Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ktulu" data-source="post: 4087320" data-attributes="member: 13465">I have played and ran many games of 3e with many different types of players/groups.  I can say that I never really thought the rules made it any easier to handle simulationism than any other system.  I enjoyed it as a game (one of my favorites), but I don't think it handled simulation very well.For example, a fifth level fighter takes a level of wizard, he gains a couple spells, the ability to write scrolls, the ability to summon a familiar, and crap for hitpoints.Yet, a fifth level wizard levels as a fighter and gains access to all martial weapons & armor, a bonus feat, increase in base attack, probably gains more hitpoints in one roll than he received in 5 levels of wizard, and the same number of skillpoints.That's highly unrealistic.  For it to be simulationist, I would expect the fighter still keeps a decent hitpoint amount and gains some spellpower, while I would hope the wizard learns some swordplay and is somewhat proficient in armor/weaponry (not perfect.Hopefully 4e's multiclassing will address this a little better.. Who knows, maybe it will.That's not all that bugs me about 3e's simulation.  Alignment & the associated spells were quite irritating.  With everything having an alignment (and most things you fight are evil), the wizard just ensures protection from evil as a spell.  With basic knowledge from the PH, a player can reasonably assume that X creatures are evil/chaotic/lawful and be right almost every time.  Why, then, bother having 4 spells that did the same thing?  Instead have a protection spell that boosts your AC.  Also, the hokey ability to just detect alignment always got on my nerves.  As any alignment thread would tell you, people vary on alignment from topic to topic.  If you're trying to simulate something, providing a 6 point alignment option doesn't really help.  Again, I think 4e will have the upper hand, here, as you won't have to answer to the DM about whether or not what you're doing is "chaotic Neutral" or not.The skill system.  In 3.x if you don't have ranks, you probably can't do it (since most DC's provide you with a 50% chance or less to be successful).  If a 10th level fighter with a 20 strength can't be counted on to make the climb check necessary to get out of the pit because he put all his ranks in ride & jump, I think you're failing at something.  I think such a granular system like skillpoints actually hurts simulation.  In the real world most people are fairly decent at a lot of things, and usually skilled at a few for their profession/hobby.  in 3.x you're likely highly skilled at your specific skills (usually 1 or 2 unless you're a rogue/ranger) and you are almost inept at everything else.  Heck, if you didn't have "1" rank in a knowledge skill, you couln't make skill checks for knowledge with DC's higher than 10?  Why not?  A character with an intelligence of 20 should be able to make DC's up to 25 in anything.  Most people house-ruled this and just let it slide, but it doesn't make sense from a simulationist point of view.Those are my biggest gripes on why 3.x wasn't great for simulation.  It wasn't impossible, and we still had some great games full of interesting and unique characters.  Whether or not 4e is any better remains to be seen, but It'll probably provide just as much entertainment as 3.x did while I played it.  If it doesn't, well, I still have all my 3.x books.Ktulu</blockquote>

Verification