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

[Grazzt]

I personally don't see 3e as a dumbed down version of 1e (or 2e). I think of it as a more streamlined version. As was mentioned in earlier posts, rather than the miles and miles of tables we had to determine everything from attacking to saves to psionics, we now have a single mechanic or a simplified formula.

Me and three (of four) of my players started with 1e (me in 1982) and we have played D&D since then, moving to 2e when it came out and then quickly moving back to 1e (or at least a hybrid of 1e/2e) until 3e came out.

We still play a 1e campaign and have a 3e campaign going as well.

But- the bottom line is, play what ya want and as long as you're having fun...that's all that really matters.

 

[barsoomcore]

We started out using them, but it was just too much of a pain, so we stopped bothering. Without battlemaps, we might miss a few AoO based on movement, but that's about it. And it's a trade I'm happy with.

Same here. You don't need the mat. I'll usually make a quick sketch of the area and players just point or we make little marks to indicate who's where. People ask for AoOs or I assign them as situations come up and it works really well.

The mat is great for big honkin' battles where everybody's gotta take their own role and so on, but it's by no means necessary.

 

[Zappo]

I confirm, you don't need battlemaps if you don't want to use them. You may miss some of the most obscure AoOs, but that's no big deal. I use the maps because most of my combats are usually full of covers, elevated parts, holes, convoluted hallways and so on... shortly, I use the maps just as much as I used them in 2e.

 

[evil_rmf]

Hmmm ... right .... I guess what I meant was dissing 3rd edition on the account that it is simple, not becuase it involves buying new books.

Should have been clearer on that, sorry.

Toft

Nope, your point was clear. That post was in response to someone who didn't understand whay some diehards refuesed to give up 1E.

Just normal thread mutation, I guess.

 

[HellHound]

I have run a LOT of d20 games without a battlemat.

In fact, only in my dungeon-delving game are we using one, and that's mostly for the cool factor. I've also run using miniatures but no mat, worked fine.

Never had a problem with it, honestly. And it ACTUALLY seems to keep the tumblers a little more in check.

 

[maddman75]

I've tried 3e with and (briefly) without battlemats. I find that not having the battlemat has two effects. First, it slows the game down as the DM tried to get everyone to see the same vision of the situation that he does. Second, it tend to make the players want to get away with more. Your group may be different, this has just been my experience. It also seems that a melee fighter would see a lot less use out of some of his feats (SA, WWA, and Mobility come to mind) without the mat.

On keeping track of NPCs in combat, who can have all manner of feats, items, and spells working on them at the same time - sticky notes! They are about the perfect size. Keep one for every complicated NPC, and keep all the changing into on him right there. You can move them about on your notes if they get in the way, and when the guy dies, pitch them. Anytime they activate a feat, use an item, or cast a spell, just note it on the card, along with whatever duration (if applicatble to combat). I couldn't run a complex battle without them. With them, you don't need to think about it until the character's turn.

 

[johnsemlak]

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.

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.

I think allowing fighter types automatic proficiency was a good idea. I think it represents the idea that a career fighter can at least learn, with some practice how to use most weopons that are not, 'exotic'.

If you don't want your fighters to pick up new weapons and use them w/o penalty, consider this houserule of mine: If a weapon is found that is deemed by the DM as not immediately useable by the player(s), require the character to spend at least minimal time (the DM decides how long--perhaps a week or a month) practicing with the weapon before they can use it w/o penalty. This would not require the expenditure of feat or skill points; simply some game time.

All in all, I thought the weapon proficiency system is vastly improved.

 

[bloodymage]

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!

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

And I thought this was the line you were trying to correct. The two assertions made with "not into" and "enter...square" are contradictory.

 

[bloodymage]

On combat orientation, 3e vs. 1e: pages on combat in the 1eDMG, 23/169; in the 3eDMG, 23/246. Pages on combat in the 1ePH, 2/109; in the 3e PH, 19/274.

I disagree that 1e was only concerned with combat. Gary included an abundance of information on world-building and establishing a believable milieu. It's just that all the space devoted to "character detail" and non-combat mechanics in 3e was, for the most part, left up to the DM in 1e. Much of the combat mechanic was also up to the DM's common sense. I think this is where the "dumbing down" sentiment comes from. As a DM, everything is decided for me. All I'm there for is to run the combats and an infrequent shopkeeper. I quit running 3e after a year and a half because I felt rule bound. I'm back to 1e, will be starting a HackMaster campaign soon and trying Lejendary Adventures as soon as I get the rules digested. I might play 3e, but I'll not run it again.

Dumbed down? Not by most definitions. Turbocharged? Most assuredly. D&D decsendent? Debatable.

 

[s/LaSH]

I for one have little problem with the 3e rules, as I hadn't been playing for nearly a decade and didn't have much to interfere with picking up a different set of rules. My players hadn't played for years either; instead, they'd got their RPing kicks from computers. And all the talk about AoO reminds me of the Exile series of games (see Spiderweb Software), in which a similar effect was implemented: moving in a threatened area provoked an instant attack. And we were all heavily into Exile.

On consideration, I do think 3e is good for clearing up a few things, especially providing a unified mechanic. And I regard challenge ratings as a nice way to freak players out, nothing more. Heck, I don't follow the rules half the time; one member of the party can cast both druid and priest spells without multiclassing. I just like the basic concept, which serves as a springboard for creating the world I want.

And while some people are talking about tensor calculus systems, I'd like to mention that I'm working on a homebrew system that needs a calculator, but only because it requires multiplying 3-digit numbers together. It runs off formulae too, and has a unifying mechanic. I like it because it's even more unified than D&D; there's no need for feats because special maneuvers are built into the time-management system. (Yes, time management system. I don't use rounds. Well, I do, but you use dozens of the things at once and sometimes for two different things.) If you do something stupid, someone can attack you unless they're busy. In fact, a powerful attack leaves you open by definition. And there are no classes; if you want a thief who can walk through walls, that's just as easy as a guy who swings a sword a lot.

I guess the reason I bring this up is because the system is capable of resolving anything you throw at it with a minimum of fuss, and that's something D&D has been chasing for a while. Fantasy is by definition not limited to one concept; it's the trade-off between flexibility and simplicity that we all want. I happen to think that 3e has done well in creating a system that is both relatively open and relatively easy to run; it's a darn sight easier than my system, I'll tell you that much.