I'm done with 3.5

[Mark CMG]

Well, I'm done with D&D 3.5

Keep the core rule books for when you want to pick it back up. There will likely be lots of people who can easily jump into a game when you get bored.

 

[buzz]

Sorry, buzz, but if the suggestion of "a simpler core with supplements to add complexity" is going to split the audience, then it seems likely that the audience is already split.

100% wrong.

A player using a PC built using only the PHB and one using everything but the PHB can play in the same game with zero problem.

In Imaro's model, a player using a basic, no-AoO version and one who wants to use an "advanced" AoO-included version are playing different games, and cannot function in the same group together unless one concedes their ruleset to the other... or the DM tries to accommodate both of them, thereby making his job harder.

 

[buzz]

Through time he may find sites on the internet, free adventures...whatever, but I'm talking about playing the game as is presented in the core alone.

Right. What I'm saying is that this hypothetical newbie has not only a phat book on DM'ing at his disposal, but also 8,947 adventures that not only eliminate any need to build things from scratch, but also provide examples of how D&D is supposed to work.

Right...because all the complexities I listed don't start at 1st level(AoO, buffs, combat maneuvers, spells, feat interaction, etc.) and DM'ing at first level never involves multiple opponents with multiple abilities.

1st level PCs, and the kinds of monsters they will encounter, have access to only a subset of the total D&D package. They'll have only 1-3 feats each, a couple skills, a couple spells (and almost none of the buffs), no iterative attacks, and very few if any special abilities that add complexity (like DR and SR).

And I don't see how the model I suggest in any way, stops you from playing the game you want to and giving those who want something else their piece as well.

I'd rather D&D focus on being a single ruleset. I think it makes both business sense and design sense. If people want alternatives, there are more out there than you shake a stick at.

 

[prosfilaes]

The issue people have with 3.5 D&D is they take every book ever created as being rules they need to honor.

It's not that simple, though. My problem is that the books that are problematic are the Complete *, the PHB2, the Races of *, Spell Compendium and BoED. They open up so many options that you don't want to leave them out, especially as many character types really need them. A character with a vow of poverty or a multiclassing spellcaster depend on at least one of these books to make the character viable. Having played with many of those books, tossing them out seems so limiting.

Heck, you can design your own D20 system pretty fast. If you sit down with other players and see what they like and dislike I bet you can hash something out in a month.

You can mod any system pretty fast. But a lot of people want to play, not mess with systems. And there's no way you could produce Arcana Unearthed or Evolved in a month; if you want a full new system that's not D&D, you're going to either have to put serious work into it (as in, far more than a night a week for a month), or go with one of the many systems that are out there. If you're getting really tired of AOOs, you can play around with a system that makes combat really abstract, or a world that really discourages combat and a system designed around that world. There's lots more options than D20.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
Sorry, buzz, but if the suggestion of "a simpler core with supplements to add complexity" is going to split the audience, then it seems likely that the audience is already split.

100% wrong.

A player using a PC built using only the PHB and one using everything but the PHB can play in the same game with zero problem.

Countless threads and posts to the contrary, right? We shall just ignore them and say that the point is 100% wrong. One could say the same about all of the kits and options of 2e, if one simply ignores all evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, we will ignore the obvious: that the DM buying or not buying into all of those books largely determines whether or not they get used. Which is exactly the same as if there was, say, a tiered system of complexity, moving from a Core level to more complex skill and combat resolution. In fact, to some degree, this is already true. UA, for example, offers several ways to compled up both skill and combat resolution. Odd how that didn't fracture the community.

In Imaro's model, a player using a basic, no-AoO version and one who wants to use an "advanced" AoO-included version are playing different games, and cannot function in the same group together unless one concedes their ruleset to the other... or the DM tries to accommodate both of them, thereby making his job harder.

Or the DM makes a decision as to which is easier for the DM and the game rolls on.

Hey, same as all the options in the AU!

 

[Jupp]

To the OP: I suggest you take a close look at C&C.

Just last weekend I had my first session with the group. We play since 15+ years (1e >2e >3e) but last weekend was more or less the best gaming experience we had since years. The rules are superfast to understand and easy to use. Character creation took about 2 hours including equipment and a first primer about the rules. The players do not have a PHB, just an single-sided A4 sheet where the rules where printed on, and they only asked for it a couple of times to review a class specific rule here and there during play time. But aside from this the 6 hours of the game session was filled with pure gaming. No rules discussions, no confusions, no time sinks. In fact I havent seen them so concentrated and enganged since a long time.

For me as the DM C&C is good in two ways. First, I can run adventures from all editions and convert stats on the fly. For me this is quite important because it does not make my D&D collection worthless just because I switched to another RPG.

Second, the players can full concentrate on the adventure instead of looking through the rules all the time to prepare for the next encounter/task.

 

[buzz]

Countless threads and posts to the contrary, right?

WTF? Where?

I'm running an Eberron game right now that has both a kalashtar psion with substitution levels and non-PHB feats AND a gnome evoker who, other than one reserve feat, is all PHB. Are you telling me I'm imagining this?

Seriously, where are the threads that talk about how, e.g., someone's whisper gnome dragon shaman made the grapple rules stop working?

Moreover, we will ignore the obvious: that the DM buying or not buying into all of those books largely determines whether or not they get used.

Some of the PCs in my Eberron game are using feats and spells from books I don't own. Again, are trying to tell me I'm imagining that our game has worked fine?

Which is exactly the same as if there was, say, a tiered system of complexity, moving from a Core level to more complex skill and combat resolution.

Not really. In this case, there's an actual mechanical impediment to a player using a "rule module" that I as DM have not implemented in the game. E.g., the player can't take an AoO if I haven't added the AoO "module" to the campaign. In the current setup, there is nothing mechanically preventing a player from using a feat I may never have seen before.

In fact, to some degree, this is already true. UA, for example, offers several ways to compled up both skill and combat resolution. Odd how that didn't fracture the community.

UA is a single book marketed as a collection of alternate rule systems, none of which have been used in any other D&D products published by WotC. A good chunk of them also cannot be implemented without fundamentally changing the system. E.g., you can't have one PC use WP/VP and another use hit points in the same game, or one person use hexes with facing and another squares with no facing.

The dumbest thing about this whole line of argument is, again, these needs are already being met by a host of publishers: True20, C&C, Perfect20, etc. The vocal minority that clamors for this stuff is already being incredibly well-served.

 

[Raven Crowking]

WTF? Where?

You are claiming that there are neither threads nor posts aplenty discussing problems with various add-on books, or using various add-on books within the context of a game?

Or do you think that your Eberron game somehow qualifies as universal experience?

Not really. In this case, there's an actual mechanical impediment to a player using a "rule module" that I as DM have not implemented in the game. E.g., the player can't take an AoO if I haven't added the AoO "module" to the campaign. In the current setup, there is nothing mechanically preventing a player from using a feat I may never have seen before.

Did you add the optional "psionics" module to your campaign?

If the feat deals with organizations, don't you need to add the optional "organizations" module for the feat to work?

The vocal minority that figures that the current edition is the be-all-and-end-all and must not be questioned or criticized may be well served. And they sometimes seem pretty bent out of shape by the idea that anyone might want a D&D game that serves their needs, unless it be the current one.

Essentially, "If you don't like the current offering, switch to something else, but please don't ask WotC to change the game to meet your needs."

Yeah, right.

 

[Raven Crowking]

E.g., you can't have one PC use WP/VP and another use hit points in the same game

BTW, as a house rules test, I did exactly that, and had no difficulties whatsoever.

 

[buzz]

You are claiming that there are neither threads nor posts aplenty discussing problems with various add-on books, or using various add-on books within the context of a game?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The issue of whether, say, the knight class is well-designed/balanced/whatever has zero to do with whether it actually changes the game or not. It doesn't.

Did you add the optional "psionics" module to your campaign?

Basically, no. The player essentially added it by saying, "I'd like to play a psion."

Essentially, "If you don't like the current offering, switch to something else, but please don't ask WotC to change the game to meet your needs."

Hyperbole.

If you feel there are ways D&D could be improved (and there are), tell WotC about it, or vote with your dollar. You want to pitch them a Basic/Advanced model? Go for it. Do I think WotC will bite? No, and I think they have good reason not to.

Do I think there's more constructive things you can do with your time than shake your fist at WotC for not perfectly matching your preferences? Absolutely. D&D is not the only RPG in the universe.