Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="harmyn" data-source="post: 2738213" data-attributes="member: 13511">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.</blockquote>

Verification