A simplified D&D? Aren't you all forgetting something...

[Gothmog]

I've kinda had the opposite experience - maybe it's just my group, but I've found that the geometric power increase in 3e (as opposed to 1e/2e's more linear increase at high levels) and the dependence on buffing-magic slows the game to a crawl, while a lot of the new spells like Teleport Circle are far more disruptive of campaign settings than any 1e stuff - scry-buff-teleport circle & you can put an army in the enemy king's throneroom rather easily. High level 3e combat is easier tediously easy or arbitrarily lethal; players are either bored with the ease of it or else their PCs are killed, there seems prety well _no_ middle grounds, and believe me I've tried!

I agree completely S'mon. I've run one high level (13+) 3E game, and played in 3 high level games, and things tend to fall apart rapidly after level 11-12. I think the main problem with 3E is the geometric power creep of characters with a strongly linear advancement rate. Things end up getting really wonky, and most PCs I've seen in 3E find a particular combination of abilites/weapons/spells and use it to the exclusion of all other ideas or strategies because the system encourages it through feats, spells, and synergies. The same holds true for monsters and NPCs, which means high level fights either drag on forever, or are over almost instantly due to insta-kill type spells and powers. I don't ever remember 1e or 2e being like this, and the core group of people I've gamed with over the years haven't changed much, and they have remarked how different things seem with 3E, so its the system.

 

[Psion]

I agree completely S'mon. I've run one high level (13+) 3E game, and played in 3 high level games, and things tend to fall apart rapidly after level 11-12.

This differs from my experience.

I do agree high level play is a challenge. The biggest annoyance for me: interative attacks. Everyone having to track 3-4 attacks with bigger bonuses was the single biggest problem IME.

However, that was considerably better off at these levels than 1e and 2e. Getting a DM to run a campaign past 12th level was like pulling teeth. Further, the creatures just didn't scale. 10th level or so was enough to start grappling with Balors and the like. I remember an old DM of mine giving all dragons max hit points and regeration 10 just to keep the challenge up.

 

[rogueattorney]

I think lost in the 2e v. 3e discussion (which has been quite civil, by the way) was Johnnie Freedom's main point --

Those of us who are yearning for a game more like the previous editions of (A)D&D are perfectly free to pull out the old books and use them.

R.A.

 

[ragboy]

However, that was considerably better off at these levels than 1e and 2e. Getting a DM to run a campaign past 12th level was like pulling teeth. Further, the creatures just didn't scale. 10th level or so was enough to start grappling with Balors and the like. I remember an old DM of mine giving all dragons max hit points and regeration 10 just to keep the challenge up.

I'm running a high level 1st Ed. game with my kids right now and I don't seem to have a problem challenging them. Of course, they're used to CR/EL stuff in 3e, so maybe they haven't realized that they don't have to run from the gargoyles...

Seriously though, it was quite a joy to sit down and have a full set of adventures (we're at about 10 four-hour sessions) in about 3 hours. Beat that with 3e! Don't get me wrong. I like the d20 system, but it was very refreshing to run an entire game from one 1e DM screen and a handful of notes.

 

[molonel]

I agree completely S'mon. I've run one high level (13+) 3E game, and played in 3 high level games, and things tend to fall apart rapidly after level 11-12. I think the main problem with 3E is the geometric power creep of characters with a strongly linear advancement rate. Things end up getting really wonky, and most PCs I've seen in 3E find a particular combination of abilites/weapons/spells and use it to the exclusion of all other ideas or strategies because the system encourages it through feats, spells, and synergies. The same holds true for monsters and NPCs, which means high level fights either drag on forever, or are over almost instantly due to insta-kill type spells and powers. I don't ever remember 1e or 2e being like this, and the core group of people I've gamed with over the years haven't changed much, and they have remarked how different things seem with 3E, so its the system.

I think some people's problem with running games about 12th or 13th level is that they assume they can run the same game they ran for the first twelve levels. That simply doesn't work.

I also think that a majority of the power creep comes from simply allowing players to use whatever supplements, feats, prestige classes or spells from whatever book they wish. I'm sorry, but I've never seen a core rules only game simply disintegrate into a nightmarish frenzy of powergaming, munchkiny glee after the odometer ticked over 13.

The system isn't the problem. Second Edition was just as bad for supplement creep, and worse, because it had more time to bloat. The judicious DM has to limit the use of game supplements in some sane fashion.

I think lost in the 2e v. 3e discussion (which has been quite civil, by the way) was Johnnie Freedom's main point -- Those of us who are yearning for a game more like the previous editions of (A)D&D are perfectly free to pull out the old books and use them.

I don't think that point was lost. I simply think it's so much of a given that it doesn't bear much discussion. Anyone with an Ebay account and the appropriate cash can play whatever game or version of the game they wish.

 

[Zappo]

Huh, I've played a campaign from 1st to 10th, and another from 10th to 20th, without noticing any serious breakage in 3E (ie, not to the point where it ruins the game). Unlike any of the previous editions, where I spent most of my time struggling to keep the system together to the point where the actual plot and characters had to suffer.

To Johnny Freedom: why don't you try creating and using a form of "simplified D20"? Getting rid of AoOs and reach should be enough to remove the "need for minis" (where this need is is beyond me, since I've never used them once, but still). Take away multiclassing, and you've erased 90% of the complexity of skills. Finally, take out monsters with classes and PrCs. If you want to go the extra mile, invent a workable unified mechanic for trip/disarm/sunder/bullrush/etc. By this time, you should have a very fast game while still retaining many of the benefits of D20.

 

[woodelf]

5.) Druids that are worthless, and have to fight to remain useless.

Huh. I played AD&D1, AD&D1+UA, AD&D2, and AD&D2+Complete..., and IME, the druid was, bar none, the single most-powerful class. They started out the most powerful, got even more powerful with the addition of UA, then were toned down significantly for 2e--to being merely slightly more powerful than the other classes. Oh, and were toned down a bit more for D&D3E, and yet a bit more for D&D3.5E, and only with D&D3.5E have they maybe fallen below average for power/balance. I certainly know in our D&D3E campaign, the druid was the most powerful of the PCs.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've never understood the 2e hate. I played basic, ADD 1e, ADD 2e, and now 3e. They were all fun, they all supported the same kind of play, and each version provided cool new options to keep it fresh. After a few games I knew all the rules pertinent to my character and I stopped noticing them. It's not like they were hard to understand, either. The balance thing was entirely moot: with a good DM each character got a chance to shine in his specialty. As for level limits, saying very race can be just as good at everything as every other race is just as arbitrary as saying they can't. Limiting paladins to humans made sense if you were taking your gaming concepts from fantasy literature. I guess what I'm trying to say is that all the problems people talk about didn't matter to me. I just wanted to play the game.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I've never understood the 2e hate. I played basic, ADD 1e, ADD 2e, and now 3e. They were all fun, they all supported the same kind of play, and each version provided cool new options to keep it fresh.

Well, my problem was, I knew 3e before I started playing 2e (OK, 2e was the first I ever witnessed, but that was in Baldur's Gate, and there you don't reall see the rules). I was always frustrated with a lot of things that were done, IMO, illogically, while there was a much better mechanic out there (The group I had at first consisted almost exclusively of "veterans"). I hated that I couldn't play a stealth-based character (who never ever stole from any person) without being branded "THIEF!!!!!!" (the exclamation marks and capital spelling were actually heard when they spoke). And people used that to have an excuse not trusting my character. And a lot of other things really.

 

[Li Shenron]

To Johnny Freedom: why don't you try creating and using a form of "simplified D20"? Getting rid of AoOs and reach should be enough to remove the "need for minis" (where this need is is beyond me, since I've never used them once, but still). Take away multiclassing, and you've erased 90% of the complexity of skills. Finally, take out monsters with classes and PrCs. If you want to go the extra mile, invent a workable unified mechanic for trip/disarm/sunder/bullrush/etc. By this time, you should have a very fast game while still retaining many of the benefits of D20.

I could not agree less with Zappo, as it often happens!

First time we played 3ed I was the DM and indeed the only one who owned the PHB . When I introduced the game to the players, I did the following:

- described races and classes by their role in the world and in an adventuring party, mentioning what kind of powers or abilities each of the race/class has (something like: Elf = agile but frail, very keen on archery and wizardry), but players found out the exact features only after choosing the race/class

- I didn't even bother mentioning anything past level 1, so players didn't even know multiclassing was possible

- almost all skills are self-explanatory, therefore I handed out the list and suggested they spent 4 points in each chosen skill, then added a few words on Spellcraft for the wizard only

- I suggested 4-5 feats for each character to choose from so they didn't have to read through all of them

- I didn't explain anything about combat until the first combat started

- I didn't tell the players about special attacks until some of them had the idea himself

(and now the rules semplifications part)

- we didn't use AoO for the first few fights; it worked fine but players noticed the archers were having an edge, and then I revealed the existence of AoOs and everyone agreed that it was a good idea; if you want to drop AoOs without helping archers and casters too much, try to introduce a minimum range of 10ft (1 square gap) for all ranged attacks & make it automatic to cast on the defensive from close

- we used to simply require always a standard action for each special attack (disarm, bull rush, grapple...), so that you couldn't do it more than once per round

- I used all the time the circumstance +2/-2 DM's trick to quickly adjudicate situations which I didn't remember, without having to look up the DMG for the official rule