Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="maddman75" data-source="post: 2046293" data-attributes="member: 2673">Okay <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />For me, here's what 3e got right- The multiclassing rules!  Finally, no more having to plan multiclassing from first level, no lame excuses for why an elf couldn't decide to become a thief, and why a human couldn't start as a fighter/mage.- Cyclic initiative, one less thing I have to roll for.- Feats and PrCs.  These serve an important function - premade 'slots' for expansion material to go into.  This is much less disruptive to the game system over time than adding whole new rule subsets.- Consistant ruleset.  No more roll high for this, low for that, d20 for this, d100 for that, d6 for this weird racial ability.- A skill system that made sense.  The proficiencies were wonky and inconsistantly applied to various AD&D rules.- Full abilties for monsters.- Less arbitrary unfun rules, like a chance to die everytime someone cast Haste on you.Here's what it got wrong, that 1e did better- Not enough flavor to the rules.  The 1e PHB is entertaining, if dense, to read.  THe 3e PHB is like reading stereo instructions.  The game rules are mostly rock solid, but they aren't as evocative.- Stat blocks that are short and sweet.  3e benefits from having fully detailed monsters, but could greatly benefit from some mook rules.</blockquote>

Verification