Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SSquirrel" data-source="post: 1848263" data-attributes="member: 5202">Kits=PrCs really. Specialty wizards are an accepted standard in 3E. There are optional combat rules listed in the PHB. Optional spell system called Psionics in seperate book *grin*   All of these extra infinite seeming rules are one of the reasons most people cite for disliking 2E. Because even when a rule was listed in a book as Optional, so many people seemed to take it as the Pure Word of God that it must be in the game.     This is the fault of WOTC how? They gave people the rules for character customization on the pages you specify and even show the creation of the Witch class in the DMG as well. If DMs don't take advantage of the material already presented in the books to tailor classes for their world, how is this WOTCs fault?    Basically what it comes down to is this:WOTC realized there are books that are core rules, books that are DM type books for world building (Manual of the Planes), books that are DM/Player crossover and include new goodies to spice your campaign with (Splatbooks), setting books (FRCS, ECS, Greyhawk Gazetteer), and optional rule books (Unearthed Arcana). There are indeed some new rules and options (usually new ways of using skills etc) found in splatbooks and such, but they realize that splatbooks are as much a player resource as a DM one, so generally new rules aren't a major focus.    Something like UA comes along and they jam it full with more rules and alternate takes than you would ever want to use in one campaign. Instead of every book in 2E seeming to have a "kitchen sink" design, 3E books are focused and organized. The new splatbooks (Complete Warrior, Divine, Arcane, etc) are more focused than their previous bretheren and more useful from what I've seen and read about them. This is the "A place for everything and everything in its place" style of game design which I appreciate. WHen I buy a book that is supposed to be new ways to play warriors, new eq, new PrCs, etc, I don't expect tons of new rules about X, Y and Zee. I expect class variants (magicless Ranger anyone?), PrCs etc.     This really seems like a chocolate/peanut butter kinda arguement at this point *grin*    On other points:   If people want to see TONS of divergent rules, complete guttings of the d20 system and some very cool stuff in general, set the House Rules forum to last 6 months and read thru a bunch of goodies. Wanna find a way to make all weapons largely equal and put the skill back into the hands of your character and not penalize someone for what weapon they choose to use? Go <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=103168&page=1&pp=20" target="_blank">here</a>. Maybe you want to be able to use the AU magic system and turn D&D into a point buy using the core classes or AU classes. Go <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82858" target="_blank">here</a>.  Use Ken Hood's Revised Grim N Gritty Rules which we helped him tweak here on ENWorld?  <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82837" target="_blank">Here</a>. All of these rules are fairly large rewrites of various aspects of the game and are quite cool. I know I plan on utilizing all 3 in my next game.   WotC is giving us the basic rules and relying on the players and DMs *not to mention 3rd party game companies* to produce other material. Gee, that's the entire MARKETING scheme behind 3E. Go figure. You know WotC trolls these forums every day looking for new and interesting ideas that people post so they can rope them into 4th Ed. If ENWorld had existed before 3E was a glimmer in their eyes, they would have had access to even more of the standard house rules people use in their campaigns than what they had found when working on 3E. I fully expect 4E to be more transitional, but not quite to the level of change as you had from 2 to 3. Think more the 1E to 2E clarifications and such. Don't think we'll see many sacred cows killed, but we may well see more optional components *including many things from UA* combined into the main game.    Reading along I found Greg K's next post *my this is becoming a long post* so here's some more responses. *grin*     I would say yes it IS too much to ask. I really addresed my thoughts on this above with how they're dividing up the kinds of things you see in different books.     See that's the thing. Designing a new base class isn't what most people need. Most people enjoy the core classes as they are and like them (or consider them sacred cows and won't change them) but PrCs are add ons as you get more experienced and are lil injectors of flavor. If you would prefer a million class variants in your world and less PrCs go right ahead, but the way the books are presented make PrCs a much more attractive (and far easier) option for most DMs. If you would prefer to tweak wizards in your game to allow for Force Mages, Mentalists etc w/o having them as PrCs go right ahead. Most of the rest of us will happily just use them as PrCs. PrCs are a good thing and allow the DM to inject a different flavor they maybe hadn't thought of by allowing specific ones. DMs like you would instead see the PrC and then tweak a base class to allow for it in the world. That's fine too. DIfferent play styles. It's all good.    I did find a lot of useful things in the Complete 2E series..like how to design my own Thieves Guild etc. Know how often that actually got used in a game I ever played in? Never. I'm sure many made use of it, but I never found them. Then you have things like the unarmed combat system in Complete Fighters, Priests AND Gladiators! All 3 of them different rulesets too. Again, with the SRD, other companies are welcome to step in and design niche products like is the current system and WOTC can focus on the core game. I really don't expect WOTC to be in the modding biz, but I do expect that of 3rd party companies.    Musical example. Prince has many songs that were left as B side tracks or even unreleased that are, many times, better than the tracks that were released. One of teh reasons some of these tracks aren't given wider circulation by him is that they ended up being too personal for him and he wasn't able to turn them into a generic enough statement. Songs ranging from lost love to the death of a friend to the loss of several friends thru their own drug addictions, we have many unreleased Prince songs that fit this bill.     To tie this to your point, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this material was offered to WOTC but it was deemed to be too different or just not what they were looking for, so they publish it themselves. This is exactly how things should go. WOTC tries to keep the core game a bit more stable as it is one of their cash cows and you don't wanna drive your audience away too badly. (Don't ask me to explain a revision of a new edition after only 3 years heh)   Oh yeah, one point I missed from your 2nd post on teh matter, I do agree that a skills style psionics system ala SWRG's Force skills is a better way to approach things, but obviously that's not the way WOTC wanted to go for the core version.  Skipping them for alternative Psi systems (including a coupla alternatives available from Bruce Cordell even) is obviously the correct method for you.  In conclusion (yes I'm FINALLY shutting up. Thanks if yr still reading, I did try to stay focused), we obviously differ on our opinions of what WOTC should be producing, but that's cool. Part of the fun of ENWorld is debate and finding new ways to play and different things people want to see from the game. If that means that you buy very little from WOTC but lots from 3rd party companies fabulous. If that means you're a strict WOTC only kinda guy, that works too. I would think the WOTC only people are missing out on some really great stuff, but hey. *grin*    Hagen</blockquote>

Verification