Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
THAC0 might be on the sheet, but the Weapon Type vs AC Adjustments for a weapon I'm not proficient in aren't.
-Hyp.
3e too complicated ?
- Thread starter kipran
- Start date
THAC0 might be on the sheet, but the Weapon Type vs AC Adjustments for a weapon I'm not proficient in aren't.
-Hyp.
jasper
Rotten DM
!@#$%^&
I thought I would go through life always hating smurfs
Now hypersmurf has change that.
Jasper raises the golden shovel of Autruck.
Wham wham wham
dig dig dig.
yes 1st was needlessly confusing just to be confusing or did the great EGG need a good editor and some chapter grouping.
don't forget on death sections you either have to roll a RS to come back but in another section it mentions SSS rolls.
I like BOTH systems.
But 3E is more stream line in the CORE books and more consistent
1st gets play started but a 5 th level thief was 5 th level thief.
I thought I would go through life always hating smurfs
Now hypersmurf has change that.
Jasper raises the golden shovel of Autruck.
Wham wham wham
dig dig dig.
yes 1st was needlessly confusing just to be confusing or did the great EGG need a good editor and some chapter grouping.
don't forget on death sections you either have to roll a RS to come back but in another section it mentions SSS rolls.
I like BOTH systems.
But 3E is more stream line in the CORE books and more consistent
1st gets play started but a 5 th level thief was 5 th level thief.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
3ed kept nonproficient weapons.
Yes, but everyone has the same non-proficiency penalty. You don't need to consult another table to find out what it is for any given class.
I have no idea what he just said - is it good or bad?
-Hyp.
Tom Cashel
First Post
Translation:
I thought I would go through life hating smurfs, but instead I have chosen to smash them with my magical golden shovel. sound effects.
I offer no value judgments.
I thought I would go through life hating smurfs, but instead I have chosen to smash them with my magical golden shovel. sound effects.
I offer no value judgments.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Gosh.
... guess I'm lucky he changed his mind about hating them, huh?
-Hyp.
seasong
First Post
My only real problem with 3e is that there are no descriptive guidelines in the PHB or DMG, and no ability (in the core rules) to simply give someone whatever's appropriate. No "a skill of X is a typical professional" or similar such.
In GURPS, I know that a skill of 12 is pretty decent, and a skill of 16 is an expert. So if I need an NPC to be pretty decent, I can just give them a 12 skill on the fly and not worry about it.
In D&D, assuming you've written up your own guidelines, if you give them a skill of X on the fly, that also means they are X-5 level at a minimum, or X-7 if its a synergy skill, and whatever level that is has other impacts, like their fighting ability. I can't take a 30 year old peasant and say he's got a BAB of +1 and a blacksmith skill of 15. It doesn't work that way - it's all packaged together.
Which is fine, I knew that when I signed onto the system that it wasn't realistic. And honestly, if I'm pressed for an NPC quickly, I'll give him BAB +1 and blacksmith skill 15 anyway, because I'm not the sort of GM who takes backtalk from a system, or from the player who wants to know how a blacksmith that can barely wield a sword in combat can make such awesome horse accessories.
In GURPS, I know that a skill of 12 is pretty decent, and a skill of 16 is an expert. So if I need an NPC to be pretty decent, I can just give them a 12 skill on the fly and not worry about it.
In D&D, assuming you've written up your own guidelines, if you give them a skill of X on the fly, that also means they are X-5 level at a minimum, or X-7 if its a synergy skill, and whatever level that is has other impacts, like their fighting ability. I can't take a 30 year old peasant and say he's got a BAB of +1 and a blacksmith skill of 15. It doesn't work that way - it's all packaged together.
Which is fine, I knew that when I signed onto the system that it wasn't realistic. And honestly, if I'm pressed for an NPC quickly, I'll give him BAB +1 and blacksmith skill 15 anyway, because I'm not the sort of GM who takes backtalk from a system, or from the player who wants to know how a blacksmith that can barely wield a sword in combat can make such awesome horse accessories.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Right now, we're taking a break from our 3E campaigns to play a Mage game set in 1920s New York.
It's lots of fun, but good gravy, the lack of rules does NOT make the game easier to adjudicate.
Setting aside the abysmal organization of the rules (as one small example, Willpower is a vital stat in the game, almost as important as HP in D&D, but the rules for it are scattered throughout the book, and the index's only reference to Willpower points to a small clause explaining how it's used in casting spells), the rules are very open-ended. The GM determines everything from how valuable a particular stat might be (the "node" stat gives you from 1 point of magical energy per week to 10 points of energy per week, with no guidance on what the GM should choose) to what level of success is required to pull off a particular effect ("You want to weaken that wall? Okay, I'm going to make that, say, five successes. No, six. No, five.")
The big tradeoff we see is that magic is extremely open-ended in such a system. If you as a player can think of an effect, there's a mage out there who can pull it off. Coming up with nifty things to try is great fun: you don't have to look at a spell list to determine what you can try to do, but instead you can think, "Okay, he's getting ready to blow the Trumpet of Zombie Raising? I spit out my bubblegum and throw it at him, and the trumpet fills with bubblegum, making it unplayable!" and generally you've got a shot at having it work.
Of course, the GM figures out how many successes it'll take, and if the effect goes wrong, the penalties for failure are limited only by the GM's imagination.
D&D is different. You want to try an effect? Chances are good that somewhere in the rules there are guidelines for the action. The game's arbiter doesn't seem arbitrary, if they know the rules well: the game is exquisitely balanced, and the rules are very well organized and consistent.
But at the same time, characters are far more limited: because the rules are so comprehensive, it's very easy as a DM to assume that actions not covered by the rules are either impossible ("No, of course you can't leap onto the giant, climb up to his face, and stab him in the eye -- show me the rules for climbing hostile creatures!") or have no rule effect ("You leap from the balcony, holding on to the chandelier's rope, and swing down at the villain, trying to kick her in the nose? Um, okay -- make an unarmed attack roll.")
I think the challenges for a Mage GM center around making the game fair (so that all players feel like they have an equal chance to do fun stuff), and the challenges for a D&D GM center around making room in the game for creativity (so that players don't feel constrained by the rules).
I think, getting back to the OP, that 1E D&D was much closer to Mage in feel: there were several unrelated systems throughout the game, and the rules weren't organized very well, and there were plenty of situations that the rules didn't cover. Old-school DMs didn't need nearly as much rules-knowledge, had much more flexibility when dealing with bizarre occurrences -- but at the same time, it was a lot easier under old-school D&D to favor one character or class over another, much easier for some characters to get left out of the action.
Daniel
It's lots of fun, but good gravy, the lack of rules does NOT make the game easier to adjudicate.
Setting aside the abysmal organization of the rules (as one small example, Willpower is a vital stat in the game, almost as important as HP in D&D, but the rules for it are scattered throughout the book, and the index's only reference to Willpower points to a small clause explaining how it's used in casting spells), the rules are very open-ended. The GM determines everything from how valuable a particular stat might be (the "node" stat gives you from 1 point of magical energy per week to 10 points of energy per week, with no guidance on what the GM should choose) to what level of success is required to pull off a particular effect ("You want to weaken that wall? Okay, I'm going to make that, say, five successes. No, six. No, five.")
The big tradeoff we see is that magic is extremely open-ended in such a system. If you as a player can think of an effect, there's a mage out there who can pull it off. Coming up with nifty things to try is great fun: you don't have to look at a spell list to determine what you can try to do, but instead you can think, "Okay, he's getting ready to blow the Trumpet of Zombie Raising? I spit out my bubblegum and throw it at him, and the trumpet fills with bubblegum, making it unplayable!" and generally you've got a shot at having it work.
Of course, the GM figures out how many successes it'll take, and if the effect goes wrong, the penalties for failure are limited only by the GM's imagination.
D&D is different. You want to try an effect? Chances are good that somewhere in the rules there are guidelines for the action. The game's arbiter doesn't seem arbitrary, if they know the rules well: the game is exquisitely balanced, and the rules are very well organized and consistent.
But at the same time, characters are far more limited: because the rules are so comprehensive, it's very easy as a DM to assume that actions not covered by the rules are either impossible ("No, of course you can't leap onto the giant, climb up to his face, and stab him in the eye -- show me the rules for climbing hostile creatures!") or have no rule effect ("You leap from the balcony, holding on to the chandelier's rope, and swing down at the villain, trying to kick her in the nose? Um, okay -- make an unarmed attack roll.")
I think the challenges for a Mage GM center around making the game fair (so that all players feel like they have an equal chance to do fun stuff), and the challenges for a D&D GM center around making room in the game for creativity (so that players don't feel constrained by the rules).
I think, getting back to the OP, that 1E D&D was much closer to Mage in feel: there were several unrelated systems throughout the game, and the rules weren't organized very well, and there were plenty of situations that the rules didn't cover. Old-school DMs didn't need nearly as much rules-knowledge, had much more flexibility when dealing with bizarre occurrences -- but at the same time, it was a lot easier under old-school D&D to favor one character or class over another, much easier for some characters to get left out of the action.
Daniel
Toj
First Post
I fall into the same boat as seasong.
At this point I am pretty much thinking that the whole level system needs to go. I like the basic mechanics of d20, but how everyone gets to where they are is a whole different ball of wax.
Like seasong already mentioned, how does one create the mad scientist who has NO knowledge of fighting (no bab) but has extremely high skills?
Or how can I create a Grandmaster in Shotokan karate, but the Grandmaster really has no skills beyong basic highschool?
But again, the mechanics are great. Everything based on a d20 works wonderful, with difficulties and opposed rolls etc. I even like the CR system, since it makes setting up encounters a lot easier.
At this point I am pretty much thinking that the whole level system needs to go. I like the basic mechanics of d20, but how everyone gets to where they are is a whole different ball of wax.
Like seasong already mentioned, how does one create the mad scientist who has NO knowledge of fighting (no bab) but has extremely high skills?
Or how can I create a Grandmaster in Shotokan karate, but the Grandmaster really has no skills beyong basic highschool?
But again, the mechanics are great. Everything based on a d20 works wonderful, with difficulties and opposed rolls etc. I even like the CR system, since it makes setting up encounters a lot easier.
Similar Threads
- Poll
