Assess this chap's position (3.0 and older versions)

[danzig138]

That's why we had Dungeon Masters. They ran the game. They used creativity! It was cool. In 3.X, the DM has been reduced to "rules-interpreter" rather than true "dungeon master".

You know, I can't help but think that you're trying to be funny here, and that you don't actually fell this way. Cause if you do, then the only response I can think of is what a load.


And later, you post more stuff that is fecal in nature. You know what? Screw it. It's not worth the effort. You go beleive in your world.

 

[Umbran]

This assertion is flatly untrue.

Dude. Chill. Everybody ought to chill. Chill is good. Hot and bothered is not...

We speak the most varied, poetic, and expressive tongue ever devised by man. This also means it is the one most apt to misreading. Rather than badger about how it's technically incorrect, consider the possibility that it isn't so much an assertion of literal truth as hyperbole to make the point. How about asking if, indeed, the author meant that as literal or figurative, hm?

 

[Umbran]

Everyone knows that the old white wolf games are for the real artists.

Piffle. One has not seen true rules-lawyering and munchkinism until one has seen a master of the art at work in the White Wolf systems. Both a glory and a terror to behold, it is.

 

[Testament]

Piffle. One has not seen true rules-lawyering and munchkinism until one has seen a master of the art at work in the White Wolf systems. Both a glory and a terror to behold, it is.

Hail to the Tremere. All the powers of every other clan, but better!

 

[Crothian]

Piffle. One has not seen true rules-lawyering and munchkinism until one has seen a master of the art at work in the White Wolf systems. Both a glory and a terror to behold, it is.

I know, but some people don't seem to think that all types of gamers can be found playing all types of games. So, I'm just going with the true cliches and not the made up ones here.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Warning! Long!

In pre-3.0 editions of D&D the emphasis was on party interdependence and cooperation, rather than on individual flexibility and empowerment.

Not true. This is an anecdotal/personal perception. 3.0 ENABLES emphasis on individuality rather than party (and it is unfortunately facilitated by WotC) but the rules in and of themselves make no emphasis either way.

Multiclassing was greatly restricted and often not worth the tradeoffs, so archetypes were much stronger.

Have to agree there - but the statement is clearly implying something that simply is not true. Earlier versions were excessively restrictive of multiclassing (or at least they did not handle it as well as it is currently) but this was really not by intent to make it UNappealing to multiclass (or why would it be possible in the first place?). Much of it had to do with greatly mistaken notions of game balance.

It took more XP to level; XP came 10% from fighting and 90% from treasure taken, so with a frugal/stingy GM it could take a long time to level.

3E is different enough from earlier systems that their XP systems CANNOT be directly compared. They simply do NOT have the purposes, mathematics, related rules in common that allow it. They can ONLY be examined in light of the system in which they EXISTED.

You generally could not buy/sell magic items.

Clearly untrue/anecdotal as I've done just that through every edition I've played.

You also couldn't make your own unless you were high level, and it was difficult enough most people didn't bother.

True. Magic manufacturing "RULES" didn't really exist to any meaningful degree until very late in 2nd Edition with the publication of the Book of Artifacts (IIRC). The entire process was essentially left to the DM to make up as he needed/desired.

Nowadays magic items are a dime a dozen, easy come easy go, like Christmas presents you don't want so you exchange them and buy what you DO want. The joy is gone, replaced with greed.

Sadly, I have to agree. But this change has come about as much because it has been ALLOWED to come about, and less because it was particularly intended that the fun be bled out of magic item acquisition/creation/use/ownership.

There was no real balance built into the game

VERY true - but again the statement is misleading. It was REPEATEDLY stated over different version for many years that many of the most annoying, stupid (and commonly ignored) rules were in existence to enforce balance. They most certainly DIDN'T do anything of the kind, but it was the specific intent and assertion that they did.

balancing encounters and rewards as a DM was an art form acquired through experience.

True. Previous versions completely lacked the tools and cohesive rules that could faciliate the DM's balancing of encounters on a reliable basis.

Instant death was more common and encounters less predictable.

Strike that. Reverse it. Encounters were less predictable and FOR THAT REASON instant death was more common.

Where in 3.X it is generally easier to survive lower levels but harder to survive high levels, in earlier editions low levels were deadly but if you survived to high level survival became easier.

Again anecdotal. I have seen that survival is easier in 3E at low levels - but I think this is because encounters are more predictable. Aside from that the longer a character survives, the more levels he has, the more survivable he is in general, regardless of the version of the rules being used.

Characters were career-oriented. You chose your class (or multiclass combo) at first level and generally stuck with it to death.

The career orientation of characters is a function of player desires and DM campaign foci - NOT the rules version in use. Just because the games he plays in don't do so anymore doesn't mean that it disappeared because the rules made it happen that way.

See above regarding multiclassing.

Basic mechanics were pretty similar, but much simpler.

True only in part because of a poor choice of wording. 3E is definitely more a more complex system as a whole - but the "mechanics" are simpler NOW, not then.

No feats, no skills, combat was far less tactical (no AOO for example).

Feats is an added complexity, true. Skills were widely implemented in 2nd Edition and in 3E are presented in a superior manner. Not perfect perhaps but better than it had been. Combat IS much more tactical.

No prestige classes.

But there were kits which, though clearly having a different implementation, were very similar.

The overall power curve was considerably lower, but balanced for lower numbers.

Again, 3E CANNOT be directly compared because the systems simply do not have enough points in common to enable direct comparisons to be meaningful. Their functionality can ONLY be examined in light of the systems that they are directly tied to. Hit points, hit probabilities, damage from attacks, healing rates, etc. simply CANNOT compare directly from 3E to earlier versions. Everything from magic items and standardized equipment values to every monster being revamped to conform to new combat mechanics makes those things incomparable.

Ability scores did not improve as you gained levels.

True, but a fairly meaningless distinction.

The spell list was shorter and quirkier, with fewer "buffing", "scrying", and "summoning" spells. No spontaneous magic at all; no sorcerers.

True. The new emphasis on varied combat tactics tends to account for a fair amount of that.

Certain minimum levels of magic equipment were not assumed in class balance, and many campaigns were far less magic-rich than the default 3E campaign.

True.

There were no NPC classes.

Laughably untrue/inaccurate. PC's were restricted in race and class combinations as well as levels. NPC's were less so. Specific NPC-only classes may not have existed as such but there were "0-level" NPC's and various henchmen/hirelings that were turned into those NPC classes. And unofficially there were repeated publication of NPC-only classes in Dragon magazine.

There were no real monster templates, and monsters did not have class levels. All monsters used d8 hit dice, and did not get bonuses from ability scores (ability scores were not even listed for monsters.) Monster PCs were rare and generally based on house rules.

It's true that the very concept of "templates" had not been invented prior to 3E. Ability scores WERE listed but only to a very limited extent as the very concept of what monsters WERE simply did not include full ability score stats.

And I would definitely not call Monster PC's rare. Uncommon perhaps. It is definitely true that a lot of changes made in 3E were done to ACCOMODATE the growing popularity of monsters-as-PC's.

Compared to 3E, older versions delivered a similar experience but would be "rules light" by comparison.

True.

The experience was more party-oriented rather than character-oriented. The game strove more for story and flavor rather than tactical richness

Anecdotal, except for 3E striving for greater tactical richness which is quite apparant.

the rules were originally designed to "stay out of the way" and leave room for role-play and creativity, although many (if not most) players didn't seem to get this concept.

Ha! The earlier rules were not designed PERIOD. They were a hodge-podge, contradictory, often ill-fitting or poorly conceived Frankenstein's monster of cobbled-together rules from all over. "Designed" indeed. The very CONCEPT of what the game was about, what role the rules should/did play in it and how specific rules could/should be used wasn't exactly graven in stone. One example would be alignment. What Gygax/others thought it's purpose was and how it should be implemented in the game is quite different from how it is viewed now. Another example would be how the skill system came to be introduced and the changes it has seen across versions to what it is now.

The game generally had a more "historic medieval" feel in presentation and artwork, whereas the new game has a more Warhammer-esque "dungeonpunk" feel with tattoos and spikey armor and leather strappy outfits and attitude.

Pretty much have to agree with this one.

it has lost a lot of the flavor and quirkiness and charm of the original.

Say rather that the failure to encourage imagination and "making the game your own" has had a greatly deliterious effect upon how many people percieve and play the game.

Speaking of which the older editions, while giving fewer toys to the players, were MUCH easier to DM. Less prep time, less work running the game, less record keeping, less work to keep balanced.

I never spent a lot of prep time in eariler editions. I don't spend any more/less in 3E - but then I don't allow myself to be a slave to The Rules either.

The new game is finely balanced but you have to pay attention to the details to make the balance work

Tish, pshaw. Balance means diddley. Always has. It is NOT a friggin' competition - it is a cooperative game, DM included.

in the older game, once you got the feel of it, things were intuitive and you could gloss over 99% of the rules and just make it all up. (Yes you can do that in the new game too, but if you do that you're not playing 3.X as written and as intended, your playing old D&D with a different ruleset, just like if you whipped up a dungeon crawl in GURPS)

Total crap because the same applies to every ruleset of D&D (and there were some famous quotes regarding "You're not REALLY playing D&D" in older versions that are being conveniently forgotten.


The whole thing is a carefully (or is it carelessly?) phrased anti-3E pile, not an attempt at a genuinely objective comparison.

 

[harmyn]

There's some truth to this, of course, but you'd have to agree that certain games encourage certain behaviors. D&D 3.X tends to encourage power-gaming, character optimization, and magic item creation/accumulation.

Not only don't I have to, I don't.

First I must state that Psion, you are in denial. I am not going to claim that 1st and 2nd edition modules weren't treasure laden, they were. But to claim that D&D 3.x and its library of books containing feats and prestige classes printed by both WotC and other d20 publishers along with the chart in the DMG that flatly tells the DM what wealth levels players are expected to have at given levels to have balanced encounters in an unbalanced CR monster system.

You might claim that CR's are not unbalanced but merely require a skilled hand to use them properly. To prove my point I give you the Hell Hound and Wyrnling Red Dragon. They are the same CR BUT the dragon has more Hit Dice, more powerful breath weapon, better armor class, better attack bonus, and better stats --- but they are considered equally dangerous? Don't buy it. Same thing about a level 10 figther vs. a level 11 warrior. NPC classes are considered a CR 1 less than their class, PC classes are considered a CR of their class, which would you prefer to fight a 10d10 fighter w/ bonus feats or the 11d8 warrior w/o the benefit of bonus feats? An honest answer shows the flaw here. Bring on the 12th level commoners (the highest class typically if you use their town creation guidelines).

THACO involved subtraction. Not a big deal but it is an extra step. But so is applying Power Attack or Combat Expertise modifiers to your attack rolls and varying them until you come up with the golden number for a given encounter. So that balances out.

Grappling/Pummeling charts were crazy, but they were also on the DM screen (as opposed to pix of miniatures), Unarmed Strike w/o the "Improved" feat instead provokes an AoO which will also slow the game down a moment as the DM must track who has used what in terms of that particular thing. 3.x Grappling involves the AoO unless you have the feat, then a touch attack, then an opposed roll, and if other feats are involved then Grappling can become very screwy. This isn't really any easier IMHO than looking at a chart in front of you.

Old saves were a strange chart. Oddball. New saves tend to make more sense in some ways but I think there should be a fourth "Luck" styled saveand they should be three tiered and not just two (that is entirely my own humble opinion though). But you were rolling high and it was never a question where a save fell. There were enough options to find one with only a half-second's thought. Still I give you the saving throws.

Someone mentioned that it would be hard to play in a game where its own creator didn't agree with all the rules in it and would have liked it done differently in some ways in retrospect. I'm guessing he avoids anything from Monte Cook then.

Attributes are actually a closer throw-back to the classic/basic/expert era, they are better now.

The MUCH VAUNTED all-in-1 d20 mechanic is my biggest complaint. Its not. Rolling to stabilize - 10% or less. Attacking an Invisible target or in the dark 50% chance to miss, feat allows a reroll of the percentage chance. And did you actually read over all the turning rules as relates to a d20 roll? These are off the top of my head as far as unification goes. What is the unified # for a standard success? There isn't one. Each one of the 40+ skills works in a different way. They all involve ranks+attribute bonus+feat bonus+synergy bonus 'cause you won't take the other skill unless we give it to you+d20 roll. But the determining chance of success varies with each skill. Some are opposed, some are opposed with other things giving a bonus "just cause it makes sense" (this would be feinting). This doesn't take into account feats which change things around and affect the way some skills work. You can take 10 or take 20 except when you can't because of stress and danger (accept in combat when the opponent's defense is actually a default take 10 option, ditto that for combat spell saves --- there are options to remove this but now the roll is the optional approach and not the standard).

There is oh so much more, but this seems like a good sampling of oddball bits.

The old editions are far from perfect, but the d20 "core mechanic" is not perfect by a long shot. And don't get me started on the arguments about NPC Classes and Core Classes and Prestige Classes.

And finally if no one is alllowing their players to use all these books that are being churned out because the so many people claim to carefully control the books they allow in, then who is actually buying them?

Sorry for the rant, but 3.x editions are far from the elegant and simple mechanics that you claim.

If you are looking for that go check out White Wolf, WEG's D6, or FUDGE (just off the top of my head). They at least really do deliver what you claim the 600+ pages of core rules that D&D now provides.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, my point was that statements like that are entirely subjective. In point of fact, I find (and apparently a few others do, as well) that the 1e combat rules are easier to use than the 3x situation-specific feats.

That is probably because you didn't actually use the 1e combat rules. You probably used a simplified version that discarded much of the text of the rules. How many people used the actual 1e initiative rules? Or the weapon speed rules? Or the weapon vs. armor type rules? Or the limitations on the use of shields? Or the limitations on the use of Dexterity? Or the charging rules? Or the rules concerning helmets, including the vision limitations they imposed? And so on and so forth. How many people used all of these rules?

If you didn't, you weren't using the 1e rules.

That is, the practicality of said rules depends entirely upon who is applying them. Anyhow, up until now, that's not what was said. What was said was that the AD&D 1e unarmed combat rules rules were...

This assertion is flatly untrue. You know, given that some people used them (and that some people still do). And you can say that "depends on perception" is a weak argument, but it's true. It's a fundamental fact of life - opinions differ and no given opinion is right or wrong when it comes right down to it (right and wrong are qualifiers that can only be attached in good faith to conclusively proven facts).

I know of no actual people who used the unarmed combat rules, ever. I played 1e for close to a decade, on three continents, in seven different countries, with dozens upon dozens of gamers. No one ever used the written unarmed combat rules. Given that you misquoted how the rules worked in your initial post in which you brought them up, I'm guessing you didn't either. Not even Gygax used the unarmed combat rules found in the DMG, he considered them to difficult for actual use in play. My statement may have been a slight exaggeration, but not much more than a slight one. No one I know used them. You didn't use them either, your own post belies this fact. The actual evidence concerning the number of people using them thus far is "zero".

 

[Psion]

First I must state that Psion, you are in denial.

That's nice. Beleive what you want. If you are so invested in the propaganda that you can come to me with a straight face and say that, I don't think my time would be well spent trying to disabuse you of it.

I am not going to claim that 1st and 2nd edition modules weren't treasure laden, they were.

Sentence 1: I am in denial
Sentence 2: But I am not all that wrong...

But to claim that D&D 3.x and its library of books containing feats and prestige classes printed by both WotC and other d20 publishers along with the chart in the DMG that flatly tells the DM what wealth levels players are expected to have at given levels to have balanced encounters in an unbalanced CR monster system.

Um, you say "but to claim" and then follow it up with a string of text that has no claim in it. Put down a claim you think I am making and I'll let you know whether or not it matches what I am actually claiming.

And on a side note, is strawmanning on the rise on these boards or is it just me?

And on a side note part 2: was I even discussing CRs in this thread? Not that I don't think they are a useful tool and an attribute of the game that is clearly an improvement over prior editions, but it seems like it is not responding to anything I said.

You might claim that CR's are not unbalanced but merely require a skilled hand to use them properly. To prove my point I give you the Hell Hound and Wyrnling Red Dragon. They are the same CR BUT the dragon has more Hit Dice, more powerful breath weapon, better armor class, better attack bonus, and better stats --- but they are considered equally dangerous? Don't buy it. Same thing about a level 10 figther vs. a level 11 warrior. NPC classes are considered a CR 1 less than their class, PC classes are considered a CR of their class, which would you prefer to fight a 10d10 fighter w/ bonus feats or the 11d8 warrior w/o the benefit of bonus feats?

So? Was I ever holding the position that the NPC CR determination method was without flaw? No I wasn't. And I don't hold that position.

If you want to argue with me so bad (and you seem to want to), you might try bringing up a point I disagree with.

THACO involved subtraction. Not a big deal but it is an extra step.

Again, I keep looking less wrong...

For someone who is in denial, you are sure ceding a lot of my would-be points.

But so is applying Power Attack or Combat Expertise modifiers to your attack rolls and varying them until you come up with the golden number for a given encounter. So that balances out.

I'm not sure what it balances out. I've never had any problem using power attack, nor have my players. Unlike THAC0.

Grappling/Pummeling charts were crazy, but

"But..."

Who's in denial here?

I never used the grapling rules as is but as a curiosity (as seemed to be the case with all other GMs I knew), and when d20 based rules showed up in the dragon, they were immediately substituted.

Unarmed Strike w/o the "Improved" feat instead provokes an AoO which will also slow the game down a moment as the DM must track who has used what in terms of that particular thing.

I am not seeing this as an impedement, and to exclude it would be a SoD-shattering exclusion. And it's still much easier than the old pummeling tables.

Old saves were a strange chart. Oddball. New saves tend to make more sense in some ways

More ceding my position. Once again, the question of who is in denial comes to mind.

but I think there should be a fourth "Luck" styled saveand they should be three tiered and not just two (that is entirely my own humble opinion though).

I wouldn't see a problem with that (in fact, my current game uses three tiers as it taps in the the d20 modern rules being a Second World game. And my original 2e/3e hybrid that I spun up before I woke up to the reality that 3e was really much easier to use featured a "fortune" save based on charisma. But now we are talking house rules and hence, digressing.)

But you were rolling high and it was never a question where a save fell.

Yes there were. There was a heirarchy that you had to follow with the old saves. If you didn't understand it, there were questions.

Attributes are actually a closer throw-back to the classic/basic/expert era, they are better now.

More ceding to my point, danke.

The MUCH VAUNTED all-in-1 d20 mechanic is my biggest complaint. Its not. Rolling to stabilize - 10% or less. Attacking an Invisible target or in the dark 50% chance to miss, feat allows a reroll of the percentage chance. And did you actually read over all the turning rules as relates to a d20 roll? These are off the top of my head as far as unification goes.

Heh. Not winning any points here. This seems a bit of a false dichotomy. So, d20 isn't used for all things. This does not alter the fact that there is still a consistent method of using these two:
1d20 + mods for situations in which modifiers normally apply
d% <= TN for situations in which there are normally no modifiers.

This stands in stark contrast to the old method where you have percentile low for theif skills, d20 low for proficiencies, d10 low for speed, d10 high for surprise (was shifting die types in 1e!), etc.

The old editions are far from perfect, but the d20 "core mechanic" is not perfect by a long shot.

Not perfect. Just much better.

And finally if no one is alllowing their players to use all these books that are being churned out because the so many people claim to carefully control the books they allow in, then who is actually buying them?

Er, huh? Not getting your point here. Sounds like you have a beef with the public fora, not the game itself.

Sorry for the rant, but 3.x editions are far from the elegant and simple mechanics that you claim.

That I claim and that you halfway cede in every paragraph of your refutation. Who is in denial again?

If you are looking for that go check out White Wolf, WEG's D6, or FUDGE (just off the top of my head). They at least really do deliver what you claim the 600+ pages of core rules that D&D now provides.

Again, if you want to refute my claims, start by refuting claims I actually make, and stop with the strawmen and false dichotomies. Thanks.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I disagree.

The greed aspect is a player thing, not a game thimg. Greedy players are greeding in whatever game they play, and ungreedy players are ungreedy in whatever game they play.

Mechanics are now simplier as everything is d20 + X instead of table looking high good for this, low good for this, d20 rolls for this percentage rolls for this...there didn't seem to be must rhyme or reason for the differences in the older editions but thenew games makes sense for the choices.

Prep time for d20 is easy once you learn the rules. I took over a camapgin today and ran a session with zer o prep time based on my knowledge of the system. NPCs, opponents, all of that was easy to do on the fly and fast.

Everything is d20 + X eh?

How does a dying character stabalize?