3e too complicated ?

[WizarDru]

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?

I would recommend using d20 Call of Cthulu as your base. It's almost classless d20. Mind you, it would still need work to make the character you describe...but I'm not sure that you'd find a ton of players wanting to play a character who is completely ineffectual in combat in a game that essentially centers on combat.

I find 3e to be not only less complicated, but more internally consistent. Yes, there are large number of rules...but they all follow the same base mechanics, and are mathematically and logically consistent. Grappling, sundering and disarming are all variations on a theme, and once you've grasped them, become fairly easy to understand. Dispelling works a lot like disarming...but using different skills. Compare this with the way such things were handed under previous editions. Heck, compare how different stats worked under previous editions. 18/00, anyone?

 

[Trainz]

Things like BAB and HD should be purchased as skills and not doled out automatically each level for every character.

That is one aspect of 3E that is seriously messed up.

If you change these aspects, you are not playing D&D anymore. I personally like them.

But I have to admit that every game session, me and/or the other players we get tired of opening the books and looking-up stuff for every situation that arises.

I dearly hope 3.5 will fix that aspect, rather than making it WORSE.

 

[kengar]

Things like BAB and HD should be purchased as skills and not doled out automatically each level for every character.

That is one aspect of 3E that is seriously messed up.

One thing I really thought was neat about Decipher's LOTR RPG was the idea of "Advances." The characters gain experience points; much as in D&D. When they reach 1000xp, they trade it in for an "Advance." This gives them five "Picks" -basically 5 points- to spend on character improvement. Things like skill ranks are one pick, a spell for wizards might be 2 or 3, an "Edge" (sim. to Feats) might be 2 or 3, etc. There are still "orders" (classes) which keeps folks from being too generic, but there aren't levels per se. Of course, many LOTR gamers refer to their PCs as "one Advance" or "Two Advance" characters and so on.

 

[cildarith]

If you change these aspects, you are not playing D&D anymore. I personally like them.

Some would say that if your sword-wielding dwarven wizard is picking a lock you aren't playing D&D anymore either.

If you're going to introduce a comprehensive skill system to the game, why be half-assed about it?

 

[Toj]

One thing about trying to change it from a level based system to skill based is the challegenge rating system. I think this has really made running a game, especially setting up encounters, so much easier. It's also a great way to measure advancement. Lately we have not even been using experience points. When the group has been doing a lot and going against tough encounters, we 'level up". It makes tracking better and also alows to factor in things like training. If the group wants to stay at their keep and train for awhile, they can and it will reflect advancement.

If you make it all skilled-based and someone just picks basic skills, they really don't become harder to defeat. I can be the greatest rider in all the world and still be taken out by a guy with real combat experience. It seems challenge ratings are only applicable with things that actually affect your combat prowess. So would you only measure CR based on things that increase combat prowess, like more strength, or more combative feats?

 

[jasper]

I still hate smurfs!
So since hypersmurf came up with a great idea which pt out the faults of 1st edition, I must kill and bury him.
So I can go on and hate all smurfs.
Other wise I must admit that a smurf especially a hypersmurf are GOOD for something.

 

[tieranwyl]

THAC0 might be on the sheet, but the Weapon Type vs AC Adjustments for a weapon I'm not proficient in aren't.

-Hyp.

Hypersmurf, All proficiencies in 2E are optional. I can't believe no one called you on this yet. Weapon Type versus Armor Type Modifiers are optional in 2E. Is comparing all the optional rules in 2E to the core rules of 3E the best you can do to make a argument about complexity?

Not using the Optional rules in 2E is not a "paired down version" of 2E. Your using the core rules without options. You don't "house-rule" options out of the game. The are not considered to be the default rules in the first place. OTH Not using feats and skills in 3E is seriously house-ruling the game.

2E core rules is much less complex than 3E. More options means more rules, more rules means more complexity. 3E has more rules than previous editions of the game.

 

[Ravellion]

I got into D&D at AD&D 2e, and I have introduced new players under both. 3e? As long as you create their character for them they have no trouble rolling what is asked from them.

2e? Might as well give the sheet to another player, that's how much sense it made to them. Thac0 especially, but also saving throws, ability checks, unarmed combat (yikes!) ao. The look on a players face when you tell him that previously as he did in combat rolling 20s is really good, but for the dexterity check to cross the narrow beam it means his character is dead, is something I don't want to go back to. Weapon speeds and rlling initiative each round, but with secondary attacks being later in the round, and when could you disrupt a spell again?

I also remember still having rule arguments with veteran DMs on how certain things worked: Specialization in bows being very different from specialization in other weapons is something I can remember having an argument over, but it didn't stop there. In3e I hardly ever have arguments. The complex rules fit on 2 A4 sized pages (Angramainyu's combat reference sheets anyone?).

Hah! There we've got one! A 2e archer! So let's see, we 've got an Ogre, a halfling, a dwarf, and a half elf in melee. The archer who is 30 feet away fires at the Ogre. We don't have a simple cover bonus here mate! Oh no! The firing into melee rules of 2e are more complicated than 3e grapple checks.

And how exactly do you write new spells in your spellbook? Well, that depends on what kind of spellbook that you have.

I think someone claiming that 2e was less complex than 3e is looking back with rose tinted glasses. After character creation it is smooth sailing.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think an argument can be made that 3E is more complicated -- since it allows more options, and more options means more complexity -- but I also think that even though it is more complicated, the increased consistency of the rules make it easier to learn. I think the ease of learning balanced the additional complexity, so we've taken a step forward (much as I liked previous editions (O/BD&D & 1E), unlike some grognards I have no real desire to go back).

 

[Lazybones]

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.

9th level commoner, maxxed Craft (blacksmith) skill, with Skill focus (Craft), has a skill of +14 exclusive of stat bonuses (+15 once 3.5 comes out).

What about his BAB? Well, unless he's got martial training (i.e. taken a feat), his attack roll's going to be, yes, +0 with any sort of real weapon. Maybe he can swing a club at +4; he's gotten a lot of practice in basic pummeling from working his forge.

Oh, but his hit points? Unrealistically high? No problem, give him the minimum (9hp isn't that much, really).

If you haven't already guessed, I like having the framework of 3e to give me guidelines for building "basic" NPCs as well as PCs. I never really liked the "Normal Man/Level 0" systems in Basic/1e/2e, and it's nice to be able to "stat out" a town by looking at a short section in the DMG.