A Realization (maybe an epiphany?) about D&D

Storyteller01 · May 12, 2005

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
You know, I just came to a realization (maybe an epiphany?) about D&D.

Too many people whining.

Can't have an opinion if you don't voice it!

It's kind of like voting...

Ranger REG · May 12, 2005

TGryph said:
Give HARP a whirl...great system, one rulebook for everything, simple mechanics, flexible as hell, and east to convert a D&D campagin over to. $10 for the PDF, great customer support. When I want to play a class-level system, it gets my nod every time.

Meh. I'm still waiting for ICE to go back to what they do best ... Rolemaster.

Saeviomagy · May 12, 2005

Yair said:
1) A player wanted to move to a position overlooking a door, AND shoot at anything that would come through the door. Can't do it on the same round (I think; you can ready a "partial" action by not also move IIRC).

You can move and ready.

2) A character wanted to flail about wildly to find an invisible character he knew should be around him. You can't - you can make an attack and so have a 50% chance of making contact into a square, but you are limited in the number of attacks you make.

Making a single attack at a random square and having a miss chance IS flailing around wildly. Remember - each 5' square is pretty huge.

D+1 · May 12, 2005

Talath said:
Too many rules.

Ah! Precisely. Too many notes...

Greylock · May 12, 2005

Well, I completely skipped 2ed, so I can't comment on that. But I loved 1st ed, and I love 3.5. They both achieve the same end result. A whole damned lot of fun. The only problem I see with 3.5 is that few folks have a truly encyclopedic knowledge of 3.5 and the various erratta. They are out there, but not enough to go around. That means that at least once every game session the rule books get dragged out to discuss some point. Only once in my experience, however, has this affected game flow or pleasure, and that was more a matter of that person's personality, not game design.

Regarding the lack of truly encyclopedic knowledge, well, the game system and the 3.5 revisions and erratta are still relatively young. Everyone in my group intends to master them in time. Remember, 1st ed had a steep learning curve too, being the first. For the first few years of 1st ed, the only person in our group who had a total grasp was the DM but the rest of us eventually caught up.

Edgar Ironpelt · May 12, 2005

Talath said:
Too many rules.

I feel like 3e and 3.5 has too many rules. It's just me, in that I feel like I shouldn't have to wade through a book to find out how to disarm someone, or what a sleep spell specifically affect. I feel like I want to wing it; if its not covered, I feel like I have a keen enough mind and grasp of balance and the rules, enough that I could wing it, and wing it well.

I started back when AD&D 1e was just coming out - the Monster Manual and PHB were available, but not the DMG. My take is that 3.5 isn't really any more complicated than 1e, it just seems like it because the 1e rules tended to be too confusing for mere mortals to follow. So most of the complexity in 1e got dropped in actual play.

With 3e, the complexity is usable by mere mortals, so it actually gets used. That makes it more complicated than 1e as I've seen it played, but not more complicated than the 1e rules-as-written.

Tonguez · May 12, 2005

The basic d20 mechanic of roll D20 + bonus vs Difficulty is simple and elegant and is what makes the system golden.

AoOs aren't hard its just "do anything in combat that involves not attacking or fending off your opponent then your opponent gets an extra whack at you"

its when they start adding on the other hang overs from earlier editions that things get stoopid.

EVERYTHING in DnD including Spellcasting should be skill based and based on the d20+bonus vs DC mechanic. All feats should be3 about adding bonuses.

Then ANYTHING will be possible

Emiricol · May 12, 2005

Actually, there are games like that (they just aren't D&D proper). Blue Rose system is like that, and I'm sure there are others I don't know about. And outside of D20 there are systems where everything is skill based too (GURPS 4e comes to mind).

Storyteller01 · May 12, 2005

I thnk I'd prefer magic to be point based, while allowing casters to make spellcraft rolls to implement metamagic, rather than level increases. Stll something of a skill basis.

My two bits...

D-rock · May 12, 2005

I like a more rules oriented game, I find that I can always strip down 3.5 D&D if I have to and for the most part balance will not be hugely affected. I can also wing it in 3.5 D&D just as well as any other system if I have to.
Then there is the other end of the spectum, and I find that it is a pain in my oppinion. Sure I can come up with a multitude of house rules that might fix situations that come up, but when you consider most people have a lot of things that take up their time besides roleplaying like, family, work, eating, sleep, and more work I don't feel like spending endless hours coming up with fixes that are reasonable and fair to everybody. Some people might like that and more power to them, just not me. So for me it just boils down it being easier for me to eliminate what I don't like, than to create endless fixes for what wasn't covered in the first place.