Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imret" data-source="post: 2735637" data-attributes="member: 991">Wow. Quite a bit of material, and a dozen posts showed up while I was reading it. Some parts I agree with, other parts I don't, and I think Dr Awkward said what I was thinking. I'll quote the relevant portions.True, but at a certain point, this became limiting. There was a very small amount of flexibility in the character concepts presented to you that the rules would support, without invoking kits...and that just presented nightmares that the relative simplicity of modern multiclassing.And, most commonly, ridiculously high; the gap between levels in the teens was often several adult dragons or mid-range fiends, tackled alone.To a certain degree, that's true. Obviously the DM can do anything within his power to limit the profusion of magic items, but the CR system is balanced for a certain degree of magical wealth, and that's something that's giving me trouble.Anybody think they could link me to any old threads on the subject of re-balancing a game to smaller amounts of wealth? <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    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />The first part is blatantly untrue. The mechanics were haphazard, arbitrary, and flawed as a structure. So you're fighting with some orcs, longsword in hand...and you're disarmed (assuming you had the rules for disarming and the DM thought it was a good idea)! Quick, find the unarmed combat tables and start putting those awful rules to use while they hack you to death! As players demanded rules to cover new situations, new rules were introduced that had little or no connection to the previously published rules other than covering something they did not.The current incarnation, as Dr. Awkward among others have stated, is all those rules have been gathered up and viewed through the purifying lens of the d20 (excessive poetic license mine). Everything flows in the same direction - higher numbers are always better, modifiers + d20 vs target, and it's streamlined like a bullet. House rules can be whipped up in an instant with a common, easily-applied basis for them, rather than deciding on one of the various mechanics presented in 1e/2e.In the sense that the rules were typically non-existant or badly constructed, yes. It was a country so lacking in infrastructure as to be anarchic, as compared to the benevolent and elegant tyranny presented by 3.X. It may have its own way of doing everything, but as soon as you get used to, you'll find it's better for everyone involved.I don't see anything in the new rules that gets in the way of story or flavor.  The art in the new books seems geared to give new players a sense of the game while catching their interest. Once you're familiar with the game and use the book for rules reference, the art's just window dressing.I haven't seen this. Once the game is familiar too you - once you can see how the machine works inside - everything follows a very consistant logic.But once you know the details, balancing it is easier than 1e/2e AD&D, since it's no longer an art form but a rather simple equation. Anyone who understands the symbols can do an equation, but not everyone can scuplt the Pieta, to follow the metaphor too far.And that's fine with me. I appreciate what the good folks at those gaming tables and design meetings did to present 3.X to the world, but quite frankly, none of them sit at my gaming table. We want to play the D&D we like, which may bear little similarity to the D&D contained in the book besides relying on its basic rules set to start out from. But, in the same context, the RPG.Net poster is welcome to play whatever D&D appeals to them.Just my seven Canadian cents, allowing for inflation.</blockquote>

Verification