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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Droogie" data-source="post: 411805" data-attributes="member: 1298">Ok. My take.For the most part, I would just want some rules clarifications. There are easier ways to explain the attack actions/partial actions/full actions junk, and AoOs were explained beautifully in the revised Star Wars and CoC D20 books. The writing in the D&D 3e core books is unrefined, and could use a complete rewrite. CLess feats. Simpler AoOs. As mentioned, combat gets unwieldy at high levels. Could use some pruning. I'm not a fan of the Vancian magic system either, but the new (albeit superficial) explanation of how magic works in 3e- preparation as opposed to memorization- and the addition of the sorcerer class have me satisfied.... for now.And speaking of classes, we could tweak some of them, certainly, but I'm not a big fan of shrinking the number of classes down to four or even three. If you're gonna do that, you might as well chuck all the classes and go completely skill-based. My first thought when I first read 3e was "if this game were class-based, it would fit in one frickin' book! IMBECILES!".But the traditionalist in me eventually won out; if this game is still gonna be called "D&D" I would like to see a nice buffet of core classes. I like the HP system. Its abstract and fast. Same goes with the current armor system. "Armor= DR " would be more realistic, I suppose, but the current system plays quicker- last thing I wanna do is add more number-crunching at high levels when the system is already sagging under the weight of 1000 feats. And keeping track of armor and weapon HPs as well as creature HPs and called shots and what-not -  its a no-brainer task for a CRPG, but a pain in the ass for pen/paper. Thanks, but no thanks. I like to keep thing fast and playable as opposed to realistic, but its a matter of preference.edit: crap grammar</blockquote>

Verification