The Real problem with 3e D&D

[ShadowDenizen]

For the cleric/sorcerer/theurge, it can be. But the player who isn't good with rules and memorization should, quite frankly, not be playing a complex character.

I think that's a simplistic and rather unfair assessment.

To play a game, one shouldn't be expected to have pages and panges of rules memorized, or be able to do complex calculations in their head. (Personally, though, I do make a refernce sheet for my characters detailing the sourcebook and page # to find rules referecnes quickly.)

But ultimately, people play characters becasue that's what they want their characters to be, not what the other players think "they can handle".

This ties into the idea of "Optimal" builds; why should I take a feat/skill/etc., that I don't want, or envision the charcter having, to ensure an "Optimal" party? Shouldn't the DM be trusted to take that into account when running the adventure? (THough, granted, scaling up or down an encounter in 3E isn't as simple as it was under 1E or 2E.)

I think the OP brings forward a strong point that coves much of my growing dissatisfaction witht he current rulesset. (And I've been playing D+D since the late '70's; I've suffered burnout before, but never to this degree.)

 

[Hussar]

I think that's a simplistic and rather unfair assessment.

To play a game, one shouldn't be expected to have pages and panges of rules memorized, or be able to do complex calculations in their head. (Personally, though, I do make a refernce sheet for my characters detailing the sourcebook and page # to find rules referecnes quickly.)

Perhaps not memorized. That's true. But read at least. And known well enough that he or she doesn't have to look it up EVERY SINGLE TIME. Again, since we're talking about first level characters, we're not talking about a huge amount of information. Even the fighter doesn't really have to know about the combat maneuvers.

I play with fairly experienced gamers and I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen them initiate a grapple. In 6 years of 3e I don't think I've ever seen a player try a disarm or a sunder. I'm sure there are people who do so, but, IME, it's pretty rare.

Granted, the DM probably starts grapples fairly often. There's an awful lot of critters out there with improved grab. But, the only thing the player really needs to know is BAB+STR+Size mods. In other words, make a standard attack without any mods other than Str. This isn't hard.

But ultimately, people play characters becasue that's what they want their characters to be, not what the other players think "they can handle".

True. But, again, we're talking about new players. While I would never tell someone not to take a given class, there is the art of gently steering someone in a simpler direction. Perhaps sorc instead of wiz. Avoiding clerics maybe. And since almost no one wants to play a cleric anyway, that's usually not a problem. Of the eleven base classes, only 4 get full spell progression. That still leaves 7 other classes to fiddle with until they get the rules a little better under control.

This ties into the idea of "Optimal" builds; why should I take a feat/skill/etc., that I don't want, or envision the charcter having, to ensure an "Optimal" party? Shouldn't the DM be trusted to take that into account when running the adventure? (THough, granted, scaling up or down an encounter in 3E isn't as simple as it was under 1E or 2E.)

I think the OP brings forward a strong point that coves much of my growing dissatisfaction witht he current rulesset. (And I've been playing D+D since the late '70's; I've suffered burnout before, but never to this degree.)

The simple answer is, you shouldn't. I've never played in a game where anyone is dictating feats to other players. I would squash any of my players who tried it. Suggesting is fine, but, "ensuring" an optimal party? I don't think so.

Th problem I see here though is the assumption that you need an optimal party. Granted, you need a certain level of proficiency in a given party. A party of all bards might be fun, but, isn't going to be terribly effective in many situations. There is a need for balance, I guess is what I'm saying. But, that's always been true in D&D. It's set up that way. 3 fighters, cleric, wizard, thief has been the staple party for a very, very long time.

But, do you really need every character in a party to be perfectly optimized to succeed? I don't think so. The bog standard characters do pretty well in most situations. That's why they are standard. A power attack barbarian is pretty effective. The blaster wizard works. The thief with good hide and move silently is pretty good.

It has been mentioned earlier. If you find the level of complexity too much in your game, then limit what is available. STOP BUYING BOOKS. Or at least, stop using every book. Stick to core plus a couple of others. Stick to the complexity level you are comfortable with and go from there. If the cleric having a bazillion spells from the Spell Compendium blows your mind, then don't use that book.

I find a fair bit of irony in all this. When 3e first came out, critics complained about how they had "dumbed down" the rules and that it was too simplistic. Now the worm has turned and the critics talk about how it's too complicated. The only reason the game has become so complicated is because people let it become so. Limit the options to what you are comfortable with and life becomes so much easier.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Thoughtful post, Hussar.
Even though I disagree with a lot of your points.

When 3e first came out, critics complained about how they had "dumbed down" the rules and that it was too simplistic. Now the worm has turned and the critics talk about how it's too complicated. The only reason the game has become so complicated is because people let it become so. Limit the options to what you are comfortable with and life becomes so much easier.

I think the reason people complain now is because of the sheer volume of information available in every medium, and at a staggering rate. Now that in itself is not inherently a bad thing, but it does make for some beleaguered DM’s, IME.

And, IMO, the game has become complicated for that same reason; adding new rules in new books may substansially alter feats/skills/etc from previous books, and not always in ways that are immediately obvious. (And this goes back to the “Recombinace” factor mentioned by the OP.)

It has been mentioned earlier. If you find the level of complexity too much in your game, then limit what is available. STOP BUYING BOOKS. Or at least, stop using every book. Stick to core plus a couple of others. Stick to the complexity level you are comfortable with and go from there. If the cleric having a bazillion spells from the Spell Compendium blows your mind, then don't use that book.

Personally, I buy new books only if they interest me, or I want to read them. I find myself incorporating very little new stuff (as Player or DM) into our existing games.

And it’s fine and well to say “Limit the Options” (I personally prefer to play Core, plus the Complete books, everything else is case-by-case basis), but 3E really encourages the “Everything but the Kitchen Sink” mentality, IMHO. Certainly, the expected rule from most groups (or, at least the PLAYERS in most groups) I’ve met is that anything by WotC is (or should be) fair-game.

Is that a reasonable expectation? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it certainly does exist.

I play with fairly experienced gamers and I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen them initiate a grapple. In 6 years of 3e I don't think I've ever seen a player try a disarm or a sunder. I'm sure there are people who do so, but, IME, it's pretty rare.

I agree.
But that’s because, IMO, the grapple, sunder and disarm rules are counter-intuitive and not typically worth the effort of looking up (at least for our group.)

Th problem I see here though is the assumption that you need an optimal party. Granted, you need a certain level of proficiency in a given party. A party of all bards might be fun, but, isn't going to be terribly effective in many situations. There is a need for balance, I guess is what I'm saying. But, that's always been true in D&D. It's set up that way. 3 fighters, cleric, wizard, thief has been the staple party for a very, very long time.

I agree that you should, in theory, have a balanced party. (And that’s certainly true for beginners!!)

But I think most modules assume a certain level of “optimization” that is somewhat discouraging to me, especially given the NEED to introduce new blood into the hobby to keep it strong.

I’m particularly thinking of the Paizo AP’s in this instance. Sure, I love all three of them. And yes, they’re “Core only”. But, as written, they’re also incredibly lethal to an inexperienced player, or even to experienced players with “Un-optimized” characters.


.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I sometimes think that the precident established with the "raising Intellegence Stat through magic" should be applied to a lot more abilities. Those abilities should be re-written to "get to the point". For example:

Rage? A barbarian gets a +2 rage bonus to hit and attack rolls. 2 temporary hp/hd. This effect lasts for X amount of turns.

Cat's Grace? The target gets a +2 enchantment bonus on their initiative checks, balance and tumble skills for X amount of turns.

Bull's Strength? Traget gets a +2 enchantment bonus to hit and attack rolls.

and so forth. Basically take whatever the spell/ability is going to be "really" used for 99% of the time, and just write it like that. Just so long as we could bypass alterting base stats, I would be happy and it would eliminate a lot of book keeping.

The problem with that is that the dex fighter doesnt get his attack bonus with cats grace.

IMO, a better way to do this is simply limit the number of active buffs at once. Say you can have 1 at 1st level, with an extra 1 every 4 levels. The spells all have a 24 hour duration (balance accordingly), and if dispelled can be reactiveated as a full round action. Perhaps let each be ended early with a more impressive effect (ie, you can end your cats grace for the day to get evasion for 1 round). No duration tracking, and not really any different from a magic item.

The other thing is that different mods need to be culled. Why do we have both a sacred and profane bonus type? Why not a generic divine? I'm not 100% clear on the actual difference between insight and competence, but they seem a good category to merge as well. Change all tools to grant enhancement bonuses (to be consistent w masterwork weapons granting enhancement bonus).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I find a fair bit of irony in all this. When 3e first came out, critics complained about how they had "dumbed down" the rules and that it was too simplistic. Now the worm has turned and the critics talk about how it's too complicated. The only reason the game has become so complicated is because people let it become so. Limit the options to what you are comfortable with and life becomes so much easier.

No, when 3e first came out, someone with very poor English skills declared his 'hat of d02" had no limits, and that it it was too simple and too complicated all at the same time. The claim is not that there is not complexity. Nor is the claim that there is not simplification.

The claim is that there is simplification in places where the game should be complex and complexity in places where the game should be simple.

RC

 

[Hussar]

I agree that you should, in theory, have a balanced party. (And that’s certainly true for beginners!!)

But I think most modules assume a certain level of “optimization” that is somewhat discouraging to me, especially given the NEED to introduce new blood into the hobby to keep it strong.

I’m particularly thinking of the Paizo AP’s in this instance. Sure, I love all three of them. And yes, they’re “Core only”. But, as written, they’re also incredibly lethal to an inexperienced player, or even to experienced players with “Un-optimized” characters.

Let's not forget though that this is going back to the nostalgia factor where you used to die pretty regularly. I remember reading Glyfair's reviews of Dragon where some players went through dozens or even hundreds of characters over the course of a campaign.

And, really, is a 12 adventure AP a good learning module? I don't think so.

 

[Reynard]

And, really, is a 12 adventure AP a good learning module? I don't think so.

True. Howver, the loose adventure path that came out with 3E was a better solution: discrete adventures for progressively higher levels, showcasing D&D's range of options. A complete group of newcomers could follow through that series and, at the end of it, be pretty proficient players and DMs.