The Real problem with 3e D&D

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think if [playing with a rule set like 3E is] too much for some people, well, that sucks for them...Honestly, if that is too much work for someone. . . well, there's always TWERPS.

Ah, if only I had the capacity and industriousness that's necessary to prefer rule sets like 3E! Oh well, I guess some of us just don't have the fortitude (and work ethic) to go as far as is necessary.

 

[Michael Morris]

Being a computer programmer I tend to think of things like a programmer. Therefore I think a truly good campaign management program would be useful. One of these days I'll get ENWorld 2 done and can move onto this problem because it is one area where I am blessed with the talent to do something about the problem provided I can find the TIME

It would be nice if I didn't have to. It's just every campaign management program I've seen has been put together so poorly as to make it almost unuseable. When a programmer finds a program unusable I can only imagine how difficult it is for a non-programmer to use it.

90% of the work a computer can help out with is the work that comes before the play. I'd like a program that can, say, give me a squad of 7 elite 3rd level orcs with random equipment and magic items they'd be likely to have in the field, but alas such a program simply doesn't exist.

 

[jmucchiello]

Second, I would change the rules so that stacking rules only apply within their own class of effects. For example, two magical items providing a deflection bonus to AC would not stack, as they are both magical items. However, a magical item and a spell providing a deflection bonus would stack, as they are different classes of effect (magical item and spell). This would mean that you would only need to check magic item stacking when you change your magic items, not every time a spell was cast upon you, and you would only need to check spell stacking when you had more than one spell effect in place.

Why have named bonuses at all then? Only allow classes of object to provide bonuses: Armor bonus classes: Dex, class feature, armor, shield, all other items, spells. If you have bracers of protection and ring of protection, only one applies. You could even say Dex, class, shield, spells and all other items. So that Armor (magical or not) doesn't stack with bracers.

You can generalize this to One Ability Modifier, One Class Feature, One Spell, One Item and One Exemption Item *. The exemption item only applies to attacks and AC (unless you can figure out what the exempt item is for spell resistance, saving throws, and skill checks):
For Attack Bonus and damage, weapons are the exemption item
For AC, shields is the exemption item

Note, it says item, not magic item. Thus you can extend the masterwork rules to allow for amazing mastercraft items and they still work within the framework. Also in this system physical armor does not stack with other items: you can have leather armor or a ring of protection, but only one applies.

* add feats, to taste.

 

[Hussar]

That depends totally on the DM. Though I suppose the other players can make it rough also. Teh problem I see is that D&D is moving more and more to a rookie/expert dichotemy, where the two have little room to meet in the middle.

And that is not good. Too steep of a learning curve.

That is only a problem if your group allows too many books. A new player should be limited to the PHB until he learns the ropes. And a 1st level character.

The Levitator makes a good point. I think there is a habit of people cranking out mid to high level characters right off the bat and then starting to play. That's where the complexity comes in. If someone is playing the same character from level 1 to level 8, and still can't figure out the in's and outs of that character, then perhaps a different game might be a better fit.

It's not about rules expertise, but, I do expect the players to actually have some idea how their own character works. If someone sits down who's never done an RPG before, perhaps steering them away from a Druid is a good idea.

Actually, thinking about it, I do have a new gamer in my group. I completely forgot actually that one of my players just started gaming. She's never really had any problems with the rules and has made the effort to know what her character can do. So, I do know that it can be done. Heck, her first long term charry was a Favoured Soul, so, it's not like she chose the easiest of options.

Yes, I do expect someone who comes to the game to read the manual. I know that seems harsh to some people, but, them's the breaks.

 

[airwalkrr]

I'm not sure there's an easy solution. AD&D's answer to this problem was simply to ignore it and not provide rules for it (which isn't much of a solution to be honest). The best solution I can think of is to come up with effective computer campaign management software. I know there's a few packages out there, and I've tried a few - but none of them strike me as particularly effective.

At that point, why not just play a computer game?

 

[Hussar]

At that point, why not just play a computer game?

Do you use a calculator in your games? How about a pencil sharpener? Rulers? Table? Chairs?

Why does the use of another tool at the table suddenly threaten so many people? I've been using a computer at the gaming table since the mid 80's. We always did. Never seemed like a video game to me. A computer can do what a lot of people can't - crunch a whole bunch of numbers really quickly. What's wrong with that?

Never mind those of us who play on something like OpenRPG or WebRPG or any of the other virtual tabletops. Of course, we're just second class gamers and not part of the "true gamer culture" at all.

 

[Stalker0]

And a 1st level character.

Amen to this. High level dnd is complex, 1st level dnd is pretty darn simple. Even a wizard at 1st level doesn't take a lot of explaining to get a new player started.

 

[Stalker0]

Do you use a calculator in your games? How about a pencil sharpener? Rulers? Table? Chairs?

Computers tend to have an effect that I've never seen a calculator or ruler do in a dnd game, take a players attention away from the game. Now computers are just fine in a limited basis. I think they are great for character creation, great for mapmaking, and can be a useful dm tool to handle a variety of things. But I've seen it when players start looking at their computer screen more than they do the rest of the players, and then its a problem. Then it really does start to become a computer game.

 

[hong]

1. I'm glad that WotC R&D has abandoned "system mastery" as one of their design principles for D&D.

2. Come back 4E threads, all is forgiven.

 

[green slime]

Amen to this. High level dnd is complex, 1st level dnd is pretty darn simple. Even a wizard at 1st level doesn't take a lot of explaining to get a new player started.

Maybe not the wizard. But the fighter needs a basic grip of the combat rules, or will likely end up fresh meat, unless the DM is taking things very easy.