Know what bothers me about d20?: Not very much.
- Thread starter Rel
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
True, it all depends on what you consider "right." Dropping a + or two when interpreting a situation on the fly doesn't particularly concern me, though. I remember back in Ray Winninger's Dungeoncraft articles in Dragon in the waning days of 2e that he had an actual rule of Dungeoncraft that if you didn't know how to adjudicate something, it was just 50%. You certainly don't need that kinda thing in 3e. For whatever wacky action you want to attempt as a player, there's usually a skill that is the obvious choice to roll against.Breakdaddy said:
Whether or not you stack up all the "right" modifiers to the DC is still an issue if you want to be "right", but at least you're operating within the framework of the rules. So it's still more "right" than an ad hoc ruling, like we used to have to do, or like many other systems still require.
GlassJaw
Hero
The interesting thing is that when taken one piece at a time, there are a lot of things about the d20 system that I don't prefer: the abstract hit point system, level-based advancement, fire and forget magic system, etc. But as a whole, the d20 system is enjoyable.
It's definitely not realistic by any means but it makes no illusions that it is and that's what I like about it. It's fast and easy to learn and can be easily modified and tweaked. Some of the combat rules are little too tactical but then again, everyone is on the same playing field and the options are well-defined.
It's funny because after a lot of our D&D sessions, we usually talk about the deficiencies of d20 and compare it to other systems. But we are back the next week rolling our d20's and having fun and that's basically the bottom line.
It's definitely not realistic by any means but it makes no illusions that it is and that's what I like about it. It's fast and easy to learn and can be easily modified and tweaked. Some of the combat rules are little too tactical but then again, everyone is on the same playing field and the options are well-defined.
It's funny because after a lot of our D&D sessions, we usually talk about the deficiencies of d20 and compare it to other systems. But we are back the next week rolling our d20's and having fun and that's basically the bottom line.
Gomez
First Post
I played in my first Eberron game last sunday with a first time GM. We started at first level and had a blast. Combats were fun (fighting dire rats in waist deep water) and there were several tricky situations (trying to open a heavy trap door from a slime covered ladder 30' off the ground). The GM was very nervous but he ran the game well and everyone had a great time. He even had to adjudicate the rules several times and no one at the table complained about a ruling.
DungeonmasterCal
First Post
I love the d20 system and can't imagine EVER going back to the rules of previous editions or switching to another system. There are a lot of d20 haters who complain just to hear their own words, but having played in different systems over the years, I really think this is the best thing going, and will likely continue to be so for quite some time to come.
The Shaman
First Post
For GM's Day I treated myself to a copy of 1e Top Secret, the old TSR modern espionage game. It was fun reading through the rule book - brought back lots of great memories from gaming during my high school years.
I was curious to see if TS would hold up as a modern gaming system compared to d20 Modern - could I run the same kinds of games using TS as I do now? After spending a pleasant evening re-familiarizing myself with the system, I realized how klunky some of the rules are compared to d20 mechanics - combat that's resolved literally second-by-second, pages and pages of charts for handling different forms of martial arts in hand-to-hand combat, skill and combat modifiers that range from -5 to -100 or more (chance is resolved using percentile dice). While I still like TS's char-gen system (secondary and tertiary attributes rawk) and "areas of knowledge" (skill system), only the former has anything on d20 mechanics.
When I started gaming again a few years ago, I was pleased with many of the changes in D&D and the d20 mechanic generally. It's an elegant system for resolving chance in the game, clean and consistent (at least to the extent that one keeps close to core - the eventual downfall of 3.x and their progeny will be the proliferation of rules in the forms of feats, class abilities, and new actions). Never experiencing 2e, I relied on my "1e knowledge" and found that I could create game-worlds and run adventures like those I did when I was younger: crawling through lightless dungeons, trekking through howling wilderness, sneaking through city alleys and across rooftops. The 3e mechanics meshed well with my 1e gamemastering.
That's not to say that there aren't things I don't care for in the current incarnation of D&D. Some are holdovers from 1e: the Vancian magic system has always bugged me and I've learned to tolerate but never love hit points. Others are more specific to the current edition: CR, the proliferation of magic items, "game balance." None of these limitations prevent me from running the games I want to play, however. When I make houserules they're generally small, niggling things that I modify to achieve a certain feel, or setting conceits such as the prevalence and availability of magic in a fantasy world.
Overall I consider myself content with the system - it works for me.
I was curious to see if TS would hold up as a modern gaming system compared to d20 Modern - could I run the same kinds of games using TS as I do now? After spending a pleasant evening re-familiarizing myself with the system, I realized how klunky some of the rules are compared to d20 mechanics - combat that's resolved literally second-by-second, pages and pages of charts for handling different forms of martial arts in hand-to-hand combat, skill and combat modifiers that range from -5 to -100 or more (chance is resolved using percentile dice). While I still like TS's char-gen system (secondary and tertiary attributes rawk) and "areas of knowledge" (skill system), only the former has anything on d20 mechanics.
When I started gaming again a few years ago, I was pleased with many of the changes in D&D and the d20 mechanic generally. It's an elegant system for resolving chance in the game, clean and consistent (at least to the extent that one keeps close to core - the eventual downfall of 3.x and their progeny will be the proliferation of rules in the forms of feats, class abilities, and new actions). Never experiencing 2e, I relied on my "1e knowledge" and found that I could create game-worlds and run adventures like those I did when I was younger: crawling through lightless dungeons, trekking through howling wilderness, sneaking through city alleys and across rooftops. The 3e mechanics meshed well with my 1e gamemastering.
That's not to say that there aren't things I don't care for in the current incarnation of D&D. Some are holdovers from 1e: the Vancian magic system has always bugged me and I've learned to tolerate but never love hit points. Others are more specific to the current edition: CR, the proliferation of magic items, "game balance." None of these limitations prevent me from running the games I want to play, however. When I make houserules they're generally small, niggling things that I modify to achieve a certain feel, or setting conceits such as the prevalence and availability of magic in a fantasy world.
Overall I consider myself content with the system - it works for me.
der_kluge
Adventurer
Yea, but that isn't to say that a lot of people's complaints about the rules aren't unfounded. Let's face it, you're probably playing 3.5, which is a great system, IMHO. 3.0 had some problems. So, if you were using 3.0 rules, the result might have been different if someone was complaining about their ranger character, or the party cleric decided to use his HARM spell on your BBEG, instantly laying waste to your best laid plans.
But all in all, 3.5 is a solid system, I agree.
But all in all, 3.5 is a solid system, I agree.
