GraysonAC wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how folks put on the blinders when they're looking at the 3E system. The game is only as good, or as bad, as you make it.
MShipley88 wrote: After the invention of weapons specialization, AD&D campaigns tended to break down after the fighters reached 7th level. The monsters could no longer compete.
MShipley88 wrote: After 7th level, the fighters had two swings per round and the campaign would run out of challenges about 9th level. The new system fixes most of those problems by the application of logic and uniform math skills. Monsters the same benefits as PCs. Much, much, much more attention has been paid to the math. Fighters no longer overpower all of the other character classes...although there still seems to be little reason to run a Paladin or a straight rogue. I ran D3 as the game master, so I was able to make it work. That was in the days before weapon specialization. Still, the drow mostly annoyed the PC's rather than threatening them. I buzzed through Q1 as a player. But, I also know of one DM who has cheerfully ignored the morphs of AD&D and still runs a Sunday afternoon game in his living room using the first edition rules. I visited his game recently. I recognized many of the same faces I last saw at his game 20 years ago. They did not seem to mind that the world had turned many times and AD&D had changed a lot. More power to 'em, I says.
Deadlord36 wrote:It's all about realism. I mean, come on, Great Cleave? Whirlwind Attack? Give me a break.
MShipley88 wrote: TSR got into the bad bad bad habit of trying to sell publications like character class and race booklets by including benefits that violated game logic and/or upset game balance. (Oriental Adventures, for instance, introduced the bushi character...with all the abilities of a fighter stacked with other benefits and a much easier experience table. Oriental Adventures was supposedly meant to stand as a separate game setting....right.)
MShipley88 wrote:Weapon specialization gave fighters buzzsaw damage due to bonuses and multiple swings. Monsters such as dragons were sword fodder and other PC classes could not compete. Giants were a laugh...died by the dozens. After 7th level, the fighters had two swings per round and the campaign would run out of challenges about 9th level. Few monsters in the books could stand up to (1d12+6+3+2)x2 for very long. Player characters almost never failed saving throws and the idea that a thief might miss a thieving skill check was almost laughable. The math was out of control.
ExTSR wrote:In BECMI I beefed up dragons a bit and added a horde of new monsters that more than adequately challenge 10th-20th level characters.However, I also included a mathematical system to gauge the level of the encounters proportionate to the party. Unfortunately it seems that someone decided that all encounters should be 'proportionate' (survivable), an unwarranted extrapolation.
killjoy32 wrote:hey frank...whats the item called in its entirety...as i wouldnt mind a look at that....
grodog wrote:I found the entire premise of status quo vs. tailored encounters absurd from the release of the 3.0 DMG onward; naturally I don't use tailored encounters in my games regularly: if the PCs hear that Smaug lives in Lonely Mountain, and decide to go take him on, they're toast if they're not up to the task.
3e does a lot of other things well, too, but the baseline mentality that it encourages for gameplay is not compatible with my vision of D&D: PCs should not hit 20th level by the end of a year of gaming, among other things....
Monsters such as dragons were sword fodder and other PC classes could not compete. Giants were a laugh...died by the dozens. After 7th level, the fighters had two swings per round and the campaign would run out of challenges about 9th level.
without getting the players handbook out, i thought you have 3 attacks in 2 rounds from 7th onwards and 2 attacks per round after 14th?
as for fighters overbalancing other classes, well i strongly disagree there.
It's all about realism. I mean, come on, Great Cleave? Whirlwind Attack? Give me a break.
Unfortunately it seems that someone decided that all encounters should be 'proportionate' (survivable), an unwarranted extrapolation.
how many attacks a round for something they cant reach?