I Have A Problem With 3E

[RFisher]

I've always thought it silly that using a weapon two-handed gives a 1.5 strength bonus to damage.

My impression was that this was added to help mitigate the superiority of two-weapon fighting. (Among other things.) In 1e & 2e, using two weapons got you (potentially) 2x your Str damage bonus, while using a two-handed weapon only gave you 1x. In 3e, you get no more than 1.5x with either method.

(I played in previous edition games where you didn't get any Str bonus to damage for your off-hand, but I don't remember if that was ever an official rule or just a house rule.)

Of course, before messing with two-handed weapons they should've fixed the root cause of the two-weapon fighting problem: That an extra attack roll gives non-intuitable results that likely match no-one's idea of the effect two-weapon fighting should have.

 

[RFisher]

It'd seem to me that option would be good so long as you have non-munchkin players, but did it cause any unforseen side effects?

In my experience, when you let players freely pick their stats, they tend to choose lower numbers overall than if they'd rolled/bought them.

Perhaps it's that we don't want to remove any doubt that we're munchkins at heart. Perhaps it's that we don't want to be seen as abusing a privledge. In any case, it's weird but true.

Although, at this point I can no longer be surprised that someone else will have had a radically different experience than mine.

 

[Psion]

But, AaronL, the point is, if you allow die rolled characters, you wind up with characters with weaker stats and stronger stats.

If you have point buy characters will have weaker stats and stronger stats too. The stronger stats being those that the player believes will benefit the character. You are MORE free to do so in point buy than in rolled. If your lowest stat is a 12, you can't siphon it down to 8 to give you another +1 strength like you can in point buy.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If people are annoyed by point buy, I point out the fact that 75% of ALL D&D, past, present and future, suffer and tended to die way quicker than they should have all because of "best of worst" scores. Don't believe me? I have substative proof with my friend Mark. We've gamed since 86, and have done so with many editions. 75% of his character bit it in combat and/or bad rolls.

That's proof enough to me that Point buy has something going for it.

And proof for me that it doesn't.

Getting a character to high levels, in ANY edition of D&D should be a thing of pride, not an everyday thing. Only the strong survive. Or wise. Or agile, etc.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

4. Two-Handed Weapons
I've always thought it silly that using a weapon two-handed gives a 1.5 strength bonus to damage. Two-handed weapons already do more damage in the form of larger base die.

Silly? Try swinging a baseball bat one handed, then swing it with two. Or an axe. Or a stick. Now, if you don't like the extra damage getting out of control, that's a problem with the escalating ability scores of 3e, not the bonus to large weapons.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Sorry, that's a false dichotomy and I don't buy into it.

Except you apparently do, or your wouldnt be using a method that ensures inequality. Why should players have the opportunity for equal characters? All people arent created equal, and people dont learn the same things from the same experience. You dont want to recognize it because its the real flaw with random stats, and it exposes why its a bad idea. Hows that sand taste Mr. Ostrich?

Again, false dichotomy. And supposed on "grid methods you have seen", which may or may not be the one I am talking about.

My method is in no way shape or form equivalent to picking your stats. Indeed, it restricts picking of stats in order to force some compromise and foil min-maxing and pattern-think.

Which random rolling NEVER does, right? No one min-maxes with random rolls. And point buy never forces compromise?

I will not be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, thanks.

When you chose to drown the baby, you may as well...

 

[Dragonbait]

3. Synergy

Agree. However, this is more about the player/GM mentality. "If Wizards publishes it, it is in the campaign" thought process causes problems. Limiting the players to one or two books is a good idea.

4. Two-Handed Weapons

I said that floating shields do not exist in my campaign. It's not a perfect solution for the problem, but its a start.

8. Point Buy

I drop the rolling and keep the point buy method. I find that my players have a clear idea of a character that they are going to play before they make their character. Rolling would cause a lot of problems with this. Besides, I'm the same way with my NPCs. YMMV

10. Magic Item Creation

I've never had someone make a magical item, so I don't know the full extent of the rules. I know that I'd say that even if they spend all their XP, they won't lose skill points, hit points, and so on. A quirk in the system, I know.

 

[Psion]

Except you apparently do,

No. I don't. I'll be the judge of what I buy into, thanks.

What you are suggesting is that because I find some randomness needful and tolerable, total randomness is needful and tolerable.

False dichotomy. Nice try, no cookie. I can select a middle ground. You are not empowered to decide what I believe in, an I am telling you most explicitly, I do no support the other extreme.

Not supporting your extreme does not mean or imply that I support the other extreme. That's just a cheap rhetorical device you using. Clear?

Which random rolling NEVER does, right? No one min-maxes with random rolls. And point buy never forces compromise?

Boy, you really insist of pulling out false dichotomies and strawmanning every chance you get, don't you? Why don't you try confronting my actual position instead of manufacturing one that I don't hold.

I never said there was no min-maxing. In fact, I never said min-maxing is inherently bad. Some is tolerable and expected. A fighter should have stats conducive to physical combat.

Every fighter should not, IMO, be a cookie cutter optimum configuration having scraped his perceived less important ability scores.

Random rolling limits the opportunity to min-max. Sure, you can put your lowest score in charisma. But you can't pull even more points out of your lowest score to pile on your strength because you don't think this DM will make it important.

 

[Aaron L]

I've never had someone make a magical item, so I don't know the full extent of the rules. I know that I'd say that even if they spend all their XP, they won't lose skill points, hit points, and so on. A quirk in the system, I know.

Well, you can't lose a level spending XP on magic items. You can go down to the base for your current level, but no further. So you don't have to worry about that

 

[Lanefan]

Same is true when it's back to the old "save or die" spells, effects and other things. I just don't see that combat being 99%. 75% certainly, possibly as high as 85%. But in between there are save and die effects, effects that can permanent disable if not outright disperse a character from play. (Recalls the one time my friend tried to ignore a power check in a Ravenloft game, ended up a pawn of the Dark Powers and had to get a new character.)

We're talking about dead, not alive-but-unplayable. I've never had a PC die of natural causes. Combat, yes; friendly fire, yes; assassination, poison, long falls, psyonic effects, sheer stupidity, and a bunch of other things all yes; but never anything simple like old age. (enemy spellcraft counts as "combat" in my books)

As for making a character unplayable...well, the options are endless. Capture by enemy, arrest by law enforcement, limb loss, loss of mind, domination...yeah, the list goes on.

Lanefan