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

[fanboy2000]

A not so imaginary conversation...

FROM D&D 3.0 DM's GUIDE:

"The character needs a supply of choice writing materials, the cost of which is subsumed in the cost for scribing the scroll--12.5 gp per level of the spell times the level of the caster. All writing implements and materials used to scribe a scroll must be fresh and unused. The character must pay the full cost for scribing each spell scroll no matter how many times she previously has scribed the same spell.

The creater must have prepared the spell to be scribed . . . and must provide any material components or focuses the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster's XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself. Likewise, material components are consumed when she begins writing, but focuses are not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused). The act of writing . . .
[Begin Gamer Identity Crisis]

It's important to remember that the 3.0 DMG rules were written to prevent this conversation:

DM: So, you all home now in Greyhawk, what do you want to do Mouse?

Mouse's Player: You know, I've always wanted to scribe a scroll. It might be useful to have a few scrolls of Magic Missile on hand. What does it take to make one?

DM: (No one's ever asked this before, he needs to refresh his memory) Ummmmm.... ok. Hold on. (Looks through 2e DMG.) You need to know the spell.

Mouse's Player: Check.

DM: Ummmm... (read, read, read, read) You need a quill, some ink, paper, and magical components.

Mouse's Player: Great, I'll buy the componets in morning. How much will they cost.

DM: Well, that's the problem, they need to be special.

Mouse's Player: Ok, what do you mean?

DM: Well, the quill can't just be a goose quill, it has to come from something like a roc.

Mouse's Player: I thought you said roc only lived in the mountians on the Norther Contentent ran by the Invincible Overlord?

DM: Ummmm, well it dosen't have to come from a roc. It could come from some other magical creature.

Mouse's Player: Will a cockatrice's feather do?

DM: (Unsure, a cocatrice dosen't seem like it would fit the flavor of Magic Missile.) I don't know. Maybe.

Mouse's Player: Well, I can by the paper right?

DM: No. That has to be special too.

Mouse's Player: Ink?

DM: Specialy blended with teas from a vergin bride.

Mouse's Player: So, I have to go several adventures to scribe a scroll for a first level spell, so I can be better prepaired for future adventures?

DM: Ummmm, yeah.

Mouse's Player: (resigned to his fate) Well, guys, whant to help me while I search the surndings for scroll components. (The other players agree.)

DM: Don't for get you need to be back in time for the Coronation. Then you need to go back to Blackmoor and settle the debt with Old Man Higgins.

Mouse's Player: Forget it. (Mouse never, ever, ever tries to scribe another scroll. He does wonder why there are so many magic items lying around in treasures, who has the time to make this stuff?)

I don't know about anyone else, but this conversation (quite common in 2e) isn't exactly riveting.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I DIDN'T care for Fighting Fantasy, and I still think that computer books like The C Programming Language are great, great books. Not liking the C book is like not liking Strunk and White -- they're classics.

No, you don't seem to understand. I'm talking about computer programming books that dealth with BASIC and LOGO and had cartoony, bright coloured pictures of little boxes that had letters on them with anthropomorphic numbers being dropped into them to explain the concept of variables.

I don't think they classify as classics...

 

[Greg K]

Given that PrCs, feats, and spells are all optional, and often features new spellcasting systems or combat options...

You've already cited Uneathed Arcana.

But what do you do of all the "Beyond the Curtain" and "Variant" sidebars in the DMG ?"

Gez, I should have been more clear in my initial post (Heck, with the pain meds I was on when I typed the post, I am surprised that the post was much more coherent than I would have expected).
Anyway, I should have wrote that my problems were:

1. Lack of system changing alternatives. Yes, UA and the DMG give some real alternatives to changing the system, but outside of these books such options such as replacing major aspects of the system are not given. Examples of what I mean include Green Ronin's Skill and Feat system for Psychic Powers or Unearthed Arcana's introduction of Armor as DR, replacing HP with WP/VP) that can really define a campaign.
Is it too much for a book called *Complete* Arcane to examine new magic systems like a skill and feat system or variations on the alternative spell point system (e.g., Defiling Magic or dealing with extraplanar creatures as was presented in Second edition's PO: Spell and Magic) which can be used to redefine how magic works in a campaign?

2) The overuse of PrCs (which are listed as totally optional in the DMG) as a first resort in supplements while ignoring class variants via customizing the character which is right in the PHB (p.94/3.0 and p.110/3.5). Many of the character concepts being introduced as Prc's are concepts that can be done with a few slight tweaks to a base class, a new specialist wizard by creating a new spell list ( e.g., the artificer, elementalist, force mage, geometer, mentalist, shadow mage, song mage, dimensional mage, forcemage, were all handled this way in PO: spells and Magic) or the occassional new base class.

UA did a good job of introducing several class variants for different classes on a single page, compared to how many pages are wasted on PrCs in the various pages of the various splat books. I would rather see PrCs as the last resort not the first one.

3. The non PrC, feat, spell material in the generic books has, imo, not been as useful as similar as their 2e counterparts on the subject. Complete Warrior being an exception. Based on the previews of Complete Arcane, it is shaping up to be in the former group despite Rich Baker being the author of PO: Spells and Magic which was an excellent book.

4. I think most of the designers, with a few exceptions, provide more interesting work on DND products that are for Dragon Magazine, 3rd party products, and their own websites than they do for the official generic books.
My same preference goes for many of the designers work on 2e related products.

I disagree with you that the non-setting sourcebooks of 3e do not leave room for customization. The Manual of the Planes is a toolbox for creating a cosmology. It features the Great Wheel only as an example, as well as the drafts of a few others. That book is all about options and customization.

It has been a while since I read MoP at a friend's store. I know I thought most of it was a waste of space (and I tend to like Jeff Grub's stuff for previous editions), but I don't recall anything introduced that was more than a minor flavor change rather than a major change to the system (e.g., UA's introduction of Armor as DR, replacing HP with WP/VP, or the use of a spell point system).

Likewise with the Psionics Handbook. There again, it features psionic rules, and gives you the options to make psionics a different kind of magic or something altogether different. Likewise for Oriental Adventures, which uses Rokugan as an example, but features lots of things that are not present in Rokugan, because it's a toolbox to create an oriental-themed setting. Deities & Demigods, despite its low usefulness, is another example of such a toolbox.

What makes you think the contrary is the greater emphasis on "balance", which is hard to do when the rules aren't set. That's why all sourcebooks are written assuming you use the core rules unmodified.

Since I wasn't clear in my inital post regardnig the type of changes I wanted, I will just give you my thoughts on what I would have preferred in the products you mentioned.

DDG was a product that I thought was pretty much a waste of paper. I didn't want a book on deity stats. I wanted a book on building faiths, pantheons, unique clerics (e.g., cloistered clerics and divine defenders from UA), suggestions for tailoring spell lists for a cleric of a particuliar deity, and notes regarding vestments, etc for a particuliar deities clerics. I found the 2e Complete Priest's Handbook, Faiths and Avatar's, and Priests and Pantheons much more useful and interesting than DDG (or either Defenders of the Faith and Complete Divine for that matter).

As for both versions of the Psionic's Handbook they are banned from our gaming table. I liked Bruce's work on several 2e products, but I thought the Psi Handbooks were disappointing. I think that the Skill and Feat system developed by WOTC for Star Wars, but introduced into the DND system by Green Ronin for their Psychic Handbook was not only a much more system changing alternative to DND, the result was I think, a much stronger and more interesting product.

Finally, for Rokugan, another product that I found disappointing despite my like for many of James wyatt's articles for Dragon. I liked the Sohei, Shaman, and for the most part the Samurai, but nothing else about the product was that good, imo. I found the Martial Arts Mastery to be disappointing as were most of the MA feats. I much would have preferred the introduction of the Brawling, Combat MA, and Defensive MA feats from d20 Modern and then having something similiar to RPG Objects Blood and Fist martial arts system.

 

[Greg K]

I've found, for magic, PO: S&M remains one of my most valued books. Spell Components, Magic Item Creation, and a host of other features far outmatch 3E's quick-play take on these elements, and as such the book remains a major influence on my gaming. Indeed, I still consider many 1E/2E books to be an active part of my RPG library, rather than just an "archive".

UA really was a step forward for WotC in regards to how they treat D&D. I hope to see more like it from them in the future, as it seems to embrace the fact that many groups (most?) make such changes, often for no reason more than "flavor".

Thankfully, despite selling off most of my 1e and 2e books when I left ADND at various points to examine other systems, I kept my Core Rules CD-Rom stuff. Looking through the stuff on the disks, I find lots of good source material that can be used with 3.x.

In fact, I may run DND 2.75. 3.x Core rules, Unearthed Arcana, the few items I use from various 3.x products (official and unofficial) and throw in material from various 2e products.

 

[hong]

As they pointed out, WOTC appears to not be really interested in giving DMs and players things in the splat books to really alter the game in the sense that 2e was-- the exception being a book like UA. To me this is the real problem of 3.X at least as far as Wizards is concerned. WOTC appears to not really be interested in helping DMs tailor the rules to create truly unique campaigns. So, until things change, I will continue supporting third party companies.

I think you've got the cart before the horse. Perhaps the question really is, why _should_ WotC get involved in creating lots of optional rules, expansions, etc, when there are lots of third parties out there who are perfectly willing to do that? It's not like we're talking about a ruleset that's completely under the control of the parent company, like Storyteller or GURPS or just about any other game out there. That's the point of the d20 SRD and OGL: anyone can publish something that they've created, if they believe enough people out there will use it (and buy it). This applies to rule tweaks just as much as new settings, modules, splatbooks, etc.

 

[Gez]

NITPICK ALERT!

Finally, for Rokugan, another product that I found disappointing...

Do not confuse Oriental Adventures with Rokugan.

 

[Greg K]

NITPICK ALERT!
Do not confuse Oriental Adventures with Rokugan.

Doh! I definately meant OA

 

[Greg K]

I think you've got the cart before the horse. Perhaps the question really is, why _should_ WotC get involved in creating lots of optional rules, expansions, etc, when there are lots of third parties out there who are perfectly willing to do that? It's not like we're talking about a ruleset that's completely under the control of the parent company, like Storyteller or GURPS or just about any other game out there. That's the point of the d20 SRD and OGL: anyone can publish something that they've created, if they believe enough people out there will use it (and buy it). This applies to rule tweaks just as much as new settings, modules, splatbooks, etc.

I am very thankful for the SRD, OGL and third parties. Obviously, from my post, I am getting more satisfaction from 3rd party supplements and will continue buying them. In terms of "official" 3.x material, I am still "bugged' (or better yet frustrated) with the majority of non-setting releases.

 

[SSquirrel]

Heh. I knew, when I started this thread, that a lot of people would follow-up saying, "Dude, I'm *glad* there's more crunch in 3e! Who needs flavor text? Add your own!"

The problem that I've experienced these past three years is that although we can *say* we're going to add our own imaginative flavor, it seldom happens. 3e seems to play more like a strategy/war game.

The following exchange is typical:

PLAYER: I want to scribe a scroll. I've got X gp and I can afford to lose Y experience points.

DM [trying to add flavor]: Uh, okay. You need to track down an elusive old hermit who lives somewhere at the base of the Barrier Peaks. He's the only known alchemist in the area, and has reportedly created a magic ink from the blood of a dead beholder.

PLAYER: Why do I have to do that? That ain't in the RULEZ!

DM [sighs deeply]: Fine. You create your scroll.

PLAYER: Kewl! More POWERZ!

====

I'm exaggerating, but seriously, if you tone it down a notch, the above description fits my experiences with 3e thus far. This is over a span of three years, playing in different groups.

[Shrug] Maybe colorful flavor and vivid imagination are going out of style, being replaced by painfully precise mathematical rulesets and strategy-and-tactics. I don't know. I hope I'm wrong.

Of course, after he said he had x money and Y XP available and wanted to scribe the scroll, you could have said "Alright, you buy the rare ink from a local hermit and a day later the scroll is yours." or something like that. If your players don't want that extra layer of Rp for something that they believe is purely mechanical, why force it? Just adlib a bit and maybe mention that this old man has many other interesting components like this and he welcomes you back in the future. Then maybe the next time your character would say "Hey DM, I wanna make a scroll, so I head to the hermit's place to see if he has the right kind of ink for me".

This way the player may go ahead and insert the RP flavor back in on his own the next time. That's just what I'd do tho.

Hagen

 

[SSquirrel]

But yeah, they do need to have some books... flavor suppliments, you might say, that are add-ons to the core books for people who want to put more emphasis on certain things. But there is that hinted-at magic item book.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread I believe, the "flavor" books are the campaign settings. Look at Midnight, Eberron, FRCS, Arcana Unearthed. Dripping with flavor. Core books, not so much. Core books don't need to as they are just your rules.

I also would say that darn near anyone who is going to be playing D&D probably HAS a pretty active imagination. I've never met a gamer yet who didn't in the last 17 yrs of playing.

Hagen