Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3927493" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm neutral as well, although I tend to come down more on the positive side than negative just because I like to argue.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Take the whole flavour issue.&nbsp; 3e's flavour was locked incredibly tightly into the rules.&nbsp; Wealth/level, CR/EL predictions, demographics, buy and trade of magic items, just to name some of the biggies.&nbsp; What 3e didn't have in core was any actual flavor to go with all that crunch.&nbsp; So, it looked like you could do all these weird and wonderfully different campaigns with D&amp;D 3e right out of the box.&nbsp; Until, that is, you actually tried to run campaigns which deviated from baseline norms.&nbsp; Suddenly vast swaths of problems crop up.&nbsp; Go too low on magic items and casters dominate.&nbsp; Lower the powers of casters and you suddenly make the game so lethal at higher levels that it's unplayable because you don't have healers.&nbsp; Allow the clerics to get their healing spells and something else goes screwy.&nbsp; On and on.D20 can be used to do all sorts of wierd and wonderful games.&nbsp; 3e D&amp;D can't.&nbsp; Not without lots and lots of rewriting.&nbsp; Heck, in the other thread, I brought up Oriental Adventures - 300+ pages of rules that entirely rewrote the classes, spells, alignment, monsters, equipment and feats.&nbsp; Is that really D&amp;D anymore?&nbsp; Maybe, but, it's certainly not core D&amp;D.&nbsp; Mongoose's Conan is not D&amp;D.&nbsp; It uses d20, but, it's NOT D&amp;D.&nbsp; Trying to port a Conan character into a straight core D&amp;D game would be difficult to say the least.The flavor arguement is one I honestly understand the least.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3927493, member: 22779"] I'm neutral as well, although I tend to come down more on the positive side than negative just because I like to argue. :D Take the whole flavour issue. 3e's flavour was locked incredibly tightly into the rules. Wealth/level, CR/EL predictions, demographics, buy and trade of magic items, just to name some of the biggies. What 3e didn't have in core was any actual flavor to go with all that crunch. So, it looked like you could do all these weird and wonderfully different campaigns with D&D 3e right out of the box. Until, that is, you actually tried to run campaigns which deviated from baseline norms. Suddenly vast swaths of problems crop up. Go too low on magic items and casters dominate. Lower the powers of casters and you suddenly make the game so lethal at higher levels that it's unplayable because you don't have healers. Allow the clerics to get their healing spells and something else goes screwy. On and on. D20 can be used to do all sorts of wierd and wonderful games. 3e D&D can't. Not without lots and lots of rewriting. Heck, in the other thread, I brought up Oriental Adventures - 300+ pages of rules that entirely rewrote the classes, spells, alignment, monsters, equipment and feats. Is that really D&D anymore? Maybe, but, it's certainly not core D&D. Mongoose's Conan is not D&D. It uses d20, but, it's NOT D&D. Trying to port a Conan character into a straight core D&D game would be difficult to say the least. The flavor arguement is one I honestly understand the least. [/QUOTE]

Verification