Is D&D getting too powerful?

[Maggan]

Bad choice of words?

3rd edition is basically the down-syndrome-infected D&D edition.

If you using the words "down-syndrome-infected", means that you are implying the people with down's syndrome are infected, I must point out that your words are spectacularly badly chosen.

Even using "down-syndrome" to describe something that is bad, is in extraordinarily bad taste, and for people with down's syndrome, of which I know quite a few, it is downright offensive.

If I have misunderstood your choice of words, I apologise. If not, I would like an explanation as to why you feel that those words were warranted.

And why they would ever be.

Regards

Maggan

 

[Angcuru]

Jeez, so touchey. Ok how about I say this instead: 3rd edition is the edition of the group that has a disabling disease/genetic defect which we shall not name because someone may get offended. That sound better? And in case you haven't noticed, I go out of my way to be politically incorrect, wether it applies to this comment or not.

 

[Azlan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is D&D getting too powerful?

Money. WotC did a bit of marketing research that indicated to them what kind of product would sell the most by merit of mass popularity. Thus, for the same reason that we get season after season of Friends, 3E is geared the way that it is.

Oh. Is that all? I thought that maybe, with your comparison to Friends, you were implying something more than that.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is D&D getting too powerful?

Oh. Is that all? I thought that maybe, with your comparison to Friends, you were implying something more than that.

Now that would be silly, being that I like RPGs but hate Friends.

 

[Maggan]

Jeez, so touchey. Ok how about I say this instead: 3rd edition is the edition of the group that has a disabling disease/genetic defect which we shall not name because someone may get offended. That sound better? And in case you haven't noticed, I go out of my way to be politically incorrect, wether it applies to this comment or not.

Well, you can be as politically incorrect as you like, sometimes peple will take offense. You being politicallt incorrect does not give you DR 100/+10 against comments on your incorrectness.

And using a real life genetic disorder to describe a game, is in my "politically correct" view, offensive to those people who suffer, yes, suffer, from this disorder.

Their lives aren't made any better by people like you using their disorder as a descriptor of something bad, even if you pull up your "I'm being politically incorrect, here dude" shield of protection against all criticism.

Anyways... I'm afraid I'm fighting a windmill. So enjoy the discussion, without me.

Maggan

 

[Staffan]

Not the "This monster=this cr, then you factor in the number of monsters with that cr, the monsters of other cr's, compare that to the average level of your party, and then factor in any multi-class penalties that may apply."

You have two steps too many there. The number of monsters isn't any more relevant to determining XP in 3e than it was in 2e. It's relevant for determining EL, but EL isn't directly related to XP - it's just a method of judging how powerful an encounter is compared to the PCs.

3e has one more step than 2e when calculating XP, the comparison to average party level. In 2e, it went:
1. Find monster XP.
2. Divide by number of party members.
3. For multiclassed party members, divide by number of classes.

In 3e, it's instead:
1. Find monster CR.
2. Check table to find monster XP.
3. Divide by number of party members.
4. For some multiclassed party members, reduce by 20% (or sometimes more).

 

[Gez]

Honestly, I like D&D 3e. I could not have liked the horror known as AD&D2. Yeesh, what an awful thing it was. Everything was just constraint, contradictions, and absurds conventions. It seemed more like a huge steaming heap of house rules than like a clean and sleek game system with real thought put behind it.

Sure, 3e is not without default. But these problems, we may deal with it without having to rewrite core portions of the game.

Multiclassing, level limits, class/race restrictions, multiple XP tables, multiple ability bonus tables, incomplete monster stats... 3e was a serious house cleaning. Now it's logical. Now it makes sense. There is an inner consistency. It's beautiful.

End of rant.

 

[Michael Tree]

Jeez, so touchey. Ok how about I say this instead: 3rd edition is the edition of the group that has a disabling disease/genetic defect which we shall not name because someone may get offended. That sound better? And in case you haven't noticed, I go out of my way to be politically incorrect, wether it applies to this comment or not.

Despite your flip response, you didn't actually answer Maggan's question. What did you mean by your comment, and why did you think that it's the best or most appropriate way of saying it?

As for going out of your way for being politically incorrect, you make that sound like it's a virtue, or an excuse. You're just saying "I deliberately try to be offensive, intolerant, and cruel". Well, welcome to polite civilization. Please leave the hate and self-absorbtion at the door.

 

[Azlan]

One thing I know for sure: Before 3rd Edition, powergamers were not really an issue for me, as a DM. (And I've been DM'ing for 20 years now, since 1st Edition AD&D.)

Oh, sure, there were those players, throughout the years, who min-max'ed as best they could, given what they had to work with, within the confines of those old rules. (Cavaliers from 1st Edition D&D's "Unearthed Arcana" were sometimes problematic for me.) But this never really threatened to unbalance any given campaign that I was running.

Not so nowadays, with 3E D&D.

I think the "PowerPlay" column, featured in Dragon magazine during the initial release of 3E D&D, is highly indicative of the type of players WotC was trying to attract and the problems that was going to cause for DMs. (Same goes for Dragon cover blurbs such as "Secrets Your DM Doesn't Want You To Know!")

Even so, I still think 3E D&D is, overall, superior to the earlier editions.

BTW: I don't think "powergamers" are a problem nowadays because of the 3E system so much as they are because of the culture and attitude that has arisen among players or has been promoted by WotC, during the past few years.

 

[Michael Tree]

I prefer 3e in virtually every way. The only thing I miss about 2e is effective multiclassed spellcasters, and some of the ludicrously powerful dual-classed characters I occasionally played. (Hmm, I could play a 11th level wizard, or I could play a fighter 9/ Wizard 10, and continue advancing only in wizard. Tough choice. )

3e has no less flavor, and immeasurably better rules.

If you look at house rules, most of them are created to change the flavor of the game, not the game balance, while most if not all 2e house rules were created to fill gaping voids in how the rules (didn't) work.

Sure game balance is sometimes a bit wonky in 3e, but in 2e game balance basically didn't exist.