If there was one thing about 3rdE that you could change, what would it be?
- Thread starter Theuderic
- Start date
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
I agree completely with making the flavor rules optional.
I would also like to have more cutomization possibilites with the classes....
I really like what you can do with a fighter and I feel it would be cool to do the same with, for example, paladins, rangers or monks.
I would also like to have more cutomization possibilites with the classes....
I really like what you can do with a fighter and I feel it would be cool to do the same with, for example, paladins, rangers or monks.
Bryan Vining
First Post
Um, yeah, I already understand all that
Uh, folks, I get the abstract damage system. No need to explain it to me. I've read lots and lots of pages about it in rulebooks and magazines. That it leaves a gap in the rules still remains.
I agree that a 10th level fighter will be much better at dodging death-dealing attacks than a 1st level fighter. That is, indeed, in the spirit of the game. That's what this character has been training with for years.
However, I'd like to see some designation of where a weapon hits. It just rubs me the wrong way to simply say "You take 25 ponits of damage." Yes, I can (and have) made up the damage locations and types of wounds myself, but I see no particular reason that something like that couldn't be included as a variant.
The point remains that someone might, under certain circumstances, want to target a particular part of someone's body. The arrow through a 10th level fighter's neck fired by an orc is a bit tenuous because it would almost never happen. Most orcs would be woefully unskilled at making such an attack (I would assess a -12 penalty for that shot, providing the fighter was moving), and they'd know it. However, a 12th level halfling rogue ought to have some chance of pulling such an attack off. It would still be a difficult thing to do (especially if the fighter is wearing a great helm), but it shouldn't be impossible. For this particular case, I'd stipulate that a nat 20 doesn't automatically hit.
Uh, folks, I get the abstract damage system. No need to explain it to me. I've read lots and lots of pages about it in rulebooks and magazines. That it leaves a gap in the rules still remains.
I agree that a 10th level fighter will be much better at dodging death-dealing attacks than a 1st level fighter. That is, indeed, in the spirit of the game. That's what this character has been training with for years.
However, I'd like to see some designation of where a weapon hits. It just rubs me the wrong way to simply say "You take 25 ponits of damage." Yes, I can (and have) made up the damage locations and types of wounds myself, but I see no particular reason that something like that couldn't be included as a variant.
The point remains that someone might, under certain circumstances, want to target a particular part of someone's body. The arrow through a 10th level fighter's neck fired by an orc is a bit tenuous because it would almost never happen. Most orcs would be woefully unskilled at making such an attack (I would assess a -12 penalty for that shot, providing the fighter was moving), and they'd know it. However, a 12th level halfling rogue ought to have some chance of pulling such an attack off. It would still be a difficult thing to do (especially if the fighter is wearing a great helm), but it shouldn't be impossible. For this particular case, I'd stipulate that a nat 20 doesn't automatically hit.
KnowTheToe
First Post
Pricing is climbing too high, but quality has climed as well.
My official vote is not enough pictures of D size breasted women in almost no clothing. Did they forget about their 1st ed. roots?
My official vote is not enough pictures of D size breasted women in almost no clothing. Did they forget about their 1st ed. roots?
Re: Um, yeah, I already understand all that
That sort of thing undermines the rationale for the hit point system. Consider what happens if you're _not_ making a called shot to a particular location. What does that 25 points of damage represent, then?
Further, the rules at the moment represent the fact that you're _always_ trying to get the best possible shot in. You might be going for the head one moment, then an arm the next moment, or a leg immediately after. Having rules to target specific parts of the body for extra damage is contrary to that fundamental assumption; if you're not going for the head, arm or leg, what exactly are you doing?
The 12th level rogue gets +7d6 sneak attack, which is quite enough to get the fighter's attention. If he gets a full attack in, he gets to do it twice, or three times with Rapid Shot. That should take care of the fighter quite nicely.
Now what I _would_ like to see is the whole rogue class reconceptualised so that sneak attacks _aren't_ an exclusive feature of the class. Ideally, _everyone_ should be able to get this sort of attack off, if they choose the right feats or specials. At the moment, D&D is in the odd situation where the supposed-fighting specialist, the fighter, can be outdone when it comes to taking someone by surprise. Exactly what niche the modified rogue would fill is an exercise left to the reader.
Bryan Vining said:
That sort of thing undermines the rationale for the hit point system. Consider what happens if you're _not_ making a called shot to a particular location. What does that 25 points of damage represent, then?
Further, the rules at the moment represent the fact that you're _always_ trying to get the best possible shot in. You might be going for the head one moment, then an arm the next moment, or a leg immediately after. Having rules to target specific parts of the body for extra damage is contrary to that fundamental assumption; if you're not going for the head, arm or leg, what exactly are you doing?
The 12th level rogue gets +7d6 sneak attack, which is quite enough to get the fighter's attention. If he gets a full attack in, he gets to do it twice, or three times with Rapid Shot. That should take care of the fighter quite nicely.
Now what I _would_ like to see is the whole rogue class reconceptualised so that sneak attacks _aren't_ an exclusive feature of the class. Ideally, _everyone_ should be able to get this sort of attack off, if they choose the right feats or specials. At the moment, D&D is in the odd situation where the supposed-fighting specialist, the fighter, can be outdone when it comes to taking someone by surprise. Exactly what niche the modified rogue would fill is an exercise left to the reader.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Something minor, I suppose; I like almost everything the way it is. Maybe taking Darkvision (or LLV; whatever it is they have) away from Half-Orcs.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I'd get rid of the feat system. Put some of them back in to the releveant classes as class abilities. For example at 1st level a Fighter would get +1 to hit with a chosen weapon, then +2 damage at 4th to show the effects of weapon focus and specialization. The ranger would get similar with a bow. This would get rid of all the variable mods like expertiese and simplify the battles, make them more abstract I suppose. The last thing D&D needs IMO is a detailed combat system. It should be quick and fun to let the group focus on the adventure.
jmucchiello
Hero
I think this is the first time I've seen someone complain that the game had too much variation and customization. Most people complain that Fighters have all of this customization and yet every Paladin is basically identical. Anyone else lament that the game allows too much variation?Flexor the Mighty! said:
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Apok said:
See, I just don't understand this. D&D is about anything but moral relativism; it's about the struggle between good and evil if it's about anything. There are plenty of games out there without alignment, and those are the ones most suited to "shades of grey" play. Besides, one could ignore the alignment system if they wanted without having to do too much in the way of house rules.
