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

[radferth]

I agree that 3rd edition is "dumbed down" from 1st edition is one big area, writing style. Pesonally, I loved Gygax's prose, but it certainly limited the pool of players. 3rd edition reads like rulebook, with a mechanic for everying that they can think of. This isn't a bad idea, but they really should add a rule 1/2 in the beginning of the DMG (right after rule 0) that encourages DMs to feel free to use their best guess/recolection for any given rules situation if it would break flow to spend 5 minutes looking up whether higher group is +1 or +2 to attack. 1st edition purposfully (or oversightfully) left many situations up to DM fiat. Having spelled out many of situations is not a bad thing, but DMs should feel free to use fiat if they want. Just be sure the players know this ahead of time.

On another note, while I like to idea of heavily customized priesthood for different dieties, I think 2nd ed. really did a poor job of this. Different domains, multiclass, and prestige classes aren't a perfect solution, but at least they have admitted their limitations. (IMC, I allow priest to trade in heavy armor proficiency for some other feat that fits their diety).

 

[barsoomcore]

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?

Well, certainly the PHB has nothing like 95% combat feats. Meta-magic and a host of others (Alertness, Track, etc) certainly make the core game much less than 95% combat.

More combat than anything else, sure. But I think that's appropriate.

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?

Well, all I can say is I only really need rules in a game for situations that I don't just want to issue fiat rulings on. Character interaction, puzzle-solving and mystery investigation I don't really need rules for. Frankly, the Skills chapter in the PHB covers all that stuff as thoroughly as I need. What I really need rules for are to cover situations like combat, where character survival is in question, tension is high and everybody wants to have some unpredictability in the outcome. That's what makes it exciting.

When the players are trying to convince the Countess to come upstairs so one of their number can jimmy the safe, I don't need much in the way of rules. I have my player roll a die, provide me with some estimate of how persuasive they are, and compare that against my mental notion of how determined the Countess is. I don't actually need any rules at all, just a way to normalize people's abilities.

With combat, though, I need drastically more precision and detail. It's really the only aspect of the game where I do.

Well, that, and the magic system. That needs to be carefully detailed as well in order to limit PC power.

Somebody mentioned that 1e was almost completely combat. That's absolutely true. I don't even believe that "Secondary Skills" were even introduced in the original PHB or DMG. I think they were first mentioned in Unearthed Arcana. So the focus on combat is just a part of D&D. One of the reasons I like it.

 

[hammymchamham]

WOTC should put out a D20 3e lite version for people like me who don't want to keep track of all the mods and whatnot.

Well, I think you can remedee this yourself. Only buy the 3 core books and use those. Then, if you want to use anything else, go for it. Like Song and Silence but hated Sword and Fist? Don't use Sword and Fist. Thats why all these other books are called supplements. The supplement the rules. Use them if you wish, but no one, not even WotC, is forcing the players to use these supplements.

 

[Churchill]

Yup, yup...

I started playing D&D with the Basic set I picked up back in 1978 (or so), converted to Advanced, went on to 2nd Ed., and got really fed up with it. I stopped playing D&D for a few years because I realy didn't like the game anymore.

Then 3rd Ed. came out and I was hooked again.

I absolutely love fantasy RPGs, but so many of the arbitrary mechanics in previous versions of the rules just left me cold. Among other things, I never felt like I could customize my character the way I wanted.

That's taken care of now. Although they may be going too far. The virtual torrent of PrCs reminds me altogether too much of Kits...

Anywho.

I'm still not in love with class/level based character design and progression, but at least now it's palatable to me.

And I'm having fun with the game again. Which, as a previous poster pointed out, is the reason for playing. It doesn't matter what version of the game you play (or, for that matter, what GAME you play), as long as you're having fun. Live and let live, I say.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

If players want to try a PrC, take a look at it, see if you think it would fit, and make a decision then. You don't need to be aware of every PrC before you start a campaign.

Same with any other optional rules. Your FR campaign doesn't agree with the new published version? So take what you do like and discard the rest! It's all about <b>options</b>. If you can afford to buy everything, and have time to use it all, hooray. If not, well I hope your happy with what you got.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

A lot of people seem to take issue with the fact that 3e has a Diplomacy skill, feeling that it's trying to be a substitute for roleplaying. That's simply untrue, and anyone who plays it that way really doesn't understand what the skill is all about.

If I try to convince someone of something, there are a lot of things that could affect the outcome of my persuasion one way or the other. Body language, breathing patterns, the unintentional motion of my eyes - these are all things that can't simply be roleplayed, but have a drastic effect on the conversation. The diplomacy skill isn't designed to be a replacement for conversation. It's designed to quantify the non-verbal aspects of communication and exemplify how someone with a high charisma is, in fact, better at communicating.

If you can "role-play" your way through all conversations, then why even bother having a Charisma score? You'll just end up substituting the charisma of the player for that of his character, but that's okay, according to Limper's view of things.

 

[Christian]

You have to watch out for that. Next thing you know they'll be doing long division, and then they'll all be playing Champions.

I wonder-if I designed an RPG that used tensor calculus, could I get anyone to play?

 

[Christian]

Hey! I've been quoted in another .sig! Cool!

 

[Cedric]

I will say this for the difference between 1st ed and 3rd ed. In my experience and my opinion...it was harder to stay alive in 1st edition.

Although with that said, I would follow up by pointing out that I do not feel 3rd ed. is a "dumbed down" version of the game.

Cedric

 

[Nightfall]

Gorm, don't tell you can't tell the difference between a Chardunite and Coreanic cleric?