Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 3614125" data-attributes="member: 29398">I disagree, in that 3e - in my own experience - seems more cumbersome in two important areas: char-gen and combat - with all other things being about equal.&nbsp; However... That's why I said &quot;with work&quot; it could be streamlined.I say it has trouble being houseruled into adaptability mainly because to me it seems to have trouble being houseruled at all; see earlier discussions (from last winter) about knock-on effects for what I mean.The reason is simple: in 1e (and 0e) one wasn't changing rules so much as generating them, and there was less need for concern about whether tweaking or adding rule X would screw up rules Y, Z, and A.&nbsp; In 3e, which tries to have a lot more rules for a lot more things, changing one rule can easily lead to butchering various others, making the process more effort than it's worth...and explaining why it takes professionals to do it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I was thinking of how the 3e D+D mechanics seem to have been able to fit into d20 Modern, Star Wars, and a bunch of other game genres.&nbsp; 1e never seemed to do this, or maybe it's just that nobody tried.3e is better at this than earlier editions...you can (if the DM lets you) play a Demon, or a Centaur, or a Half-Dragon, or a Human, and have it all work at least vaguely well using the level-equivalent mechanic.&nbsp; In 0-1-2e, once you got outside the core 7 races you were asking for headaches.&nbsp; Same goes for classes; it seems people are able to far more easily design new classes for 3e (just look at the ridiculous number of PrC's out there for example) than for 1e.&nbsp; So, I give the decided edge to 3e here, in ability to accommodate different character ideas.Lane-&quot;yes, I just complimented 3e&quot;-fan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 3614125, member: 29398"] I disagree, in that 3e - in my own experience - seems more cumbersome in two important areas: char-gen and combat - with all other things being about equal. However... That's why I said "with work" it could be streamlined. I say it has trouble being houseruled into adaptability mainly because to me it seems to have trouble being houseruled at all; see earlier discussions (from last winter) about knock-on effects for what I mean. The reason is simple: in 1e (and 0e) one wasn't changing rules so much as generating them, and there was less need for concern about whether tweaking or adding rule X would screw up rules Y, Z, and A. In 3e, which tries to have a lot more rules for a lot more things, changing one rule can easily lead to butchering various others, making the process more effort than it's worth...and explaining why it takes professionals to do it. :) I was thinking of how the 3e D+D mechanics seem to have been able to fit into d20 Modern, Star Wars, and a bunch of other game genres. 1e never seemed to do this, or maybe it's just that nobody tried. 3e is better at this than earlier editions...you can (if the DM lets you) play a Demon, or a Centaur, or a Half-Dragon, or a Human, and have it all work at least vaguely well using the level-equivalent mechanic. In 0-1-2e, once you got outside the core 7 races you were asking for headaches. Same goes for classes; it seems people are able to far more easily design new classes for 3e (just look at the ridiculous number of PrC's out there for example) than for 1e. So, I give the decided edge to 3e here, in ability to accommodate different character ideas. Lane-"yes, I just complimented 3e"-fan [/QUOTE]

Verification