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

[Shadeydm]

And deciding which flavor of elf you want to play, and deciding if you want to play a cavalier or fighter/magic-user or you want to try one of the other Unearthed Arcana classes.
QUOTE]

The notion that you equate this to Pun-Pun and friends amuses me to no end.

 

[Storm Raven]

Don't misunderstand me if a players says man I have always loved Ninjas and want to play one, I am totally cool with it. But the notion that a ranger/fighter/barbarian/hulking hurler/order of the bow iniatiate/assasin is somehow reasonable logical or about anything other than number crunching really baffles me.

How about a fighter/ranger/barbarian/bard/cleric?

Or a rogue/ranger/fighter/wizard?

Because I know some fantasy authors who would take issue with you on combinations like those.

Of course, a ranger/fighter/barbarian/hulking hurler/OoBI/assassin is a pretty weak character mechanically, so there is generally no number crunching reason to make one. Which makes one wonder why you dislike these sorts of things other than some sort of antipathy for the newfangledness of the 3e multiclassing system.

 

[molonel]

And deciding which flavor of elf you want to play, and deciding if you want to play a cavalier or fighter/magic-user or you want to try one of the other Unearthed Arcana classes.

Or using the 1st Edition AD&D Oriental Adventures, or Double Weapon Specialization from Unearthed Arcana, or the UA Barbarian, or articles snipped from Dragon Magazine which included new spells, new magic items, or new races like the half-ogre.

C'mon! This is just goofy to argue that people didn't powergame like mad fiends in earlier editions of the game.

I knew people who could tick off on their fingers the gods they'd killed in 1st Edition. I knew one kid who had Thor's Hammer, belt and gauntlets, Stormbringer, the Ring of Kings and that little triangle of stone from some Chinese deity that you could turn into any weapon you wanted.

 

[Crothian]

I knew people who could tick off on their fingers the gods they'd killed in 1st Edition. I knew one kid who had Thor's Hammer, belt and gauntlets, Stormbringer, the Ring of Kings and that little triangle of stone from some Chinese deity that you could turn into any weapon you wanted.

/raises hand

We so did that.

 

[Storm Raven]

The notion that you equate this to Pun-Pun and friends amuses me to no end.

The idea that you think Pun-Pun is a playable character is amusing in and of itself.

But the idea that you don't see the inherently unbalanced nature of a gray elven cavalier tells me that you don't remember the rules of the 1e system very well. And you don't even have to work very hard to get to the point where you have made every other character (except the "appearing-in-the-same-supplement-but-virtually-unplayable" barbarian) completely obsolete. Unlike somehting like Pun-Pun, which requires work, pulling material from several supplements (and using material together that you have to gloss over rules problems to make work together), in 1e, you just made sure to pick the obviously more powerful options laid out for you.

 

[Shadeydm]

Or using the 1st Edition AD&D Oriental Adventures, or Double Weapon Specialization from Unearthed Arcana, or the UA Barbarian, or articles snipped from Dragon Magazine which included new spells, new magic items, or new races like the half-ogre.

C'mon! This is just goofy to argue that people didn't powergame like mad fiends in earlier editions of the game.

I knew people who could tick off on their fingers the gods they'd killed in 1st Edition. I knew one kid who had Thor's Hammer, belt and gauntlets, Stormbringer, the Ring of Kings and that little triangle of stone from some Chinese deity that you could turn into any weapon you wanted.

That is Monte Hall DMing which can occur in any edition, we are talking about if 3.xE DnD lends itself to or evn encourages Knight/warlock/fighter/invisible blade/dervish/ninja/shadowdancer PCs because i sure didn't see any walking around in ADnD.

 

[Brimshack]

He, we used to kill a god a game for awhile in 1st edition. When I got my own campaign in order, it included a full page of boosts for the gods. Did the same for dragons.

 

[thedungeondelver]

How about a fighter/ranger/barbarian/bard/cleric?

Or a rogue/ranger/fighter/wizard?

Because I know some fantasy authors who would take issue with you on combinations like those.

That's a bit of a faulty argument; D&D isn't a fantasy literature simulator, it is a fantasy trope simulator.


I'm quite sure I could find some fantasy characters that even the current incarnation couldn't simulate without DM fiat, fudging and all that.

It's like when people get their panties in a wad over the AD&D ranger, claiming that hey, Aragorn didn't cast magic missile or do this or do that...and that's why it (the class) isn't called "Dunedan" or "Tolkien Ranger" or "Ranger of Arnor"...there are aspects of the "Ranger" as envisioned by Tolkien in the class. There are also aspects of the classical European "Woodsman" type persona, and some things thrown in that are purely Gary's own inspired work.

What a poor game D&D would be - in any edition, by any name - if it merely aped others' work!

 

[Crothian]

, we are talking about if 3.xE DnD lends itself to or evn encourages Knight/warlock/fighter/invisible blade/dervish/ninja/shadowdancer PCs because i sure didn't see any walking around in ADnD.

Those options for the most part were not there. So, it's a moot point.

But 3.x doesn't lend itself to that type of gaming. I've never seen anything like that and I play quite a biut. Now, there are players that will play that kind of character. But in claiming the game lends itself to that character it must cause people who wouldn't play that way to play that way: and it does not.

 

[Shadeydm]

The idea that you think Pun-Pun is a playable character is amusing in and of itself.

But the idea that you don't see the inherently unbalanced nature of a gray elven cavalier tells me that you don't remember the rules of the 1e system very well. And you don't even have to work very hard to get to the point where you have made every other character (except the "appearing-in-the-same-supplement-but-virtually-unplayable" barbarian) completely obsolete. Unlike somehting like Pun-Pun, which requires work, pulling material from several supplements (and using material together that you have to gloss over rules problems to make work together), in 1e, you just made sure to pick the obviously more powerful options laid out for you.

How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.