Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spell" data-source="post: 4004375" data-attributes="member: 19718">unfortunately i don't have the books with me (as in, they are in italy, i am in uk).on the other hand, i see that someone else gave a breakdown of the chapters page counts later on.good. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />as i said, you had NWPs that were absolutely useles sin combat, and were more "character definying", if you wish. and they weren't dumped in some "knowledge" superskill that basically screams to new players: "oh, yeah, then there are these aspects of role playing too..."that is one thing that comes to mind. another is the fluff in the books. another is the presence of ecology and habitat entries in monstrous compendium: while not useful in each and every campaign, it still signalled that a monster wasn't just a bunch of characteristics useful only to beat your PCs up... you could actually interact with the thing! :O!such assumption is left to any singular groups to determine with 3e. which means that new players will have very visible the tactical combat part of the game, and might "iss the point" of their DM trying to force them into situations in which fighting might not work.this, coupled with the "exact" CR of each encounter per character level, has lead, in my opinion, to:1. outcries by players about how unfair or uncapable their DM is. (i've seen this, but it might be just my experience?)2. far more problems for DMs that want to stay true to the philosophy of the game "by the book" (why playing this game, if, in fact, you are still playing 2e, or any other game out there?) while retaining their own take on what an enjoyable game is.3. prolonged the time that a newbie might take before he realises that there's more to pen and paper role playing than killing the monster and raking up treasure.fine, but my point is not that 3e is a wargame. only that the combat rules take the foreground. in other words, my feeling (unfortunately is just a feeling, because i don't have my books with me) is that my issue is not what was left out. it's more with the presentation of the ruleset (which can make all the difference in the world) and in the parts that were added, in the core and in subsequent splatbooks.again, fair enough. but "back to the 1e dungeon" might not necessarily have meant "let's scrap those parts of the game that are not immediately useful in the (very early) 1e dungeon-type adventure". if that was what they meant, it would be like saying: "ok, let's design a game in which people with weapons and armours get into a 10'x10' room and fight 26 skeletons."it made sense in 1976, maybe. in 2001 (or 2008)? nope! not to me, at least.ps: you might be right about alignment. i remembered that they got away with weapons and magical items usable only by a person of such and such alignment, but i didn't recall other and more pressing use of it in 3e. as i said, you might be totally right about it.</blockquote>

Verification