Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[Psion]

Everything stacks is much simpler. Nothing stacks would also be simpler.

True, but my point was not made with respect to either of these conditions, but with respect to the way that things were being done, i.e., "stacks as defined ad hoc in the spell description."


These convention also cut down on the possibilities for creativity in spell effects and are a bit less logical from a modeling point of view. I mean, it makes sense that a bless spell that give you a +2 divine bonus instead of +1 is more of the same, so it makes sense that they wouldn't stack. But why would it, for example, prevent some other effect from working.

Not to mention that with the former (everything stacks) means that the capabilities of rules exploiters vary directly with each new spell or effect you add to the pile. Limiting stacking means that you can add to the ruleset without the same implicit power escalation.

 

[mossfoot]

Flavor text is what makes an RPG really work. I mean, the numbers ARE important, especially for those GMs who want to make their world feel real by having a reason for everything (such as cost creation), not feeling screwed for feeling charged too much because the GM didn't heat his bran flakes that morning.

But without the flavor, the imagination, it lacks something.

"You supply the imagination"? That's fine, IF you have time. But maybe some GMs would like to have their imaginations spured, or are just as interested in reading the "reasons" for things. Reading a really good RPG book after all, can be quite enthrawling.

 

[Berandor]

Lack of fluff as opposed to crunch

I recently ran into an example of 3E being too concerned with mechanics. I was preparing an encounter with a Colossal Scorpion. I was giddy with the image of my players facing this enormous creature, standing... hmm. How tall does it stand? How big is it, exactly? What size are its claws, its stinger? How long is it? Surely there must be a figure somewhere.

Creature enty - no
size entry in MM - no
size in PHB - no

Well, at least I know it's X feet long and only Y feet wide, since... damn, square facings.
So what do I nkow about it? It's colossal. What does that mean? Nobody knows. But I can tell you its penalties to AC and attacks () and its bonus to grapple D)

 

[ARandomGod]

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)?

Good point. But at least there you made one choice at the beginning, and any other 'conceivable' choice was completely free! In 3.X you notice it every level, and the noose tightens a little more every level. Actually, I've agreed (and agree) that there are a lot more options in 3.X. It's one of my ironic points, actually. You're more free and therefore feel the restrictions tighter and tighter. You're given all these choices and told "NO! NOT FOR YOU!!"

 

[hong]

I recently ran into an example of 3E being too concerned with mechanics. I was preparing an encounter with a Colossal Scorpion. I was giddy with the image of my players facing this enormous creature, standing... hmm. How tall does it stand? How big is it, exactly? What size are its claws, its stinger? How long is it? Surely there must be a figure somewhere.

Creature enty - no
size entry in MM - no
size in PHB - no

Well, at least I know it's X feet long and only Y feet wide, since... damn, square facings.
So what do I nkow about it? It's colossal. What does that mean? Nobody knows. But I can tell you its penalties to AC and attacks () and its bonus to grapple D)

Every size category represents a doubling in linear size.

S: 2-4 ft
M: 4-8 ft
L: 8-16 ft
H: 16-32 ft
G: 32-64 ft
C: 64ft+

 

[Berandor]

Wow. 64ft+. If that ain't helpful.

So the scorpion is 64ft+ wide and 64ft+ long, and 32+ft. high?
Or the other way round?

Or is it actually 350ft. long and 20ft. wide, while being 80ft. high?
Who knows? Certainly not me, who knows next to nothing about scorpions (only having seen them in the zoo or on pictures, and certainly not about colossal ones).

 

[der_kluge]

Wow. 64ft+. If that ain't helpful.

So the scorpion is 64ft+ wide and 64ft+ long, and 32+ft. high?
Or the other way round?

Or is it actually 350ft. long and 20ft. wide, while being 80ft. high?
Who knows? Certainly not me, who knows next to nothing about scorpions (only having seen them in the zoo or on pictures, and certainly not about colossal ones).

Scorpions are amazing creatures. I watched a thing on the discovery channel about them. My wife watched it with me. It's the sole reason why she says "I'm never living in Arizona - ever." Apparently, they are tougher than roaches. You can hit them with a hammer and they don't die. You can also find them in the desert with a blacklight. And their venom is supposedly one of the most powerful toxins known. I guess in Arizona, they're quite common, and people find them hanging off their ceilings. EEK!

 

[Berandor]

Their ceilings?

Arizona has just been scratched off my "places to visit" list.

 

[Turjan]

I guess in Arizona, they're quite common, and people find them hanging off their ceilings. EEK!

We have door and window screens; those help - sometimes !

 

[Breakdaddy]

Scorpions are amazing creatures. I watched a thing on the discovery channel about them. My wife watched it with me. It's the sole reason why she says "I'm never living in Arizona - ever." Apparently, they are tougher than roaches. You can hit them with a hammer and they don't die. You can also find them in the desert with a blacklight. And their venom is supposedly one of the most powerful toxins known. I guess in Arizona, they're quite common, and people find them hanging off their ceilings. EEK!

I have found several scorpions in my house, though they are less poisonous than the ones you are referring to. Their sting is painful but only about as poisonous as a bee sting. The bad thing is that they are the same color as my carpet and so are very hard to spot when they are crawling around on the floor