D&D 3.0/3.5 is the Greatest! But How Come... ?

[Azlan]

oh, and as for the title or this thread

Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

And you're an active member, with over 2000 posts, at a D&D 3.0/3.5 message board because... ?

 

[Mystery Man]

they still use Fort save, will save, reflex save

they still use hit dice, hit points, class, race, alignment,etc...

these are elements of the game. if you want to exclude those terms that is fine. but when the core rules use them it is a "Common" Tongue so all will understand.

oh, and as for the title or this thread

Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

.......

LORAINNNNNNNE!!!

 

[Henry]

And you're an active member, with over 2000 posts, at a D&D 3.0/3.5 message board because... ?

Because he still plays d20 - he just never misses a chance to remind everyone of his One True Love.

Regarding Game grids: I can definitely see play without it, and as someone else said, 2E played well enough without it - the only problem is the players do have to work a little harder to make sure that feats like spring attack, combat reflexes, and mobility get their proper due. On a grid, this is easy - In our FR Game, we have an Orc Bard with a spiked chain and combat reflexes - he can't sing worth a darn, but he can obliterate an army flank of charging monsters like you wouldn't believe. But in a more abstract system, it can be easy to slight these abilities, given the alarming number of times they can come up. If you know your players, it's easy - but in a mixed group that does not know each other well, arguments on spatial position can be more common.

 

[Azlan]

Regarding Game grids: I can definitely see play without it, and as someone else said, 2E played well enough without it

Yes, that point has been brought up more than once, here, but I think it's irrelevant when you consider the vast differences between the 2nd Edition and the 3.0/3.5 Edition rules. So, while it was pretty easy to play 2E without the use of miniatures and grid maps, playing 3.0/3.5E without those implements is not so easy (though, of course, it *is* possible).

 

[Henry]

As I was saying, it is the feats like Combat Relexes, Whirlwind Attack, and Mobility, as well as Op Attacks, that make the biggest differences. Fewer rules on combat options mean one of two things:

1) More boring combats.

2) More embellishments and creative license from the players.

For those who have invoked creative license with 2E, 3E's options may feel as if it takes that creative license and invokes a straightjacket on it, forcing it to take very specific patterns. (So, is an Op Attack invoked when you're swinging past the guards on a chandelier, or not?)

 

[just__al]

If you try to make my game so gamist as to call units of motion something so abstract as "squares", particularly when I wont touch a combat grid with a 10 foot pole, I would stop playing DnD.

Don't you mean a 2 square pole?

 

[Tsyr]

Don't you mean a 2 square pole?

shudder

 

[Gez]

"Square pole" is not a pole, but a plank.

A quick question: How would you call squares that are not square, but of indefinate shape ? Looking in a dictionary I see box, compartment, hut, pigeonhole and square, but no one seems appropriate.

 

[Tsyr]

"Square pole" is not a pole, but a plank.

A quick question: How would you call squares that are not square, but of indefinate shape ? Looking in a dictionary I see box, compartment, hut, pigeonhole and square, but no one seems appropriate.

Just as it is impossible to stand 7 feet away from someone in 3E, so too is it impossible to have a shape that is not a square.

 

[diaglo]

Don't you mean a 2 square pole?

i thought that was a square peg to fit into that round hole.