Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1757848" data-attributes="member: 23012">They are criticisms (though the "dungeonpunk" one is a purely aesthetic one, and does not concern the 3.x rules).  But being "wargamey" and having very tactical combat can be very good for some kinds of campaigns -- including campaigns that I have enjoyed playing in.  Likewise, a high degree of complexity can be good for some kinds of campaigns.  Just not the kind I like to DM.Criticizing certain aspects of a game does not entail wholesale rejection of that game, or even a denial that that game can be very good for certain purposes.In short, it is irrational to react to every criticism of 3.x as somehow constituting a "full-scale attack" on the game.   Relax a bit.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> A bit of tangent, but 3.x's quantification of everything (either in skills like Diplomacy, or various feats) is the main reason for this line of criticism.  It is obviously not true of all 3.x games, but in many cases the 3.x focus on "crunch" can distract from other aspects of fantasy role-playing.Sorry, but I think you're being overly sensitive here.  Again, relax a bit.(For what it is worth, my poll on the iconic characters was obviously meant in good humour.)I wasn't "attacking" 3.x in this thread.  At most, I was criticizing as inappropriate for certain legitimate styles of play.  Simply pointing out that a rules-lite version of 3.x would be a very good idea (e.g. for people like myself who like certain aspects of 3.x, but want a faster-paced game) does not constitute an "attack."</blockquote>

Verification