Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2738200" data-attributes="member: 32740">Warning!  Long!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.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.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.Clearly untrue/anecdotal as I've done just that through every edition I've played.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.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.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.True.  Previous versions completely lacked the tools and cohesive rules that could faciliate the DM's balancing of encounters on a reliable basis.Strike that.  Reverse it.  Encounters were less predictable and FOR THAT REASON instant death was more common.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.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.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.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.But there were kits which, though clearly having a different implementation, were very similar.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.True, but a fairly meaningless distinction.True.  The new emphasis on varied combat tactics tends to account for a fair amount of that.True.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.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. True.Anecdotal, except for 3E striving for greater tactical richness which is quite apparant.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.Pretty much have to agree with this one.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.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.Tish, pshaw.  Balance means diddley.  Always has.  It is NOT a friggin' competition - it is a cooperative game, DM included.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.</blockquote>

Verification