[spin-off] 3E is NOT "dumbed down."

[Tom Cashel]

AoO, is best described in two parts:

1) Within, or out of but not into

2) If it makes you take your eyes off the battle, or enter someone's square, it's an AoO.

It's more complex than that, of course, but that covers 90% of the situations encountered in AoO's.

Nit-pick:

Moving out of a threatened area provokes AoO, not into. (i.e. You can charge, but you can't run away...)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Hey, Flex! I meant to ask, 'cause I never saw a reply - have you ever seen Gygax's newest game, Lejendary Adventures?

I've seen it at the FLGS. They have all the books in the bargin bin. I've looked through it but I don't think I could get the group to play it. They like 3e, I couldn't even get them to give 1e a shot. Are you playing it? How does it run?

 

[Ravellion]

(does any one really know those rules inside-out, upside down and backwords?)

Oh yes

Rav

 

[Gothmog]

3E has been simplified in some ways and made much easier to run, but oversimplified in others, which I feel detracts from the game. On the other hand, 3E is much more complicated than other versions of D&D.

Good simplifications- Only three different saves that make sense, AC starts at 10 and increases, roll d20 and add BAB or skill bonus and compare to a DC, all stats use the same ability score modifiers. All of these changes make the game much easier to run on the poor DM.

Bad simplifications- 1) Characters automatically gain proficiency with whole classes of weapons. I feel this detracts from the game- in real life, martially trained people only know how to use a handful of weapons well, and of those, only maybe one or two in a truly competent manner. It just strikes me as an overhomogenization of class abilities, meant to appeal to people who were frustrated in 1E and 2E when their character found a weapon they could not immediately use.

2) Cleric domains and clerical spells are too similar between different gods. IMO, the base cleric spell list doesn't focus on spells every deity would bestow on its followers. Sure, the cleric gets two domains and their powers to make him a little different than every other cleric, but this really isn't enough. I think the cleric base list should be much smaller, and expand the domains by 4-5 spells per level to generate truly different clerics.

3) While the CR/EL system is a decent guide for the DM in making encounters, I have seen LOTS of players get very bent out of shape when encounters of a higher EL than the party level are thrown at them. They seem to think it is unfair, or that the DM is cheating. While this really isn't a rules gripe, I think that by presenting the CR system in the way they did, a lot of people look at it as canon rather than as a guide for the DM to determine how tough a given encounter would be for the party.

3E is more complicated in regards to feat selection and keeping track of monster and NPC feats during a fight. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of feats to customize a character, but they can be a pain to keep track of. Also, it irks me a little than 95% of all the feats out there are combat oriented. Why are there no "official" non-combat feats?

I guess my last point is more of a personal preference thing, but does it seem to anyone else that the rules system of 3E is MUCH more geared towards combat and fighting than the other editions? Not that this means that 3E is "dumbed down", but it does seem directed at a different style of play than 1E or 2E. This only seems to be reinforced by virtually the all-combat feats, maximized and empowered spells being tossed like crazy at higher levels, and the focus on almost every official WoTC adventure on huge numbers of combats.

Ok, I'm done now. Sorry for the book.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I guess my last point is more of a personal preference thing, but does it seem to anyone else that the rules system of 3E is MUCH more geared towards combat and fighting than the other editions?

Not really. 1e, for example, had little else besides provisions for combat. The closest it came to encouraging other types of play were the secondary skills, which didn't have any game mechanic effects.

 

[Havoc]

Heck, you can describe it in one part:

1) if you do something stupid (cast a spell, fire a bow, read a scroll, etc) next to someone, they get to hit you.

If you're not playing with a battlemap, this should be good enough for most purposes.

Yes! And the same kind of reasonning goes for all the "complex" rules.
I would like, however, that all the rules are explained that way - not a 'rationale for this rule' kind of thing, but a sort of introduction, a summary explaining the essence of the rule.
In fact, "if you do something stupid (cast a spell, fire a bow, read a scroll, etc) next to someone, they get to hit you" is the only thing one has to remember about AoO.

 

[drnuncheon]

Nit-pick:

Moving out of a threatened area provokes AoO, not into. (i.e. You can charge, but you can't run away...)

Nit-pick:

Isn't that exactly what "Within, or out of but not into" means?

J

 

[evil_rmf]

I couldn't agree more. Anything simple often gets accused of being dumbed down, yet complex situations arise out of simple rules that work (e.g. chess).

I for one have a hard time understanding the diehard players who seem intent on continuing their 1st edition game (or even worse 2nd ed.).

Yes, 3rd ed. is simple, but not at all dumbed down. When rules work and are easily understood I kinda laugh at the people yelling "That's too simple".

regards
Toft

Well, the group I still play 1E with doesn't want to shell out for new books. Nor do they want to bother to learn a new system. We all have jobs, wives, kids, other hobbies, households to maintain, cars to service, etc...

All of these things take time and money. The time to sit down and read the 3E PHB just doesn't exist for alot of the folks in that group. Actually, it is hard to find time for all of us to get together, so we generally run with parts of the group.

The most important reason, however, is that we are still having a blast running 1E. That's the point, isn't it?

Can't comment on 2E, as I personally never played it.

Having said all of that, I have made it a point to DM a 3E campaign with a different group. I do agree with the previous poster who said that 3E is harder to DM. At first I thought it was because I was just set in my ways. But after some consideration, I don't think so. I've run games in OD&D, 1E, 3 versions of Gamma World, GURPS, and MERP, so it's not like I'm "new system adverse" so to speak. I do think 3E is harder to DM than 1E simply because there are so many situations where I would just wing it that now have d20 + mods to resolve to resolve the situation. I think this tends to make the game a bit more random in general. Then there are all the feats to keep track of, prestige classes to decide on, etc.....

I'm not bitching about 3E here. Just trying to point out all of the "extra" things I need to keep track of as a DM, verses 1E. It's part of the job and I understand that. However, it is more work, at least for me, to run 3E. In a year, when many of the mechanics are committed to memory, I may find myself thinking differently.

Oh, and to the point: I don't think 3E is watered down. But it is a different animal.

Sorry to ramble.

 

[evil_rmf]

Re: Re: [spin-off] 3E is NOT "dumbed down."

It seems to me there are segments of the rpg population who are looking for any reason to tear down 3E d&d.

When someone looks hard enough, then they will find what they are looking for- even if it does not really exist.

"Immature", "dumbed down", or whatever-

3E D&D is what it is- the most popular rpg and the only currently supported D&D game.

Its detractors can hug their 1E D&D books or their indie rpg pamphlets and scream all they want, I doubt they will have any impact on 3E.

They won't have any impact at my gaming table.

FD

I agree 100%. As someone who plays both, I can tell that 3E hasn't made an impact on most of the people still playing 1E (at least the ones that I know, anyway). It's been my experience that most of the people sticking with 1E are just plain happy with what they got and don't want/need anything else. I haven't come across too many of the "1E or nothing, 3E is for idiots" types, except for places like this. OK, I take that back. The manager at a LGS is that way. Of course 6 months ago, he was saying that DnD in all forms was for idiots, and real men play Harn only.

But anyway, you're right. Haters will find a reason to hate something, no matter what it is.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Nit-pick:

Isn't that exactly what " Within, or out of but not into" means?

J

Ah, yes! *slaps own head*

Well, the answer to that depends on whether you add "If you want to avoid getting AoO'd..." at the beginning or "...will provoke AoO." at the end.

See:

If you want to avoid getting AoO'd, "Within, or out of but not into."

"Within, or out of but not into" will provoke AoO.

I took it as the former, when Henry meant the latter.

*slaps own head again*

Hooray! We agree!