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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2389592" data-attributes="member: 32164">Well, as someone who feels this way about HERO, allow me to explain. Bear in mind that I never really "got into" HERO, and so I'm sure my opinion is colored by limited exposure. It's also worth mentioning that my sole exposure to HERO as a ruleset concerned a Champions game, and that supers games are, by definition, going to involve a fair amount of adjudication of "special effects."I statted up a relatively simple character for a Champions game. This was the early 90s, so the character had a fair amount of influence from the comics of the period. He was a telepath/telekinetic with a military background and a preference for carrying firearms (so basically a Jim Lee/Rob Liefeld mutant). We started a game and the GM put me into a combat with other characters. I started using my "powers" as did the other characters. Half an hour later, the 30 second combat was done.See, my issue with HERO isn't that it's complicated. It's that it takes a long time to resolve combat. If I can explain by analogy, HERO combats seem to play out in "Bullet Time." It's highly detailed and you can watch Neo dodge all the bullets, but the frenetic action of a scene is lost. Anyway, that's my issue with HERO.It intrigues me that all the things people are complaining about with D&D 3e mostly are gripes with its magic item and magic systems, including things like "stacking." Oh yeah, and attacks of opportunity. I personally feel it comes down to this: for characters to be customizable and for player choice to have meaningful and consistent in-game consequences, you need rules for many of the things D&D has. For example, if you don't want characters who can get better or be meaningfully distinctive at certain combat moves or styles, you don't need feats. If you do want that, you do need them (in some form).Just for a hoot, let's compare the "versions" of D&D, including C&C, which seems to be primarily what's driving this debate, and look at the real differences. (For the record, I'm using AD&D generically, as I've never owned the 1974 set, which came out when I was not yet 2.Stats - different bonuses, but pretty much identical.Class abilities - Nonspellcasters get more in 3e. Spell systems nearly identical.Skills - One of the big differencesAD&D - proficiencies or not much.3e - Uniform skill systemC&C - Primes + class skills: simplistic but fuzzy skill system.Saves - Another differenceAD&D - Different kinds of saves - categories not always logical.3e D&D - Three Saves, mostly logical - some weird ones, like "Dex-based fort saves"C&C - 6 Saves, each one attribute based. Ultra-logical.Feats - AD&D - Weapon/Non-Weapon Proficiencies - not exactly standardized3e D&D - Standardized feat system - mostly increases combat optionsC&C - No feats.Combat -AD&D - Simulative - battlemats not necessary except to make "borderline" calls.3e D&D - Tactical - battlemat eliminates concept of "borderline" calls. Some added mechanics (attacks of opportunity).C&C - Simulative - back to the OD&D/AD&D style.Experience - AD&D - Slow advancement, "topping out" at about Level 15. Classes advance at different rates to account for "power discrepancies."3e D&D - More rapid advancement - "balanced" through 20 levels in theory. Classes advance at same rate.C&C - back to the OD&D paradigm, including different advancement per class.Magic Items -AD&D - Extra "goodies." DM ad hocs "appropriate level" of treasure.3e D&D - Magic item "power ups" built into power curve. Guidelines in DMG.C&C - unclear; rules forthcoming in Castle Keeper's Guide, not yet out.So have I missed anything? Personally, I think 3e rationalized and standardized a lot of the things that popped up during the late 1e (and expanded during 2e) days. Some "proficiencies" became feats (ambidexterity, blind fighting, run, track, two-weapon fighting, weapon specialization) while others became skills (climb, craft, gather information, heal, herbalism, jump, ride). Finally, some of the class abilities were subsumed into the skill or feat systems and standardized (the thief, bard and ranger skills, magical item creation, etc.).I'll freely give C&C props for the things I think it does right. I like the "attribute-based" saving throws. I hope they slip into 4e, if and when it materializes. I don't like the generic skill system, but I guess it's detailed enough for some people. As far as what it does with combat, I think it fixed one of D&D's "minor problems" while leaving a much bigger one - the magic system - utterly untouched.So IMO, 3e was a big step toward standardization. If there's a criticism of it, other than perhaps "it's too battlemat-focused," it's that it didn't go far enough in standardizing its mechanic. For the record, I prefer a game where a jump of a given distance has a set DC, not one where the DC of a challenge is something the DM comes up with to "challenge" my PC. As a player, I want some things to become ridiculously easy at certain levels that weren't earlier. And I want to know it. If I'm just constantly facing "level-appropriate challenges," I start losing my sense of the verisimilitude of the game world, and my suspension of disbelief slips.That's a criticism that can be levelled at the "rapid advancement" in 3e. Where do all these CR 10 critters come from that I defeat to advance to 11th level? For that matter, where were they when I was 3rd level? If they're rare, then one can assume that a significant amount of "in-game" time passes between me finding a level-appropriate encounter. So that's another prop I'll give to C&C - the diminishing effect of "levelling up" after 13th level. Personally, I think the game needs to be playable to the levels of its highest-level abilities (otherwise, why have them?), but not beyond.So if 9th level spells are available to PCs at 17th level, then the game should top out at about 20th-level, with the realization that some of its playability assumptions change somewhere on the way to that level. If the game were well-designed, it would identify that point, or be redesigned so that those assumptions DON'T change.</blockquote>

Verification