A thing about d20 D&D I didn't like, and still don't know why it was done...

[Mark CMG]

Ehm... ask me what?

Nevermind. It's not a question for you, it was a question for molonel that he would rather not address, and that's just fine, too, as it was only asked in passing and not meant to derail the thread. Consider it withdrawn.

 

[molonel]

That is something else I don't get. Why so many people thought you were "locked into" some preconceived character concept. I played a number of various characters with the same class, and they were all very different. So how so many people seem to think that is something I don't get. Feats, and skill selections do not make your fighter all that different from every other fighter. Plus I often see people selecting the same feats, because those are the best feats. So what ends up being different? On paper, a few feats may be different. Maybe. But what is different about the character? From what I have seen? The same thing that has always made a given character unique, how the player played/portrayed the character. Feats, skills, and magic items don't make a "character" any different than they have ever been in previous editions, except in purely mechanical ways. The heroic and extrememly honorable warrior/mage/thief/Druid/et al... is the same "character" in every edition of the game. The cleric that bends over backwards to help the poor and downtrodden is tha "same character" in every edition of the game. So please, explain to me how "mechanics" equals "role playing"? I see how rules facilitate certain role playing "actions", such as swinging across the room on the chandelier. But that was a "Dex check" in my games in past editions. Or to tumble past some enemies to get to another part of the room, but again, that was a DEX check in my games in previous editions. So feats and codified rules allow for "every" DM to know how to handle such things in a consistant manner. But to say that todays classes are better for roleplaying? That I have yet to see.

If the mechanics of the game dictate, as they did in the 1st Edition PHB (prior to Unearthed Arcana) that only humans could be rangers, or paladins, or druids, then you cannot play Legolas or anything like him. Yes, you could play an elven fighter that was good with a bow, but if you wanted him to have sharp eyes, or sneaky skills like a ranger, then you're out of luck. Mechanics can and do effect characters, whether you like it or not. Dwarven paladin of Moradin? Tough luck. Elven druid? Oh well, better luck next time. Third Edition places certain constraints on this sort of flexibility, as well. The Grey Mouser would be very conceivable as a human, or an elf, or a halfling, but not a dwarf or half-orc because of racial class limitations.

Third Edition gives you more options out of the box with less divine intervention from the DM. It's not a perfect game, but it does that better than 1st Edition. A roleplaying game that forces me to be a pawn, or a rook, or a bishop because of "the party is the protagonist" is trying desperately to compensate for an evident weakness.

Mechanics do not equal roleplaying, but they are related. If they weren't, then we'd all be playing freeform roleplaying games.

Mechanics can improve roleplaying, or hurt it. 3rd Edition makes certain types of roleplaying more difficult to achieve. Low magic games are one of those, for example.

 

[Nikosandros]

Now, this is a point I really have to follow up on. How exactly do you believe 3e like a video game ? Which kind of video game? I'd ask the same of your 1e comparison. There is an incredible breadth of difference between different games of each type in my experience.

I was completely kidding...

 

[Treebore]

If the mechanics of the game dictate, as they did in the 1st Edition PHB (prior to Unearthed Arcana) that only humans could be rangers, or paladins, or druids, then you cannot play Legolas or anything like him. Yes, you could play an elven fighter that was good with a bow, but if you wanted him to have sharp eyes, or sneaky skills like a ranger, then you're out of luck. Mechanics can and do effect characters, whether you like it or not. Dwarven paladin of Moradin? Tough luck. Elven druid? Oh well, better luck next time. Third Edition places certain constraints on this sort of flexibility, as well. The Grey Mouser would be very conceivable as a human, or an elf, or a halfling, but not a dwarf or half-orc because of racial class limitations.

Third Edition gives you more options out of the box with less divine intervention from the DM. It's not a perfect game, but it does that better than 1st Edition. A roleplaying game that forces me to be a pawn, or a rook, or a bishop because of "the party is the protagonist" is trying desperately to compensate for an evident weakness.

Mechanics do not equal roleplaying, but they are related. If they weren't, then we'd all be playing freeform roleplaying games.

Mechanics can improve roleplaying, or hurt it. 3rd Edition makes certain types of roleplaying more difficult to achieve. Low magic games are one of those, for example.

So your talking about people who actually followed the rules! OK, I can see those arguments. Just I was lucky enough to never have a DM who let rules get in the way of playing a good character.

I think we all ignored race/class limitations, for the most part. I remember a DM who would not allow dwarves, Gnomes, or Halflings to be a Paladin. I also remember one who did follow the race/class level rules, because that is the only way they could see elves and dwarves not ruling the world, because they have centuries to gain levels. Still a very valid thought in 3E, except that everyone can become epic level before they hit the age of 20.

Still, those were not the "classes" themselves that limited you. Those were "racial" limitations. But yeah, taken as a "complete rule set", and actually being followed, I can see how people were definitely limited. But to say it was all because of the "classes", no, those alone did not limit anyone.

The "other" rules, such as the race and sex descriminations (can't be this class, can't go above this level, can't have a STR above 18/50, etc...) is where the real limitations came in.

Guess I was just lucky that I ran into, and was one of the, DM's who ignored all those "stupid and unfair" rules. Heck, many of us had "skill rules" and rules for increasing stats.

I think I have now remembered why I took so long to switch to 3E. It wasn't that big of an improvement over mine and Doug's house ruled 2E games. I guess it was the positive AC values and simpler save rules that finally convinced me/us it was worth it.

 

[Storm Raven]

Third Edition places certain constraints on this sort of flexibility, as well. The Grey Mouser would be very conceivable as a human, or an elf, or a halfling, but not a dwarf or half-orc because of racial class limitations.

Which racial class limitiations would those be?

Mechanics can improve roleplaying, or hurt it. 3rd Edition makes certain types of roleplaying more difficult to achieve. Low magic games are one of those, for example.

Actually, I find low magic games easier to do in 3e. Since the game desiners tell me up front what assumptions they used, I have a good idea what making changes to the assumed magic level of the campaign will do. Older editions didn't give me the baseline, so it was more of a pain in the rear to make such adjustments in a productive manner before one was very familiar with the system.

 

[Treebore]

I have to agree that 3E makes "scaling" things much easier to see and do.

 

[molonel]

So your talking about people who actually followed the rules! OK, I can see those arguments. Just I was lucky enough to never have a DM who let rules get in the way of playing a good character.

Yeah.

I think I have now remembered why I took so long to switch to 3E. It wasn't that big of an improvement over mine and Doug's house ruled 2E games. I guess it was the positive AC values and simpler save rules that finally convinced me/us it was worth it.

And I completely understand that reasoning. I have a friend who will probably never switch to 3rd Edition because her heavily modified 2nd Edition game is more personalized and more preferable to 3rd Edition. It's HER game more than 3rd Edition will ever be. She acknowledges the problems in the 2nd Edition rules set, and simply corrected them.

Which racial class limitiations would those be?

A dwarven rogue with a level or two of wizard could not rise above 2nd or 3rd level without acquiring XP penalties. Same thing with a half-orc of similar build.

Actually, I find low magic games easier to do in 3e. Since the game desiners tell me up front what assumptions they used, I have a good idea what making changes to the assumed magic level of the campaign will do. Older editions didn't give me the baseline, so it was more of a pain in the rear to make such adjustments in a productive manner before one was very familiar with the system.

I'm just trying to be fair about addressing 3rd Edition's weaknesses, as well. I have more than enough experience to do the same thing, at this point, but out of the box, the underlying assumptions of 3rd Edition make low magic games difficult. I think Conan d20, or Iron Heroes does a much better job and with less work.

 

[Storm Raven]

A dwarven rogue with a level or two of wizard could not rise above 2nd or 3rd level without acquiring XP penalties. Same thing with a half-orc of similar build.

That is not a limitation however. It is a hindrance, which is not quite the same thing. You could make a dwarven or half-orcish gray mouser using the standard 3e rule set, you would just have a minor experience point penalty.

 

[Campbell]

I was completely kidding...

Alright. Guess I took the bait there. Curiosity sometimes gets the better of me.

 

[molonel]

That is not a limitation however. It is a hindrance, which is not quite the same thing. You could make a dwarven or half-orcish gray mouser using the standard 3e rule set, you would just have a minor experience point penalty.

A hindrance doesn't limit you?