Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geoffrey" data-source="post: 400786" data-attributes="member: 764">I understand now, Merric! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> But these big stat blocks in the appendix is still something you never saw in TSR's OAD&amp;D modules. The OAD&amp;D modules didn't merely relegate big stat blocks to the back of modules for the simple reason that big stat blocks were utterly nonexistent.Why, then, does 3E/d20 have lots of stats and OAD&amp;D has few? I think the biggest culprits are skills and feats. IMO, the essential genius of D&amp;D is the fact it is based on classes. This was watered down in several versions:post-Gygax 1st edition: Nonweapon proficiencies were added in the DSG and the WSG.2nd edition: Nonweapon proficiencies were added to the core rules (though were labeled as optional).HackMaster: Skills are in the core rules and are not labeled optional, though they can easily be ignored.3rd edition: Skills and feats are so integral to this game that I think the game couldn't be played without them (especially skills).Skills/proficiencies/feats/whatever necessitate more stats. More stats means more factors to consider when running combat. It's all too complicated for my taste. I prefer straight character classes with no skills and such muddying the waters.&quot;But what if the character tries to do something not addressed in the rules?&quot; That's what good DMing is for. D&amp;D was played for over a decade before skills started creeping in. We had a great time. Those who wanted skills played GURPS. (To me, skills in D&amp;D make as much sense as character classes in Call of Cthulhu.)If WotC ever publishes a 3E Lite (no feats and skills, just a handful of classes with pre-selected abilities), then I'll carefully consider it. There are several things about 3E that I find attractive (the more rapid level-gain being one of the foremost), but the complexities of 3E as it stands turn me off.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geoffrey, post: 400786, member: 764"] I understand now, Merric! :) But these big stat blocks in the appendix is still something you never saw in TSR's OAD&D modules. The OAD&D modules didn't merely relegate big stat blocks to the back of modules for the simple reason that big stat blocks were utterly nonexistent. Why, then, does 3E/d20 have lots of stats and OAD&D has few? I think the biggest culprits are skills and feats. IMO, the essential genius of D&D is the fact it is based on classes. This was watered down in several versions: [B]post-Gygax 1st edition[/B]: Nonweapon proficiencies were added in the DSG and the WSG. [B]2nd edition[/B]: Nonweapon proficiencies were added to the core rules (though were labeled as optional). [B]HackMaster[/B]: Skills are in the core rules and are not labeled optional, though they can easily be ignored. [B]3rd edition[/B]: Skills and feats are so integral to this game that I think the game couldn't be played without them (especially skills). Skills/proficiencies/feats/whatever necessitate more stats. More stats means more factors to consider when running combat. It's all too complicated for my taste. I prefer straight character classes with no skills and such muddying the waters. "But what if the character tries to do something not addressed in the rules?" That's what good DMing is for. D&D was played for over a decade before skills started creeping in. We had a great time. Those who wanted skills played GURPS. (To me, skills in D&D make as much sense as character classes in Call of Cthulhu.) If WotC ever publishes a 3E Lite (no feats and skills, just a handful of classes with pre-selected abilities), then I'll carefully consider it. There are several things about 3E that I find attractive (the more rapid level-gain being one of the foremost), but the complexities of 3E as it stands turn me off. [/QUOTE]

Verification