D&D 3E/3.5 3e beginnings (why first impressions are not always the right ones)

[cignus_pfaccari]

You want an overpowered monk, then go fro 1/2 celestial with a Vow of Poverty feat.

Ick.

i have since houseruled that the Vow of Poverty cannot be applied to classes designed to be poor and non-reliant on the Christmas Tree of magic items, such as th emonk.

Um...okay. I'm not sure why you're stopping your players from diving into such a trap, though,except possibly the milk of human kindness; +3 LA on top of a class with middle BAB and meh HD means they'll die early and often, and not be nearly as cool as it might look at first glance.

Brad

 

[Scribble]

I remember thinking: You roll for initiative ONCE at the beginning of the fight and it basically stays that number the entire fight??? How boring is that??? (That quickly changed after trying a house ruled role every round...)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

As to all the mockery of the monk...
The monk is obviously the most fun class because he gets a special ability every level. That makes it so much fun that it's going to be the standard for 4E.
Because only gaining HP, BAB, skills, saves, feats, and ability points isn't enough. You need coolness like "Slow fall 20 ft" going to "Slow fall 30 ft."

 

[HeinorNY]

I remembered another one: "Whoa the monk gets lots of new abilities every level, he must be the most fun class to play!"
But today I know that being able to do the same useful thing every round in combat is a lot funnier than having lots of brand shining new useless abilites every level.

 

[delericho]

I too like the idea of the formulae for monsters and think it was a good direction to go. But I don't agree that there isn't a certain amount of art involved. There are a number of different ways monsters can be modeled and dealt with under the mathematical structures in place and it's a question of art exactly how it is implemented.

Perhaps 'science' is the wrong word, as it seems to imply a sort of mathematical exactness that really isn't there (and probably isn't all that desirable anyway). Perhaps 'engineering' would be a better one. The game was (and hopefully will be) built on the top of clear and well-understood principles to provide a storng foundation, while at the same time neither being absolutely tied to a 'golden' model of behaviour (good enough, rather than perfect), and not requiring the same of its players.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Things that I liked at first but then came to dislike: the huge variety of buff spells and items, the increase in spells per day for casters, the increase in direct offensive spells for clerics, feats, and the implementation of polymorph effects.

Things that I hated from the beginning and still hate: the wealth by level guidelines, the DMG demographics, the GP values of magic items, and the clear statement that magic items *should* be available for sale in a town of size X.

Then, uh, play something else? Like, uh, WFRP, GURPS Yrth...or Darklands?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Then, uh, play something else? Like, uh, WFRP, GURPS Yrth...or Darklands?

At the moment, I'm thinking a B/X-3.5 hybrid is the best way to go. I'd play B/X or BECMI again in a heartbeat. The only things I'd really miss would be the skill system (mostly for allowing non-combat low-level challenges such as cliffs to scale and rickety bridges to cross) and the -10 hp threshold. And I'd probably leave out Weapon Mastery.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I get really uneasy whenever I hear the designers commenting that, "designing X is really more art than science." Firstly, these things are basically mathematical entities, which strongly suggests that it's a matter of science. Perhaps more importantly, though, Andy Collins' 'art' might well not match Mike Mearls 'art', and James Wyatt's 'art' might be entirely different again. At least a properly-checked mathematical system provides a consistent baseline, even if some of the results aren't exactly right; what guarantees of consistency do we have without it. (That should not be read as a bash on 4e - just something that makes me uneasy.)

The reason it's an art, rather than a science, is that it involves people. In part, the issue is the ability of designers to make the DMs and players understand what is intended. The real world doesn't require interpretation, but the game rules do.

The second problem is one of tactics. There's a science to game systems just as there is a science to war, but ultimately both are an art because they depend in part on the ability of the opponent. Sometimes a totally stupid opponent will manage to defeat a cunning plan by being oblivious to the risks and opportunities. By the same token, DMs and/or players may not recognize the strengths and weaknesses in any given encounter. Compound that with the fact that the designer may not have recognized all the implications of a given mechanic in the overall implementation.

So yeah, I'd rather the designers acknowledge a need for artistry to identify the flaws in their mathematics.

 

[La Bete]

oh yeh - I remember making a bunch of house rules before really reading it - and certainly before running/playing it.

(though a friend was worse - he wrote up nearly 100 pages of house rules - and never played a single session of unmodified 3e)

 

[Mistwell]

I remember the monk looked really powerful because of all of those abilities. I remember the Paladin looked the next most powerful, because of all of those abilities. The rogue looked so broken at first level because of all those skill points, and the barbarian was pretty good because of all those hit points at first level. Power attack was a waste of a feat and only a prerequisite for cleave, because who would want to reduce their attack roll? Druids looked weak because their wildshaping size progressed so slow and their spells looked like they would only be useful outdoors.