Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[Storm Raven]

What makes it worse is that some of them actually mean two different things, depending on what use you make of them. Does a +3 heavy shield have a "+5 shield bonus to AC" or a "+2 shield bonus to AC and a +3 enhancement bonus to AC".

A +2 shield bonus to AC, and a +3 enhancement bonus to AC. Check the SRD under the Combat section regarding bonuses.

They also use inconsistent labelling.

Bless gives a +1 morale bonus to attacks.
Prayer gives a +1 luck bonus to attacks.

Huh?

That's not inconsistent. That's so it is explicit that the bonuses from bless and prayer stack with one another.

 

[der_kluge]

That's not inconsistent. That's so it is explicit that the bonuses from bless and prayer stack with one another.

I think what he's driving at there, is that there doesn't seem to be a reason for them to have different kinds of bonuses, for two spells which are fundamentally the same. Why couldn't they have just said "these two spells stack". Or better yet, make just one spell 'bless', and then have it scalable, so that the positive bonuses increase, and it gains negative modifers to enemies over time. So, that bless at 20th level works fundamentally different then bless cast by at 1st level. Do we really need two different spells, when one more customizable spell would have worked?

Do we really need 6 ability increasing spells when one would have worked? "this spell allows you to increase any one ability score by 4".

 

[MerricB]

No, it's not intended to be GURPS, and it clearly is not. But, as a ruleset which is supposed to be portable, I don't think it works very well for everything.

IMO, GURPS doesn't work well for heroic fantasy - or many of the heroic genres. GURPS has always impressed me as a good low-power game, but something that runs into hideous balance problems once high point values are given to characters.

d20 as a system is much more portable than you make it. D&D is designed for a specific world-view, but d20 is not.

If you want to go with the idea that D&D = d20, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

D&D is designed to model the D&D experience - which can be quite wide. However, it is for a particular version of heroic fantasy.

If I want to run D&D's version of heroic fantasy with GURPS, I am doomed to absolute frustration, without doing a huge amount of house-ruling - which is counter to your point.

Cheers!

 

[Plane Sailing]

You can get X. But only if you first have A, B, C. Which means that a player has to decide (s)he want's X some time before getting X. Often at the very beginning of the character's "life". You can't grow into it except perhaps by accident. The way the game is written not only encourages a player to know at the start everything about the character, but actively punishes those who just want to have their character grow. There can be no character development... at least, not outside of what you had better already have figured out.

I agree, I've seen this in 3e in a way that I've never seen in any other RPG, and it is one of the major downsides. Never before has it been necessary (or even desirable) to plan out the entire progression of the character, but in 3e there is almost no avoiding it.

 

[MerricB]

I agree, I've seen this in 3e in a way that I've never seen in any other RPG, and it is one of the major downsides. Never before has it been necessary (or even desirable) to plan out the entire progression of the character, but in 3e there is almost no avoiding it.

That's a fallacy. The planning out of a character is necessary for those who already know what their character will be. Hmm. If you have a character you want to be a Shadowdancer, then you have begun with a character concept. You then continue training with that goal in mind. If someone wants to be a doctor when they're at school, they are restricted in their choice of subjects from then on, aren't they?

Conversely, a player with no plan for his character can stumble into a prestige class at a later time, because (in theory) that prestige class will be rewarding the choices he has made along the way.

So, if you had a character who was fighting with two weapons, and had been specialising in such a style, all of a sudden you'd find yourself qualified for the Tempest PrC.

If Prestige Classes were so powerful as to dwarf any other class, then there would be a definite problem, but - in my experience - this is not the case. They're not required.

This ability to plan ahead is a feature of 3e. It is a feature of any system that allows meaningful choice of character development later in their careers.

It could probably be said that some Prestige Classes are too stringent in their requirements for entry, but that's another subject entirely.

Cheers!

 

[Plane Sailing]

That's a fallacy. The planning out of a character is necessary for those who already know what their character will be.

It isn't a fallacy because it now exists, whereas previously it didn't. It is a feature (a quantitative feature) of the d20 system.

All other systems that I've seen and played (admittedly a small subset of the total number of systems out there) have *more* freedom for high level characters to develop organically as the campaign develops. d20 is unique in the way that it closes down options.

Perhaps a close equivalent would have been Runequest 2 - you could become an initiate and aspire to become a Rune Priest or Rune Lord and each of those steps had prerequisites, but (and this is the key element) it was pretty simple at any time to decide to start along a particular path. It was a skills & spells system which was very granular and so allowed this. D&D is the opposite of granular in that it gives you a package of improvements every so often as a new "level". Level based RPGs are fine, but when the prerequisites are determined by things which you only get on a per-level basis (or in the case of feats per 3 levels!) it closes down options so much more.

Regards,

 

[Plane Sailing]

Another issue that comes up with d20 (which I view with a certain irony) is that the system is so thoroughly integrated that it is much more difficult to change fundamental rules mechanics than it ever was in AD&D or earlier versions.

In earlier days it was relatively easy to convert combat into a different system, or use something different for hit points, or make dozens of changes to suit different campaigns. This is MUCH more difficult with 3e because of the way that everything interlocks.

The irony is that (to my delight) 3e goes out of its way to TELL people to change the rules and make them their own. There has never been a version of D&D which outright told you to change things and even give examples (previous versions sometimes warned that if you changed anything your entire gaming experience would shatter and you'd end up as a jobless street person*). 3e rules are easy to tweak, but difficult to make significant changes to without making "root and branch" alterations.

Regards,


* needless hyperbole for effect, in case someone didn't notice

 

[Arnwyn]

First quote:

What makes it worse is that some of them actually mean two different things, depending on what use you make of them. Does a +3 heavy shield have a "+5 shield bonus to AC" or a "+2 shield bonus to AC and a +3 enhancement bonus to AC".

Second quote:

A +2 shield bonus to AC, and a +3 enhancement bonus to AC. Check the SRD under the Combat section regarding bonuses.

So, if you have leather armor +2 along with the above shield, your AC is 17, right? Because like bonuses don't stack.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

First quote:

Second quote:

So, if you have leather armor +2 along with the above shield, your AC is 17, right? Because like bonuses don't stack.

Heh. That's because the second quote is wrong.

An enhancement bonus improves that which it is applied to.

Thus, a shield with a +2 shield bonus and a +3 Enhancement bonus is the same as having a +5 shield bonus.

If you have a 17 Charisma score and a +2 Enhancement bonus to Charisma, it is exactly the same as having a 19 Charisma.

The *only* difference is that Enhancement bonuses can be dispelled, and are lost in anti-magic zones, etc.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

I agree, I've seen this in 3e in a way that I've never seen in any other RPG, and it is one of the major downsides. Never before has it been necessary (or even desirable) to plan out the entire progression of the character, but in 3e there is almost no avoiding it.

As opposed to 1e or 2e, where you basically chose the entire progression of your character at character generation when you selected your class (or multi-class)? At least in 3e you have the option of responding to life-altering experiences in the campaign & developing in a new direction. In previous versions of D&D, this was impossible - other than through dual-classing (which was a horrible rules design & only available to Humans) or by DM fiat. 3e might reward character progression pre-planning, but it doesn't mandate it.