The Real problem with 3e D&D

[Bacris]

I dont see the problem.
It's not a D&D problem its a DMing problem.

I disagree with this. When you have a group of 4 and you start having insight, luck, dodge, deflection, enhancement, and inherent bonuses, and they change on the fly when you have a area effect cast or a bard song active or a daily use item activated, and you have to recalculate your attack rolls, damage rolls, skill checks, saving throws, Difficulty Checks, and armor class 2-5 times within 5 minutes, it becomes tedious for the players, too.

Do I have a solution? Nope - but I understand what the concern is.

For my group, we just do buff cards. It's not the best method, but it works.

 

[Treebore]

I dont see the problem.
It's not a D&D problem its a DMing problem.

Guess that means you have a CPU for a brain. That or your a better DM than I am.

 

[Blue]

I see where you're going - and you're right, it's both a strength and a weakness. Funny, it's the type of thing a computer game could handle easily - I wonder how much of our expectations are set from that.

For instance, let's look at bonus types. In 2ed, everything added. So you had all these various +1s and +2s that added up to big numbers. When I first saw 3.0, where the same type of bonus only adds once, I thought it was wonderful. But remembering that the cleric's Bless spell overlaps with the Bard's inspire confidence on chance to hit is a major pain.

A simple spell like Cat's Grace adds to AC (and touch AC, but not flat footed AC), initiative, Reflex saves, could be a bonus to hit with a feat, could be a bonus to damage with a PrC, could ... we all see.

Just to venture a bit away from the details, 3.x added a great concept, but because it has the legacy from older editions with calculation and things dependent on other things, these wonder possibilities that it brings also cause problems. I'm NOT looking for 4ed - I greatly enjoy 3.5. But what could justify it would be a great refactoring of the rules to allow this, moving to a more mature way to do it. But at that point, I'm not even sure it's still D&D.

Good luck,
=Blue(23)

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I think the solution is to only use as much as you are conformable with. If the raging barbarian can't keep track of everything from all his different bonuses and buffs then maybe he shouldn't be playing that character.

Agreed.

Brad

 

[Reynard]

I think the solution is to only use as much as you are conformable with. If the raging barbarian can't keep track of everything from all his different bonuses and buffs then maybe he shouldn't be playing that character.

I agree with this. Players should play what they are comfortable with. A straight pipe-hitter fighter with Power Attack and Cleave is a great starting character. As players get more familiar and experienced with the systems -- not just based on their own characters, but watching the DM and the other players -- they'll get the bug to try different, more complex stuff. The worst in when brand new players want to play spell casters. They are so enthusiastic, but it is so sad to see their faces when they realize what they are in for. I guess that's what they made tha warlock and dragon shaman for, though.

As for DMs, the best bet is to organize, organize, organize. Inititaive charts and NPC index cards and buff tokens and so on. Don't take on more than you can handle. While it would be cool to have a half dozen different kinds of enemies in a fight, all with different gear and effects on them, don't do it as a novice: half a dozen orc warriors with Bull Strength always attacking with full Power Attack will do fine, believe me.

 

[EvilDwarf]

I agree with this. Players should play what they are comfortable with. A straight pipe-hitter fighter with Power Attack and Cleave is a great starting character. As players get more familiar and experienced with the systems -- not just based on their own characters, but watching the DM and the other players -- they'll get the bug to try different, more complex stuff. The worst in when brand new players want to play spell casters. They are so enthusiastic, but it is so sad to see their faces when they realize what they are in for. I guess that's what they made tha warlock and dragon shaman for, though.

As for DMs, the best bet is to organize, organize, organize. Inititaive charts and NPC index cards and buff tokens and so on. Don't take on more than you can handle. While it would be cool to have a half dozen different kinds of enemies in a fight, all with different gear and effects on them, don't do it as a novice: half a dozen orc warriors with Bull Strength always attacking with full Power Attack will do fine, believe me.

Well, this is a sad state of affairs then, which is why I was extremely disappointed to hear that 4.0 was a ways off. Enthusiastic beginners, so sad to see the look on their faces when they realize what they are in for? That's exactly right, I agree. And it's a shame. And the need for initiative charts and index cards and tokens and so on, not to mention that we are even at a point in the long history of D&D that we wish for computer programs to handle the complexity of in-game calculations? My gods, where has the fun gone??

Arguably the best thing 3E brought us was the unified d20 mechanic. Just about every other aspect of the game now is like 1E/2E with a Magic: the Gathering template applied to it. By that I mean that 3E requires so much SYSTEM mastery--compared to 1E/2E--that many of the fun elements have become buried under calculations, etc. Fun things like whipping up a character relatively quickly and without the need for calculating character sheets or computer generators; fun things like multiple combats per session; fun things like stacking on the armor bonuses and wading into a horde of enemies. Fun things like watching your kids play their first game without slamming head-first into the complexities described by the OP. Of course, there is ALWAYS some element of system mastery needed, but I argue that's a much higher bar for 3E than previous editions.

::Turn on old-folks mode:: Why, I remember a day when the only thing that differentiated fighters was their equipment and the way they were role played. We didn't need all them feats and skills to tell one from the other. We actually had to come up with different character personalities to distinguish our characters, up hill both ways and in ten feet of snow. ::Old folks mode off::

Limiting the source books is a cop-out solution, too. For instance, why should I have to ignore Reserve Feats from Complete Mage when it's what spell casters should be all along? That is, by having to cut the complexity by limiting source material for your campaign, you are in effect arguing that you have to limit complexity by ignoring improvements in the system. In a cleaned-up, unified, lean-and-mean 4E, for example, Reserve Feats would probably be a class feature for arcane casters. But, if I want that fix now, I have to worry about bringing in a new system feature and worry about how it will or will not fit with my other game mechanics I'm using, if doing so is balanced/unbalanced, etc.

OK, I'm out of breath.

 

[scourger]

I limited my game to the 3 core books, and it still seems to get too complicated too fast. It's manageable and even fun at low levels but the accounting gets out of control. I enjoy playing--I only have to keep track of one character. For running a much, much easier game, I prefer Savage Worlds.

 

[RedFox]

I disagree with this. When you have a group of 4 and you start having insight, luck, dodge, deflection, enhancement, and inherent bonuses, and they change on the fly when you have a area effect cast or a bard song active or a daily use item activated, and you have to recalculate your attack rolls, damage rolls, skill checks, saving throws, Difficulty Checks, and armor class 2-5 times within 5 minutes, it becomes tedious for the players, too.

Do I have a solution? Nope - but I understand what the concern is.

For my group, we just do buff cards. It's not the best method, but it works.

Have you seen this?

 

[Imaro]

Well, this is a sad state of affairs then, which is why I was extremely disappointed to hear that 4.0 was a ways off. Enthusiastic beginners, so sad to see the look on their faces when they realize what they are in for? That's exactly right, I agree. And it's a shame. And the need for initiative charts and index cards and tokens and so on, not to mention that we are even at a point in the long history of D&D that we wish for computer programs to handle the complexity of in-game calculations? My gods, where has the fun gone??

Arguably the best thing 3E brought us was the unified d20 mechanic. Just about every other aspect of the game now is like 1E/2E with a Magic: the Gathering template applied to it. By that I mean that 3E requires so much SYSTEM mastery--compared to 1E/2E--that many of the fun elements have become buried under calculations, etc. Fun things like whipping up a character relatively quickly and without the need for calculating character sheets or computer generators; fun things like multiple combats per session; fun things like stacking on the armor bonuses and wading into a horde of enemies. Fun things like watching your kids play their first game without slamming head-first into the complexities described by the OP. Of course, there is ALWAYS some element of system mastery needed, but I argue that's a much higher bar for 3E than previous editions.

::Turn on old-folks mode:: Why, I remember a day when the only thing that differentiated fighters was their equipment and the way they were role played. We didn't need all them feats and skills to tell one from the other. We actually had to come up with different character personalities to distinguish our characters, up hill both ways and in ten feet of snow. ::Old folks mode off::

Limiting the source books is a cop-out solution, too. For instance, why should I have to ignore Reserve Feats from Complete Mage when it's what spell casters should be all along? That is, by having to cut the complexity by limiting source material for your campaign, you are in effect arguing that you have to limit complexity by ignoring improvements in the system. In a cleaned-up, unified, lean-and-mean 4E, for example, Reserve Feats would probably be a class feature for arcane casters. But, if I want that fix now, I have to worry about bringing in a new system feature and worry about how it will or will not fit with my other game mechanics I'm using, if doing so is balanced/unbalanced, etc.

OK, I'm out of breath.

QFT

The only thing I can add is that as a DM I feel this even worse than the players. Prep(class, level, templates, feats, skills, spells, etc.) for numerous NPC's and monsters is cumbersome and time-inefficient compared to the actual impact they may or may not have on a campaign or even adventure as a whole(unless you railroad the PC's into situations). Running combats in 3.x(IMHO) has become a series of jotting down bonuses, remembering effects of feats & spells, remembering what bonuses stack and which don't, remembering conditions, decidng tactics,etc. and it tends to bog down what use to be a fast and fun game. Now I feel like the fun is suppose to be all of the options instead of playing the actual game and that just doesn't work for me.

Some will say they just stat what is necessary or gloss over the NPC and monster stats. To me this is handwaving and it can have drawbacks with a player who knows the rules as well or better than you and calls you out on something that might be wrong. It also made me realize that if I was going to do this why play D&D 3.x instead of a rules-light d20 alternative. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Well, I read through all this and wanted to "QFT" or "me too" a whole bunch of posts. I played 90%-core 3E, but I grew dissatisfied with the amount of "system work" that was required as levels started rising. The shine came off the apple. Nevertheless, 3E did increase my awareness of rules systems and how they fit together -- the whole "Behind the Curtain" thing. Applying that awareness to other RPGs helped me sort out what I really like and find fun, and also made me realize that some things I had considered flaws in other systems were not really flaws at all. I guess you could say I had a liberating attitude adjustment.