Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[DungeonMaster]

Indeed. This convention is one of the most important changes that makes 3.x more manageable and less munckin-fodder than prior editions.

You have GOT to be kidding. Is this some sort of dry sarcasm?

I have NEVER seen a worse more munchy edition of the game than D&D 3rd or even worse, 3.5.
The fact that there are ~10 bonus types does NOT reduce the amount of munchkinism it enhances it by orders of magnitude.
More variables = more munch, plain simple stupid reality. You will find someone, somewhere who feels a +10 competence bonus is *ok* and in another book someone will say +10 morale is *ok* and you're going to end up with, guess what +20 net.

3rd edition and 3.5 are by FAR the most broken editions of the game EVER.
The simple fact of the matter is you basically cannot pick up two non-core books and apply them to a game in good conscience in 3rd edition if you have even a single min/max bone in your body. It is so ridiculous that many DMs will run "core only" games - like myself because literally the non-core books are overpowered gunk.

I run 3rd edition, I like 3rd edition because of the simplicity of the d20 mechanic. A LOT of the problems with 3rd edition are due to the quantitative nature of this edition and I hope the next edition does a frigging clean sweep of the insanity that is 3rd edition "prestige classes" "race" "feats" "stacks" and even "level = level multiclassing". In fact I wouldn't shed a single tear to see all of the above die in extremely gory fashion with no multiclassing system, no prestige class at all ever period gone obliterated not even optional, no feats, no retarded player races like raptorans in fact no monster races period, only 3 modifier types (attack rolls, saves and checks). Actually I would rejoice in the above.

Maybe I could buy a book without thinking "is there a billion damage hulking hurler lurking in here...". Or buy an environment based book that actually deals with you know, cold weather and it's effects on players monsters their gear, rather than the anemic moronic (book -20 pages) of "RACES FEATS PRC SPELLS!!! NONE OF IT PLAYTESTED BY ANYONE SAVE MY HAMSTER!!" for crying outloud. This stuff is crap. Let's hope this edition is the end of the line for it.

 

[woodelf]

If you are after a game that entrains "fluff" in the text of the book, there are games that do that. Personally, I would find that obstructive and relish the opportunity to fill in some of those details on my own.

You know, i sometimes agree. Big disagreement: i think that the D&D3E PH includes too much fluff in the text and, more importantly, doesn't care if the fluff actively contradicts the mechanics.

Moreover, i think the core rules should provide some help at filling in those details, in two areas: better flexibility (i.e., not so strongly aimed at a particular flavor of high fantasy), and inspirations/suggestions (such as examples of how to play a "samurai" or "swashbuckler" using just the core rules).

 

[woodelf]

Right on. If you go around announcing yourself as "Ragnar, 6th level barbarian" because the rulebooks don't tell you what to call yourself, or "Sylthis, catburglar (who works as the king's junior spymaster, and has never be arrested for so much as jaywalking, let alone stealing from a citizen)" because the books tell you to, then the problem isn't with the books. Titles and flavor text to discuss the power level of a spell or what a detect spell shows are up to the players and the DM.


A kind of Arcana Unearthed Arcana, but for fluff. I'm all for book like that.


Perhaps take Kid Charlemagne's idea for a fluff compilation and add it in as a new chapter/sidebar in the next set of core books (which better be way, way in the future, as I don't feel like buying new corebooks for a long while) or as web enhacements for the existing books.

I'm gonna agree that the level titles were not helpful and, in fact, were counter-productive. In addition to often not being appropriate, and possibly implying a setting that you're not playing in, they serve to give the classes in-game reality. Really, IMHO, they are more an element of "crunch" than "fluff", in that they tie you to the mechanics. I think the mechanics should just be the game rules, and the fluff whatever your group wants.

However, some tools for bridging the two would be extremely helpful, IMHO. Precisely for those who want to divorce the two, and not be constrained by the rules. The Arcana Unearthed Players' Guide has a section on "playing AU PCs", and within it, it has some discussions of how the classes relate to actual characters. First, at least 3 archetypes is given for each class--so, frex, an unfettered character might be a dashing swashbuckler, a spoiled noble, or a kid born to the streets. Then, it looks at some common archetypes--pirate, archer, assassin, priest--and gives suggestions on what classes to use to fulfill them. My players absolutely loved that second section, in particular.

So, what i think the D&D PH should do is ditch all that flavor text in the class descriptions--all that stuff before the game mechanics begin. Then replace it with a section discussing a whole lot of common PC archetypes, and give at least two suggestions for each on how to build that archetype with the game mechanics provided.

Similarly, instead of PrCs or new core classes, a new setting need only have building advice. I'm running an "Al Qadim" game right now, and rather than create any new classes to fit the setting, i took all the archetypes that had warranted classes in the AD&D2 version, and provided the players with the flavor text describing them, plus some suggestions on what races/classes/feats/skills to use to build that sort of character. [I did invent a couple new feats to cover some specific and unusual archetypes, like the spellthief, but that was about it].

 

[woodelf]

The simple fact of the matter is you basically cannot pick up two non-core books and apply them to a game in good conscience in 3rd edition if you have even a single min/max bone in your body. It is so ridiculous that many DMs will run "core only" games - like myself because literally the non-core books are overpowered gunk.

[snip]
Maybe I could buy a book without thinking "is there a billion damage hulking hurler lurking in here...". Or buy an environment based book that actually deals with you know, cold weather and it's effects on players monsters their gear, rather than the anemic moronic (book -20 pages) of "RACES FEATS PRC SPELLS!!! NONE OF IT PLAYTESTED BY ANYONE SAVE MY HAMSTER!!" for crying outloud. This stuff is crap. Let's hope this edition is the end of the line for it.

In addition to avoiding the WotC supplements, you should maybe give the 3rd-party stuff a chance. Some of it is quite good--in fact, i think the best of it is better than anything WotC has produced of late. You might find some stuff you really like, without limiting yourself to just the core rules. Just a thought. [/digression]

 

[MeiRen]

D20 is like that, the rules work, and they work well for the very specific intended purpose of playing high fantasy, high magic Wuxia style role-playing games.
.

What kind of wuxia have you been watching?

 

[FireLance]

Indeed. This convention is one of the most important changes that makes 3.x more manageable and less munckin-fodder than prior editions.

You have GOT to be kidding. Is this some sort of dry sarcasm?

I have NEVER seen a worse more munchy edition of the game than D&D 3rd or even worse, 3.5.
The fact that there are ~10 bonus types does NOT reduce the amount of munchkinism it enhances it by orders of magnitude.
More variables = more munch, plain simple stupid reality. You will find someone, somewhere who feels a +10 competence bonus is *ok* and in another book someone will say +10 morale is *ok* and you're going to end up with, guess what +20 net.

3rd edition and 3.5 are by FAR the most broken editions of the game EVER.
The simple fact of the matter is you basically cannot pick up two non-core books and apply them to a game in good conscience in 3rd edition if you have even a single min/max bone in your body. It is so ridiculous that many DMs will run "core only" games - like myself because literally the non-core books are overpowered gunk.

I run 3rd edition, I like 3rd edition because of the simplicity of the d20 mechanic. A LOT of the problems with 3rd edition are due to the quantitative nature of this edition and I hope the next edition does a frigging clean sweep of the insanity that is 3rd edition "prestige classes" "race" "feats" "stacks" and even "level = level multiclassing". In fact I wouldn't shed a single tear to see all of the above die in extremely gory fashion with no multiclassing system, no prestige class at all ever period gone obliterated not even optional, no feats, no retarded player races like raptorans in fact no monster races period, only 3 modifier types (attack rolls, saves and checks). Actually I would rejoice in the above.

Maybe I could buy a book without thinking "is there a billion damage hulking hurler lurking in here...". Or buy an environment based book that actually deals with you know, cold weather and it's effects on players monsters their gear, rather than the anemic moronic (book -20 pages) of "RACES FEATS PRC SPELLS!!! NONE OF IT PLAYTESTED BY ANYONE SAVE MY HAMSTER!!" for crying outloud. This stuff is crap. Let's hope this edition is the end of the line for it.

It appears that you have a problem with supplements (WotC or third-party) rather than the core 3.x system. Or, to be more exact, your complaint seems to be that you are "forced" to use non-core feats, races, PrCs, spells, etc. that you don't want to. I find myself wondering why that its the case. If you are the DM, you can simply run a game that is core rules only.

In any case, the problem of unbalanced supplements is not unique to D&D or the 3.x edition. In fact, I would venture the opinion that 3.x supplements are more balanced and better integrated into the core system than supplements from any previous edition. To me, they have generally resulted in a greater variety of choices for my characters (and hence, better customization to get the character I want) without significantly increasing the power disparity between core-only characters and characters built with supplements (poor player choices aside, of course).

If you choose not to utilize supplements in your game, that is fine. However, complaining that the supplements exist seems rather mean-spirited to me.

 

[BryonD]

I think that's at least partly a matter of where you come from.

Which is why I said perspectives vary.

I didn't find AU to have any more built-in concepts than D&D3E, just different ones. One assumes alignment and turnable undead and backstabbing rogues and elves and spell-granting gods. The other assumes collective memory and nature spirits and truenames and transformed races andstaff-wielding wizards.

They seem about equally well-defined, IMHO. So then it just becomes a matter of which elements better fit your preconceived notions of high fantasy.

Not really what I was getting at. Truename and staves for magic are still pretty plot neutral. But AU has Diamond Throne stuff built into it much more tightly than the PH has Greyhawk or FR built into it. Ceremonial feats and wise noble giants and everthing else is just always coming back to the specific predefined setting.

Its not in any way like your hands are tied and I'm not saying that. I can take the magister out of Diamond Throne if I want to. But there was plenty of stuff in AU that if I wanted to take it out of AU, I'd need to take DT out of it first. Not the end of the world by any stretch. But there is PLENTY of other good D20 stuff out there. So I don't see any reason to bother with baggage.

The PH has default fluff. Au has mechanically built in fluff.

 

[Turjan]

In addition to avoiding the WotC supplements, you should maybe give the 3rd-party stuff a chance. Some of it is quite good--in fact, i think the best of it is better than anything WotC has produced of late. You might find some stuff you really like, without limiting yourself to just the core rules. Just a thought.

I noticed that I did this during last year. I bought quite a lot of stuff, but just 3 WotC books, and in hindsight, none of those did really excite me. This was no conscious decision, but just the fact that new crunch of the same kind as usual was not what I was looking for. I did not say much to the current topic, because the discussion reminds me very much of the one (or two) we had at the end of last year, and there my result was that I saw myself on the path of simplification instead of system overflow. Accordingly, my campaign is core books only, with a very few things brought in by me from a few select other sources. I'm currently thinking of further simplifications.

 

[Plane Sailing]

No offense intended, but I find this general argument to be 100% wrong because it presumes that opportunities are liabilities, and restrictions are freedom.

< snip >

1e/2e gives you the freedom from repurcussions, but it is the freedom from opportunity -- the freedom of a prisoner in a small cell.

It seems to me that this is exactly the reverse of the truth!

3e lets you extend subsystems (new feats, new skill uses, new spells) within an existing framework, but it is an order of magnitude more difficult to change the framework. In 1/2e it was much easier to change the framework without causing repercussions as Woodelf illustrates.

So in your analogy, 3e allows you to change the decorations of your cell, but 1/2e allowed you to change pretty much anything.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Also, on a personal note, I'd like to see the perjorative term "fluff" dead and buried.

It would make much more sense to refer to that kind of content as "Context" IMO. Thus we would discuss "Crunch vs Context" in RPG documents, raising the descriptive writing to an equal status.

How about it?