BelenUmeria said:
As you said, combat is a particularly complex portion of 3e.
Did I say that?
The game is much more tactical and it has lost some of the cinematic feel that characterized earlier versions.
Are tactical and cinematic at odds? Hmmm... perhaps somewhat, but I wouldn't say they are directly opposed.
Y'see, I like cinematic flavor, but don't want to sacrifice support and consistency to get it. To me, to be cinematic and spontaneous, you sort of have to surge beyond the rules, which requires the GM to make some calls. But I don't want to be making calls over mundane points, which is why I stand in opposition to the notion of stripping the support out of the game.
Which is why, if I repeat the mantra "the rules are guidelines" to the players, I get the best of both worlds and everyone is happy.
Just last session, a PC druid in my game cast
speak with plants when traversing Yggdrassil, the world ash. It so happened that the world ash was being corrupted by Far Realms entities. In my head (and also repeated to the player so she could understand what was going on), I pictured the spell as operating by reaching out to the fundamental animus that is the part of plants... and in this case, the animus was being corrupted. So instead of the normal effects described in the book, I gave her a flash of a vision of the tree being corrupted, and she recoiled, taking wisdom damage (a common mechanic for mental trauma... see, building on the existing framework.)
You see, that is an example of winging it within the existing system; I did something that the rules don't anticipate nor could they anticipate. But that does not mean I don't want a description for a
speak to plants spell; that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I do not want to have to wing what such spells do typically... same goes for skills, class abilities, etc.
Spells and magic items are also needlessly complex.
From where I am standing, it's as complex as they need to be, give or take a little.
I guess our "needs" are different in this case. I "need" to not be burdened with mundane calls.
I agree that named bonus' have been great for bring more definition to the game, but as you progress in D&D you either need a database of spell effects for each player and NPC, spell cards etc.
Do you? I've been looking up spells for a long time. Simple table rules such as piratecat's "have the book open to the spell you are casting" seems to handle the delay issue adroitly.
You may rue looking things up, but I think the game is more consistant for it and think the idea that it "requires a database" is hyperbole.
And now that things are implemented consistently, I can get away without looking up lots of spells, simply because they follow convention. If different spells
stun creatures, I know what those do. It minimizes the spell description and often makes it easy to not need to look it up at all. Cartainly a player with a limited selection or common selection of spell should not need to look up a spell to understand what it does after the first few times of casting it (though I will admit, divine casters with bottomless spell lists are trouble for this reason... perhaps next game I'll nix clerics and druids and go with Favored Souls and Green Ronin Shamans).
Eventually, the game becomes more about stats and mechanics than the characters.
You can say that, but this is an aspect that appeals to many players. Having stats DEFINE what your character can do; it's on you to create the rest of the character.
D&D is a game that explicitly empowers players... and players dig that. Does it make the game more tactical? Yes, it usually does. But I will say that, whatever else you say about tactical play, tactical play and characterization are not mutually exclusive. I have enjoyed many games with heaping portions of both. If you are lacking one or the other, consider that it could be that your players don't enjoy one or the other.
