I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me

[fanboy2000]

As for tailored spell lists, I could take your "Tailoring spell lists for specific deities smacks, to me, of the typical 'you're a cleric therefore you have more role-playing restrictions because you worship a deity.' " and say that your preference smacks of I am a player I must have as much as power as possible.

You are right about my point of view, it is about power. It's just not about having a much power as possible.

PCs of the same level should be about the same power level. It's too easy to unbalance the cleric class when you mess with spells outside of domains. The domain game mechanic (and the difrence in spontaneous casting abilities between good and evil clerics) differentiates clerics enough.

In my view, tailored lists have several benefits. First, it ensures that only spells that capture the feel of the setting are included. Second, it reinforces the DND cleric's dedication to promoting a single deity.

One, it depends on how you tailor the spell list. When I tailor a spell list for a campaign setting, I add spells to the PHB spell list from other sources. Sometimes I add them at the begining, making the spells available to all clerics (or wizards, or whatever). Sometimes I add the spells mid-campaign, leaving a record of the spell in a spell book, or a scroll, or a journal, in the PCs treasure.

Two, in a tight pantheon where the gods are led by a single ruler, such as the Norse gods, then the domain systmem would be the biggest distention between them. Most clerics would worship the whole pantheon (as most pesants did), so it makes sense that worshiping a single deity would give you a special domain power and acess to some difrent spells. (ie, domain spells).

The kind of reshearch you mentioned earlier in your post isn't hard to do. For anyone wishing to study real-world mythologies (particularly non-greek) I'd recomend Dover. They publish a number of books about various mythologies, and realy give you a feel for stories that were told and how they evolved into modern customs. I used Myths of Norsemen and an exclent book by Kevin Crossley-Holland call The Norse Myths

As you can probably tell, I prefer and additive approach to customizing my game. I prefer to add feats, spells, Prestige Classes, and color to the game. It seems also that the rules were designed for tha approach specifically.

I can't tell exactly what what kind of customizing approch you prefer, but I'm guessing it's a replacement approach. It seems to me that you prefer to remove and replace feats, spells, base classes, and color to the game. Fortunately for you, the game was also designed for that as well. One of the things I love about 3e is that the designers included guidlines for designing your own base classes there were as much or as little like the ones in the PHB as you wanted. 2e had rules for designing base classes, but they went out of their way to discourage you from doing so. The experiance tabel they told you to use for homebrew clasess even punished the player for taking the class. On top of all of that, they said that you could re-create the PHB classes using that system because the PHB classes were "special." How come no one mentions that when they talk about how great 2e was?

 

[Ranes]

This is what being "creative" in D&D means to them.

Not the whole story but it's part of it, yes.

I find toying about with the mechanics of 3E insanely boring. Reading about new feats, prestige classes, and so forth, is also tedious IMO.

Fair enough. I also find reading about new feats and PrCs dull, as it happens.

Instead, I would rather come up with new cosmologies, histories, cultures, political situations, religious organizations, criminal conspiracies, quirky NPCs, and so forth. I find it easier to pursue these activities in a simpler rules framework.

Ah. Well, I enjoy coming up with all the things you mention, too. Then I enjoy translating those elements into the system.

The more complex the model or system -- i.e. the more variables it includes -- the more likely unintended consequences will be produced by introducing changes to that model or system.

Hang on. That's true but the model comprises more than the written rules. Just because you have fewer rules on paper or because the rules you have on paper are simpler than the rules I have on paper, it doesn't follow that your game is going to be simpler than mine.

Compare the rules of chess and go. Go has fewer rules than I have pinkies. But consider the number of variables in a game of chess compared to a game of go. A lighter rules system does not equate with fewer variables in the game.

 

[WizarDru]

Random thoughts:

Flavor-based 'mechanics' aren't really mechanics, at all. If 3.Xe goes too far in removing the 'fluff', I'll still take that instead of overlong verbage telling me something that could have been summed up with much less wasted page count. A few suggestions would be fine, but four paragraphs seem excessive to sum up the idea...especially as the example given still doesn't actually TELL you how to make a scroll, just the process for preparation.

Gary didn't get me into the game, but he did keep me in the game, for a while. I don't fancy him as that great of a writer, but that's my personal style. I do think that he has an almost unhealthy fixation on the word "milieu", though.

It's easier to add flavor than remove it.

 

[WizarDru]

Compare the rules of chess and go. Go has fewer rules than I have pinkies. But consider the number of variables in a game of chess compared to a game of go. A lighter rules system does not equate with fewer variables in the game.

Dude, how many pinkies do you have???

 

[Ranes]

Ten fingers and toes (give or take), far more than the number of rules in the game of go. The rules of go can be written in six or seven simple sentences.

 

[Rel]

Ten fingers and toes (give or take)

And they're all pinkies...

 

[Ranes]

A different meaning, huh. Apologies for any confusion.

 

[WizarDru]

A different meaning, huh. Apologies for any confusion.

Ah, you meant fingers....that makes more sense. Go doesn't have many rules, bit it's got more than one.

 

[Incenjucar]

2e had rules for designing base classes, but they went out of their way to discourage you from doing so. The experiance tabel they told you to use for homebrew clasess even punished the player for taking the class. On top of all of that, they said that you could re-create the PHB classes using that system because the PHB classes were "special." How come no one mentions that when they talk about how great 2e was?

Because many of us recognize that being able to fine-tune your character like that makes it -really- easy to min/max like crazy...? While I prefer a system with more inherent balance, such that you can, basically, do point buy (which is what self-designed classes pretty much come out to), in the 2e system, we were already used to the idea of just applying larger XP requirements to uber-er classes. Not the best approach, but not the worst.

Remember Skills and Powers?

 

[Rel]

A different meaning, huh. Apologies for any confusion.

Don't be sorry! You've just given me the primary motivation for my next PC .

"You don't by any chance have five pinkies on your right hand do you? A man with five pinkies on his right hand killed my father and I've sworn revenge!"