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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rex Blunder" data-source="post: 4231239" data-attributes="member: 60850">I actually think that 3e had a lot of GOOD rules.I have no problem with 25% of commoners having the same number of hit points as a pane of glass.Most of the time, D&D 3.x rules lead to good gameplay - better than many more realistic systems. Sure, it breaks down catastrophically under any number of thought experiments: many involving HP (are they largely morale - a highlevel warrior can take many hits - or are they meat - cure light wounds fix physical wounds? Why can a low-constitution sage with 20 ranks in a knowledge skill necessarily beat a 1st-level fighter in a longsword duel?), but some involving commoner railguns, infinite travel via a line of horses, etc. But at the table, it works most of the time, and where it doesn't, everyone agrees to look the other way, or we make a joke and move on. That's how we always played 3.x at my table. 3.x rules are not a good simulation of anything, and they're certainly not internally consistent. If that's your goal, you either should be disgusted with 3e or you have to wear blinders.But it's worth it, because 3e's many abstractions, shortcuts, and ridiculous assumptions add up to a great game, that has entertained me and my friends for years.Voss, you don't have to like or use the minion rule. But I wish you wouldn't claim that it's worse than any number of 3e rules. Is it REALLY worse than the sage beating the fighter in the duel? No - they both require a handwave or a lame justification. But who cares? These situations occur a LOT more on message boards than during actual D&D play.</blockquote>

Verification