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

[kigmatzomat]

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...)

Actually, that's the one house rule adopted by just about every GM I game with. I've done combat fencing and martial arts and I never encountered the "you-me-you-me-you-me" thing. Come to think about it, so have most of my gaming buddies, although for some of them it was SCA sword'n board tournaments.

It's really not a big slow down and we all find the chaos of battle more entertaining. It adds like 5-10 seconds to every round.

 

[Scribble]

Actually, that's the one house rule adopted by just about every GM I game with. I've done combat fencing and martial arts and I never encountered the "you-me-you-me-you-me" thing. Come to think about it, so have most of my gaming buddies, although for some of them it was SCA sword'n board tournaments.

It's really not a big slow down and we all find the chaos of battle more entertaining. It adds like 5-10 seconds to every round.

I agree the you-me-you-me thing isn't the most "realistic," but I disagree that it works better to have people re-roll every round. I tried it, and it drove me nuts. It was MUCH faster in my opinion to just use the regular rule. (plus you also had to keep track of initiatives for spells already cast, and delaying effects, and what not...)

Shrug, maybe my friends and I are just slow.

 

[delericho]

I've done combat fencing and martial arts and I never encountered the "you-me-you-me-you-me" thing.

Yeah, that was definately a 'game' thing rather than a 'realism' thing.

However, in real combat, isn't 'initiative' typically determined rather more by weapon reach rather than any other factor? The greatsword wielder would seem to have an almost overwhelming advantage over the dagger wielder in melee, and yet D&D completely ignores this factor.

In any case, I'm not sure 'realism' is a particularly desirable thing in D&D... but I digress, so I'll stop.

 

[glass]

I remember looking at the Power Attack feat and thinking: "This feat sucks so much, the only use is as prerequisite for Cleave!"

I thought this thread was for inaccurate first impressions!


glass.

 

[Li Shenron]

Interesting... I think I didn't have any opinion when we started playing 3e. I just thought that the game looked cool, but I had truly nothing in mind like "this is too good" and "that is too weak".

Probably it's because I had played previous editions only sparingly, and didn't remember their rules. And because I didn't have an account on forums, so I didn't discuss things before playing. I just bought the core books and started the game

It was already different when 3.5 came: before trying I had lots of opinions, most of which positive. After trying with the SRD for 6 months I changed nearly all of them, and never bought the new books.

But I do remember that one of my players in the first 3e games was a 2e veteran and he indeed had strong opinions such as "Improved Initiative is the strongest feat ever" or "Spontaneous casting is outrageously powerful".

 

[Charwoman Gene]

And what about Bielefeld, that now suddenly appears to exist! kudos to any non-German getting this internet meme

That's nonsense! It's one of the twenty major cities in Germany. My sister-in-law's friend comes from there... Wait, could she be one of THEM?

Thanks for spreading that to me, great awesomeness.

 

[pawsplay]

The first time I looked at them, I identified the monk as slightly weak and the ranger as weak sauce. I also concluded that for damage dealing, a two-weapon wielding rogue was the way to go. I decided the sorcerer was a little blah, but would still be a mainstay. When 3.5 rolled around, I recognized the mystic theurge as a utility guy, very weak as a primary caster.

So pardon me now, if I predict that despite the hype, 4e will be as complicated or more complicated in play, the + items they may have removed will inevitibly return, many class-balancing changes will have unintended consequences, and "Christmas tree" will have nothing on the Felix the Cat Bag of Tricks that's replacing it or the flurry of special maneuvers that will dominate combat.

Also, PCS with unlimited teleport will eventually be recognized as a bad idea.

 

[Meeki]

Actually, that's the one house rule adopted by just about every GM I game with. I've done combat fencing and martial arts and I never encountered the "you-me-you-me-you-me" thing.

Not sure what kind of combat fencing you are doing, but rapier fencing in the SCA is most definitely you me you me, if you aren't doing something after your opponent acts you are slow but someone has to act first that's how D&D initiative is. Plus initiative is just how you act in the 6 seconds, its not you me you me. Its my action is resolved before yours in the same 6 seconds. It's an abstraction of reality. Single initiative roll is great! I loved that about 3.0.

 

[3d6]

What? Everyone has access to thief skills? Who's going to play a "rogue" (?) now?

Whoa! The monk is awesome!

Oh, man, I'm going to play a human fighter so I can get Whirlwind Attack at 4th level! Awesome!

 

[Sitara]

I accurately identified Druid (one of my fave classes), cleric and wizard as very powerful. Though frankly speaking, it was actually 3.5 that really gave druidz teh powAh!! due to fixing call lightning, adding in sponty casting and giving them better weapons. (yay for bastard sword!)

I knew bards and rangers were weak, though I did not realize how utter crap bards actually were.

Wow, I STILL remember the 'fix ranger and bards' threads.