entire party was destroyed in the Vault. I lost every character over 7th level that I had.

Nice rationalization of cleave. Weren't you just telling us how low level monsters needed to be toughened up to 89th level barabarians so they could threaten Mr. 3.5. I don't know, but a party of 15-20 gnolls could be death to a party of 5th level 1e characters. In 3.5, those same gnolls are just a speed bump.

Anyway, I commend you on your explainations of 3.5. And since you are an active player, you are more than justified in your opinion, while my opinion is more about distant history. I am not trying to criticize you, but what percieve as warped version of AD&D.

Thanks for the debate.


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: 7957
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:43 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:
killjoy32 wrote:i like 1E because its quick and simple and its about ROLEPLAY not dice rolls and tables.


That's the kind of stuff I understand - folks not liking 3E because it's a different style than the original game. It's very different. That's a dislike based on the game philosophy.

i found when i played the 3E game (which i actually got up and left in mid-game) i spent so much time trying to figure out all the skills and calculate stuff all the time, that i got no enjoyment out of the scenario or the role play at all.

maybe that was just me *shrugs*


*nods* Definately not just you. 3E is way, way more complicated as far as rules go. That's why I have to laugh when I see folks here saying things like "3E is meant for younger gamers" - no 12 year old is going to figure out 3E ;) Our group is still looking stuff up all the time, and we've been playing once or twice a week for a few years now.


It's just a different game.  Most of us dinosaurs don't want anything to do with it, but if someone has fun playing it that's great. I've been on the other side, having 3rd editioners ripping me and my group because we won't switch over.  Curiously, after several years, we are all still campaigning together, have managed to find others willing to play 2nd ed, and the local 3rd ed group is on their 15th or so group (none last more than a few months).  Not because the game is necessarily bad, but because the players/DM are bad.  I bet they ran bad 2nd ed games, too.
   Anyway, the hobby of pencil and dice gaming is graying anyway, and will soon be hard to find anyone for any edition willing to throw dice with.  Rather than take the time to learn an entire system my older group has stuck with the way we love to play.  It's all about the DM, and the group, and the adventures anyway.  

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7957
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:54 pm 
 

I have too agree with Diemos here. I hate the way 3.5 looks and feels. It might play fine, but it is not the D&D that I associaite with. It never will be, and that is ok, too. To me, 3.5 brought out all the things I hated about power gamers who mutilated earlier versions to make their super characters of everything slaying. There seems to be no sense of balance. Everything has its place. An orc is an orc - yeah, the orc king might be 5 hit dice, so what. In 3.5 that orc king could be the equal to 15th level fighter and slaughter an entire army by himself.

Shipley - Not to be critical. But what the hell kind of game were you playing where an 11th level 1 ed fighter can wipe out a Cloud giant without taking damage? If that was the norm for your group, then something was seriously wrong with your game. (at least compared to our group)
[/quote]

You have to give the bad guys some credit. I'm running Return to Geoff as an epic adventure, with a party of ten characters heavy on fighters, everyone in the 9-12 range (this is the original party we ran back in the day who finished GDQ1-7 and lived to tell).  Occassionally a fighter will get the drop on a giant and carve him up in a few whacks before the giant gets a shot off.  But it's all relative. The last two scenarios, an assault on a Cloud Giant outpost and an all out assault on a Fire giant castle, one of the characters was killed in each and everyone was scraping bottom for spells and healing during the finale of the Castle Throsmotnir assault.  These are guys loaded down with magic, both weapons and armor, and spells galore.  But it's still touch and go sometimes.  I had a cloud giant witchdoctor cast haste on his buddies in one instance and it was a nightmare for the players (that was the cause of one of the deaths). In the fire giant castle one giant used a Horn of Blasting to deadly effect, and a summoned fire elemental killed one character and almost another (both 11th level) before being destroyed along with the fire giant priest that summoned it.  If you play the monsters like they are your favorite characters, you'd be surprised how nasty they can be...
    I know 3rd edition presents toughter monsters, but even in 2nd edition if properly dm'ed creatures like giants and dragons can give even high level characters a run for their money.

Mike B .

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7957
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:01 am 
 

GraysonAC wrote:
Everything has its place. An orc is an orc - yeah, the orc king might be 5 hit dice, so what. In 3.5 that orc king could be the equal to 15th level fighter and slaughter an entire army by himself.


Honestly, does that make any sense to you? That because it's an orc, it's always going to just be an orc? In 3.5, that orc could very well be tough enough to challenge the entire damn party. In 1st/2nd, it was just another speedbump.


I do that all the time in my 2nd ed campaign also.  Players learn to beware the lone, defenseless looking orc or kobold in the woods.  He might be an exceptional specimen with character levels.  I had fun once with the 7th level kobold fighter (with weapon specialty) that spanked ass on a mid level party of over confident adventureres once upon a time ago....

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7957
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:13 am 
 

MShipley88 wrote:
bbarsh wrote:Shipley - Not to be critical. But what the hell kind of game were you playing where an 11th level 1 ed fighter can wipe out a Cloud giant without taking damage? If that was the norm for your group, then something was seriously wrong with your game. (at least compared to our group)


 OK, so SOME damage. But, a first edition 11th level fighter with even a moderately magical suit of armor, a +3 sword and double specialization could chop up a cloud giant (12d8 hit dice, average of 54 hit points, one swing, no strength bonuses to hit, no constitution bonus, no skills, slow and only a ceremonial armor class) without much worry.

  Reducing all character stats down to 12 (no bonuses) might prolong the agony, but the result would be the same...particularly if PC magic-users were also involved.

  In fact, the first and second edition game tended to break down when the party fighters reached 7th level and/or the mages reached 9th level...particularly after Unearthed Arcana made all of the Dragon magazine material official. In fact 9th or 10th level was usually the level at which we started a new group of characters because it made no logical game sense to populate a region with literally hundreds of huge monsters for the party to chop up while laughing and drinking wine from crystal goblets without spilling a drop.

  By comparison, last night a couple of basic 3.5 cloud giants (2 of them), with nothing but the stats right out of the book, sent my campaign's party of seven 10th and 11th level PC's screaming in terror and trying to hide from giants who could run faster than them, hit harder than them and utilize all of the same combat skills of the party's fighters.  8)

  Much fun.  :wink:

Mark


It all comes down to DM ability.  A DM should be able to give a high level party a challenge without having to resort to ridiculous encounters or opponents (think H-series).  I understand 3rd ed might do a good job at this, but any DM worth a spit can even up the combat or make it challenging in any edition.  A lot of gamers "started over" at 9 or 10th level because in a traditional 1st or 2nd ed game they had been playing the same characters for a couple of years.  That, or the DM couldn't properly challenge them without resorting to flipping through the Monster Manual and finding every high level monster.  
  That's why the D-series is so great.  It shows exactly HOW to challenge a high level, capable party with lots of magic, spells and resources and not make it ridiculous. First, the enviornment is challenging in itself (cannot return to the surface since teleports don't work, lots of claustrophobic areas, no food or water sources at the ready, unusual flora and fauna).  Then, unusual foes (Drow, Kuo Toan, Mind Flayers) with special abilities that negated certain advantages of player characters, but not in a way that was silly (they could be defeated with effort).  Foes that worked in conjunction in large numbers (the troll, bugbear and Trog army; the kuo toan shrine; the Vault); it wasn't about just throwing higher and higher level creatures against the party.  Properly Dmed, D1-3 should be able to challenge levels over 10th.  Not to bash 3.5 ed (once again, I feel it's just a completely different game and not a mockery of regular AD&D like some people), but the high level adventures I've seen, for the most part, are just creatures with loads of feats and powers and hit points.  I did like the Shackled City series, I felt that so far this has come the closest to representing what I like about classic dungeons and dragons from the old days (just have to get around converting it to 2nd ed one of these days).

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7957
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:18 am 
 

GraysonAC wrote:
I Dmed a 3E campaign for a while, and I tried so hard to force people to roleplay that I nearly burned myself out on gaming.


Again, a problem with people, not with the system. Your problem is with non-rp players, not with the system you're using. The guys in my 3E game are as focused on their 'build' as anybody else - and they also roleplay the characters created. One of my players wants to pick up the Aasimar template (he's a 15th level Favored Soul), not because it gives any particular advantage (it's not actually a good choice, power-wise, for him), but because it makes sense with his character and the setting. He's using the rules to further roleplaying. Imagine that, the system actually helps that.



This is correct.  Maybe though a lot of people that play 3e are just really really bad roleplayers?  I've seen several sessions and there has been just no roleplaying at all, it's just number crunching and "build" min/maxing.  But then again I'm willing to believe the kids I see play 3e would have min/maxed 2e also down to a souless video game. The solutiion is to find good players and go from there.  Hell I've had one moron almost spoil a perfectly good party of adventurers by screwing around, that can happen in any game.  

Mike B .

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7957
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:28 am 
 

GraysonAC wrote:
Traveller wrote:Raise Dead in AD&D had very nasty (and balancing) side effects. If you survived the system shock roll, you were revived with one hit point and had to spend one week in bed for every level you were. In d20 Fantasy, there is no system shock roll, and you return to play immediately with one hit point for every level you are.


Ah. Well, I certainly concede that then. I do remember the system shock roll, although I think by 2nd Edition (again, if memory serves), there was no bed rest required.

I happen to agree that raising characters from the dead is too easy. In my game, Raise Dead (normally 5th) takes the place of Ressurection (7th), and Ressurection gets moved to True Ressurection (9th). True Res is the domain of the Powers only, not players or NPC spellcasters.
:P


In my campaign world, you can only be raised by the priest/religion of the god you worship.  An agnostic or character who is lax in his worship probably wouldn't be raised at all, or at the very least have to go on a quest for the priesthood who took the time to raise him as well as taking about every cent of his loot. Even if you are raised by a cleric of your faith, at the very least he/she is going to expect a suitible donation of gold (or in the case of the god of magic's clerics, a nice magic item) as well as a "favor to be named later".  Raise dead shouldn't be like a video game where your character pops up good as new a minute later.  At worst it's a pain in the butt for the characters but it teachs a valuable lesson, don't run to tackle the yeti horde by yourself next time using a wooden staff as a weapon....

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7957
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:37 am 
 

Yama-Arashi wrote:I normally stay out of these kind of fights because they make me feel old. I'm hearing the Arduin vs. D&D fights again. I'm hearing the "my anti-paladin can beat up your ninja" fights.


We had the D&D vs Runequest fights in my neighborhood, no quarter asked for or given.

Video games are ruining today's youth? That's exactly the same argument I heard from my fossilized elders about how playing D&D "on a perfectly good day when you should be out riding your bike" was ruining me.


But they were right...look how overweight I am now.... :cry:

Those same elders seem pretty comfortable with my paying 35 grand a year in taxes to keep them in Social Security and Medicare, using skills I developed through years of role-playing, so I'm willing to cut kids today a little slack that they'll come out all right when it's their turn to step up and support me in my dotage.


Probably not, ever see "Soylent Green"?   I don't look for much better in the future from this generation of clods.    8O

I don't care who likes or plays what. I personally think that Champions was the lamest excuse for an RPG to ever come down the pike, but I have many good friends with great memories of their Champions games. Good on them. I know someone who still likes Aftermath!, which to me is a real puzzler, but, hey, it takes all types.


Champions did suck.  Villains and Vigilantes was MUCH better, IMO.

However, I have to step in and support the guys fighting the good fight for 3e.  It's a good system, it's an interesting system, and it's a flexible system. It isn't perfect, but neither was 1st edition. It can be roll-playing focused, or role-playing focus depending on the emphasis. I love the fact that when it was released, it was decried by the 1st editioners as being too "touchy feely" with its skills rules. "True AD&D," we were told, "is kicking in doors, killing the monsters, and taking their loot." This same group now decries 3e for being too "roll-playing focused?" Because you know, there was a lot of role-playing that took place in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl or Descent into the Depths of the Earth. They may be great memories, but be honest, how many times did you shoot the s**t with the Jarl or any of his cronies as opposed to going through their pockets for spare change after the fight?


People will always hate what they don't understand.  Truthfully, no one roleplayed back in the early days unless it was threatening to beat the shit out of Gremag and Rannos Duval in Hommlet for selling you a crappy horse, or hitting on the serving wench at the local tavern for fun because it made you feel cool.  It was all about killing the bad guys and counting the coins.  Memories are fuzzy things, no one cared about roleplaying until after Dragonlance came out anyway.....

As for arguments about d20 books being too shiny? Good lord. Still using a VGA monitor because SVGA is too colorful? 3e isn't the "true descendent" of 1e? I'm sorry, but the removal of negative AC scores does not create a rupture in continuity that forces 3e to a lifetime of bastardized shame. I actually heard someone complain about how 3e was "too miniature focused" as if 1e didn't list all of its distances in table top measurements.


I don't care about the books being shiny, just like them in a font I can read without squinting....

Grayson, Blackmoor -- we're fighting against the haze of nostalgia. It's hopeless. I know it because I have it, too. I love 1st edition because I loved it when I was 9 years old with the kind of passion that is impossible to work up over a game in my late 30s. But for me, it's a love that isn't blind, and I have as much fun growing with a new system as I do fondling my collection of the old.


Good post.  I wish I could change but I can't.  Playing 3e doesn't do a thing for me, but pulling out the 1e or 2e books gets my blood pumping like Jennifer Love Hewitt bending over in front of me to tie her shoes...

But, Eberron truly does suck.

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7957
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:40 am 
 

bclarkie wrote:Let me repost my previous post as I imagine folks didnt see it on the other page:

Personally IMHO I think this 1 edition versus 3 edition argument is kind of silly. I say this becuase it is like trying to compare apples and oranges. The current rules system in place for 3rd edition is not Dungeons and Dragons. The similarities in 1st ed and 3rd ed are the fact that they are both FRPGs and they both deal with characters and monsters. Other than that there is virtually no common ground shared by the 2 editions at all. Personally I dont see who you can take a game, tear up everything and start from the begining again, make it completely different than the original and want to call it the same thing. Imagine if some modern day artist took the original Mona Lisa tore it up and made a new painting. In this new painitng there was a dark haired woman standing at a party of people with all of her freinds in the mid-city location.This new painting created the artist now wanted it the Mona Lisa. Would anyone in their right mind ever believe that the new painting was now the Mona Lisa? Of course not, so why does anyone accept the fact that 3rd edition is actually Dungeons & Dragons, because it is clearly not. The current edition of D&D is clearly geared toward the video game crowd, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that it should be accepted as D&D either.
.


Greatg post, this is what I have always said.  It's a completely different game so shouldn't be held to the same standards.  They share a name but really aren't compatible, along with some similarities.  It's just not the same game and should not be considered such.

Mike B.

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:15 am 
 

Badmike wrote:But then again I'm willing to believe the kids I see play 3e would have min/maxed 2e also down to a souless video game.


Precisely. A player that wants to min/max will min/max whatever system they're playing. It happened all the time in the 2nd Ed games I ran, and I'm sure it happened in many (if not most) other games.

Truthfully, no one roleplayed back in the early days unless it was threatening to beat the shit out of Gremag and Rannos Duval in Hommlet for selling you a crappy horse, or hitting on the serving wench at the local tavern for fun because it made you feel cool.  It was all about killing the bad guys and counting the coins.  Memories are fuzzy things, no one cared about roleplaying until after Dragonlance came out anyway.....


I've read most of the original modules, front to back, and I have to agree - there's nothing inherent in the modules to get roleplaying going. Ditto for 3rd Edition modules. Roleplaying comes from the DM, and from people, not from rules.

The only original setting/series of adventures that I've seen that really encourages roleplaying is Planescape. Ravenloft too, to a certain extent, but that always seemed overshadowed by the "This must be cool, it's got vampires!" efforts.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5629
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 18, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:51 am 
 

A fire giant in 1E doesn't get +4/+10. His damage is preset, and his attacking ability is determined by his hit dice. If you give fire giants +4/+10, then you need to give dragons +6/+12 or some such, and pruple worms the same. All of their abilities are figured in according to HD.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the d20 system. It is the ridiculous powers and characters that are in the game. From my point of view a ROLEPLAYING game is just that. Roleplaying. I don't think rushing from fight to fight in order to throw a handful of damage dice qualifies.
I think some of you are missing my point. I don't care whether a game has fantastic and unrealistic abilities like forming storm clouds or flying on carpets. But the 3E crap that is out today is unquestionably skewed towards characters that are designed to be cuisinarts.
Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......
Of the General feats in the Player's Handbook 68 out of 90 are combat related. That is well over 2/3. The addition of Feats in 3E is what ruins the game. No player, not even myself, can avoid min/maxing feats and skills in 3E, and that is not roleplaying, it's powergaming.
The beef I have has already been stated: Wizards calls it D&D, when it is the farthest thing from it.


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

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:12 am 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......


Which is contrasted by what in 1st Ed?

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Jun 16, 2021

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 am 
 

Badmike wrote:Properly Dmed, D1-3 should be able to challenge levels over 10th.

*Puts this thread right back on track.*

Tomb of Horrors is challenging for levels over 10th.  :twisted:



  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Jun 16, 2021

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:44 am 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......

*Promptly veers the thread back OFF track again.*

Show me an average d20 Fantasy player that can describe what their character looks like and what his personality is?  I have an anecdote from Peter Bradley (chief illustrator for Castles & Crusades).  At Gen Con he offered to draw portraits of player's characters.  Almost invariably, the d20 Fantasy players would come up to him to have their portraits drawn.  When asked the inevitable question of "What does he look like" the player would respond somewhere along the lines of "He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."  The thing is that when Peter prompted them again with the question, phrased somewhat differently, the player could not answer, because he hadn't thought about it.  The stats are what defined the character to the player.

There may be some exceptional d20 Fantasy players out there who do in fact develop their characters, but they seem to be rare.



  


Prolific Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 144
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Last Visit: May 03, 2021
Location: Rhosgobel

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:36 am 
 

I'm an italian old fashion player (and now collector): I love too much the first editions of D&D to appreciate even AD&D ... not to speak about 3rd edition (and 3.5).
I grow up with the five boxed sets edition (elmore art) and I honour F. Mentzer for have made them. If Gygax and Arneson are something like Old Ones (or Eru Iluvatar), then Mentzer is nothing less then a chief Hierarch (or Manwe Sulimo). :)  :)

Given that, when I discovered OD&D (in particular "The Palace of the Vampire Queen") I was struck by a particular feeling: it  seems to me another world, completely different. Less details, less rules, more simple.
Now, with my group, I'm playing a mix of 3.5 and elder editions (I'm a barbarian, chosen by Crom) even if my-life's character is Gandalf the Grey (a 20th level wizard).

I don't think to be able to say any definitive word about the discussion of this thread but it seems to me that the point is this:
every RPG is based on the immagination of the DM and the Players.
Rules are given to define a sort of coherent world, a backstage, where the characters can play their role. Then the backstage can be more or less defined, more or less realistic ... I don't think that is important.
To make some examples, everytime I have played I've never considered encumbrance nor food ... my characters simply eat,even if in their equipment there's no food.
the fun of the game is in other things, according to my opinion, but I understand that other people could think quite different things ...

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

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

In Italy some says that D&D is EUMATE "Entra Uccidi Mostro Arraffa Tesoro Esci" (something like "Go in, Kill the monster, Grab Treasure, Go out"): I've never thought so. I love D&D (more than every other RPG, AD&D or 3.5 included) for its easyness and freedom left to player.
But I accept that every game can be free as Master and Players want.
Don't you think?!?

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: ).

So that's my impression.
Finally, it is a very beautiful thread: i've learnt a lot of things reading your posts.
Thank you very much.

Have a nice day
Giorgio

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 912, 3, 4, 5 ... 789