Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[billd91]

Artifact level sword? What does it do? How many primary powers and secondary powers did it have?

We don't know because JRRT never described them. Yet the blade was well known and managed to cut the finger off a demigod as well as survived 3000 odd years of wear and tear even while broken up. Surely it had some notable mojo.

Whatever powers it has should probably be subtle though. That fits in with the milieu better than flashy magic like with many D&D magic items. Some good pluses, make it keen, maybe increase some of the wielder's stats (particularly Charisma). Stuff like that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I.e., 1e was a "fighty miniatures game," but then Gary added in all this stuff about setting verisimilitude. 2e was also a "fighty miniatures game," but many books tacked on a lot of (IMO) BS about "storytelling" and equivocating combat with "bad roleplaying," not to mention the horde of settings published for 2e (again, the world-building angle).

3e, however, is a "fighty miniatures game," AND IT MAKES ALMOST NO BONES ABOUT THAT FACT.

I'd agree that editions 1-3 are fighty, but I'd strongly disagree with the idea that editions 1&2 are miniatures games.


RC

 

[buzz]

I'd agree that editions 1-3 are fighty, but I'd strongly disagree with the idea that editions 1&2 are miniatures games.

For the sake of not opening up that can of worms again, I'm using "fighty miniatures game" to simply mean predominantly focused on combat and tactical challenges. As opposed to, say, RPGs that provide mechanics for losing your humanity or how much you love your spouse. That's all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For the sake of not opening up that can of worms again, I'm using "fighty miniatures game" to simply mean predominantly focused on combat and tactical challenges. As opposed to, say, RPGs that provide mechanics for losing your humanity or how much you love your spouse. That's all.

Then, perhaps, "combat-focused" would be more accurate.

RC

 

[Psion]

I just mean you can't really play a Conan style game under standard 3e assumptions.

Maybe (though I'll renew my protestation that it doesn't take that much to get it there, though I'd agree you'd be swimming upstream less using Grim Tales or Iron Heroes or even, er, Conan.)

But my principal point is that "D&D" while, as written it only represents a subset of fantasy styles, can fairly do a LARGE number of them, so this isn't as damning as I think you want the statement to be.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'd agree that editions 1-3 are fighty, but I'd strongly disagree with the idea that editions 1&2 are miniatures games.

Well, given that in 1e movement and ranges are given in inches (for example), I think there is a good basis for calling that edition an overgrown miniatures game. Sure, you could play it without miniatures, but that is true of all editions of D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, given that in 1e movement and ranges are given in inches (for example), I think there is a good basis for calling that edition an overgrown miniatures game. Sure, you could play it without miniatures, but that is true of all editions of D&D.

1e states specifically that miniatures might help, but are not needed. I seldom used minis with 1e, and it was far easier to run combats under that system without minis than 3e.

 

[Shadeydm]

Games, by their nature, have rules. Any time you have rules, you will have people who try to run the ragged edge of those rules for their benefit. That's one way to have fun with a game. There really is nothing new here. If it isnt' new, it is unlikely to be the fault of the new edition.

Although it is tempting to to go on and on citing examples of how and why this edition of the game rewards and encourages this sort of behavior I will instead refer you to the "Character Optimization Board" on the WoTC DnD Website to make the case for me.

Every time I see someone post about how they want to make a fighter/rogue/barbarian/ranger/assasin/invisible blade/shadowdancer I have to swallow the bile rising in my throat.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

We don't know because JRRT never described them. Yet the blade was well known and managed to cut the finger off a demigod as well as survived 3000 odd years of wear and tear even while broken up. Surely it had some notable mojo.

I think it was just a +1 Keen Longsword that was wielded by the King.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Maybe (though I'll renew my protestation that it doesn't take that much to get it there, though I'd agree you'd be swimming upstream less using Grim Tales or Iron Heroes or even, er, Conan.)

But my principal point is that "D&D" while, as written it only represents a subset of fantasy styles, can fairly do a LARGE number of them, so this isn't as damning as I think you want the statement to be.

I don't want anything to be damning. AD&D, Or C&C for that matter have the same "limitations" in them. I've been playing D&D, and D&D variants, for 20+ years. I enjoy the D&Disms in all versions*, 3e went overboard in some areas but overall it is still a solid system for gaming.


*well save for 2e...