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

[JoeGKushner]

Well, technically, it was an innovation when the Rolemaster people did this. They also scooped d20 with the stacked multiclassing that you like in 1987 (Rolemaster Companion 2, page 11).

Considering the amount of crossover between Rolemaster and D20 (in terms of systems and designers), I think it's safe to say that this isn't a coincidence. It's one of many places where d20 borrowed from RM rather than being innovative.

I believe Monte Cook who worked on RM (including the awesome Dark Space), may have had a hand or two in that no?

Worst thing they borrowed from RM though was the level vs CR chart. Ugh. Still hate that bastich. Hope that it goes to a XP for Monster = X, not cross reference level vs CR.

 

[molonel]

Would it surprise you if I said there are things from 3e that I use when running classic D&D? Indeed, when I run any game I draw from my experience with all the other games I've played. I'm not here to bury 3e, a game that still lives on my shelf & that I happily play & enjoy. I'm here to discuss all editions of the game, as well as the hobby in general.

No, it wouldn't surprise me at all, because the skill system in 3rd Edition is superior in every way to the skill systems of 1st Edition.

I used to look for weaknesses, & I found many. I've learned to--at least to some extent--take things as they are & try to understand why they are as they are. I find fewer weaknesses now.

That's nice. Truly. But then again, I wasn't arguing that you should find weaknesses when you don't want to. Rather, I'm arguing with the folks who say the weaknesses aren't there.

Is it a weakness of 3e that it allows greater mechanical customization of the PC? No! Is it a weakness of previous editions when they didn't? No! This isn't a zero-sum game. One game's strength is not another game's weakness. 3e & classic D&D had different design goals. So, they do things differently. This doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

Sorry, I'm not in the PC "Nobody is better or worse, we're all just different!" camp. There are some things that 3rd Edition does extremely well, and does better than 1st Edition. There are also some notable weaknesses in 3rd Edition which I've already discussed, and continue to discuss.

If you aren't willing to accept the game's premises, then you aren't going to enjoy it no matter what the game is. Not even 3e is premised on you being able to create any character you've ever found in a book.

Part of my problem is that 1st Edition AD&D doesn't even fulfill its own premises, sometimes. There is absolutely no logical reason that it should fail in some of these things other than its own rules, and some of those rules are silly and contrived.

Earlier in this discussion, someone said, "Oh, so you're actually talking about what happens if you follow the rules! Okay! Gotcha!"

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

Ugh. When the game descends into detailed rules for things like this, I start yawning. I'd prefer to handwave that kind of thing. Put me in the "secondary skills don't need detailed rules" camp.

We're not talking about detailed rules. They don't have ANY rules. Zero, zilch, nada. Not even a one-line description for randomly rolled skills. You have as much chance of being a pastry chef as what you want.

 

[Janx]

It makes balancing classes (not that real balance is ever possible) that much more difficult with out unified XP charts. It makes more sense to simply make a class weaker than make it take longer to reach the next level.

I think I concur.

If all classes advance at the same rate, I can ignore XP table as a vector to balance the class design. Otherwise, it is an additional factor to consider in designing a class.

I take it as a 3e design goal that assuming the same stats, same level, one class should not have a large advantage/disadvantage over all other classes. Though a rock/paper/scissors synergy may be allowed for.

By assuming every PC gets the same XP, advances at the same rate, I can more easily (sort of) compare my new class to other classes to check for balance.

Please note, I'm not getting into what balanced means, let's pretend the designers had a few thoughts on that, and attempted to stay in bounds.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

We're not talking about detailed rules. They don't have ANY rules. Zero, zilch, nada. Not even a one-line description for randomly rolled skills. You have as much chance of being a pastry chef as what you want.

I just let the player pick, based on his background. And whether it's pastry chef, hunter, fisherman, leatherworking, or weaponsmith doesn't matter much, most of the time. That kind of thing is (ahem) secondary to the game, IMO. :shrugs: Different approaches. I'm way over on the "classes" end of the classes vs. skills continuum.

 

[molonel]

I just let the player pick, based on his background. And whether it's pastry chef, hunter, fisherman, leatherworking, or weaponsmith doesn't matter much, most of the time. That kind of thing is (ahem) secondary to the game, IMO. :shrugs: Different approaches. I'm way over on the "classes" end of the classes vs. skills continuum.

I think I'll just stick with 3rd Edition where an elf could play a ranger without the DM having to make everything up on the fly, instead.

It makes more sense, that way.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think I'll just stick with 3rd Edition where an elf could play a ranger without the DM having to make everything up on the fly, instead.

Okay.

My solution would be to just let the elf play a ranger, and go with the class abilities.

 

[Gentlegamer]

How good is the character at making bows? Is he just better than those who are untrained at it, or is it impossible for others without the secondary skill to even attempt? How long does it take? What equipment does he need to do the work? What supplies does he need? How much does the equipment and supplies cost? Can he make any kind of bow, or just one or two types? Can he make money making bows? How quickly and how much can he make?

I'd rather play Dungeons & Dragons than Bowyers & Bowstrings.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'd rather play Dungeons & Dragons than Bowyers & Bowstrings.

And yet, somehow, this system that you tout, and which the DM is supposed to make up on the fly, is supposed to paper over the weaknesses of the 1e clarr/race restrictions. If you don't want to bother with secondary skills, why did you bring them up as a "solution".?

(Furthermore, how much effort would it have required to answer these questions in the DMG or PHB? A couple pages to cover all of the secondary skills? Gygax spent more time describing how tall an opponent a monk could use his unarmed attack ability against, or providing a random dungeon generation chart than he did on describing what the secondary skills meant, and how they might be useful).

 

[BroccoliRage]

Just noticing:

It seems to me, as I compare my 1e and 3.5 player's handbooks that one could easily port the 1e exp tables over to d20.

 

[Crothian]

Just noticing:

It seems to me, as I compare my 1e and 3.5 player's handbooks that one could easily port the 1e exp tables over to d20.

Ya, but it messes up other things like multi classing and ecl.