Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Psion]

Which under 3rd Edtion is not quite the same. If all you do is move, the square that you start out in is not considered threatened for purposes of AoO. So, in most cases, if you run away, you don't get hit.

Incorrect. If you do anything but withdraw or a 5' step, your first square is eligible for a hit.

This is why changed the verbology on "double move" to "withdraw" in 3.5.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

I can't speak for OD&D or 1E, but I can say that the rules for retreating and fighting withdrawals were in the Moldvay Basic D&D edition. The enemy did get one free swing at you if you simply turned tail and ran.

Yep. It's also an official rule in AD&D 2e. If you flee, enemy gets an "attack of opportunity" -- though it isn't called that.

 

[Henry]

Also, many combats are impossible for us to resolve without battlemats and figures, and setting those up invariably suck up time....

More generally, keeping track of 5+ NPCs (with different class abilities, feats, spells, magic abilities) can be quite taxing for myself qua DM. Often the game slows down because I need to check something, determine the effects of different spells 'behind the screen' and so forth...

I would rather spend my DM 'prep time' designing new towns, interesting plots, distinctive NPCs (in terms of backstory and personality, not stats), new cults or guilds, and so forth. In contrast, generating NPCs and, to a lesser extent, monsters -- and then writing up their statblocks, etc. -- bores me to death....

I think I see: Indeed, if running the NPC's like the PC's do, then yep, things are going to be quite nasty to plan.

The stripped-down way I run NPC's and monsters, which is quite contrary to the way that WotC modules present it, is totally contrary to statting them out fully. At the least, I know gender, race, class, level, and personality for my NPC's; at most, I know their ACs (touch, flat-foot, and regular), attack, dmg, a save number (just a number I add to all saves), and hit points. If they are a spellcaster, I know what level, and I'll have the spell names written out, and I'll look them up if I can't remember something. If they have buffing spells, I write down the effects, rather than the actual bonuses. It doesn't matter if something gives +4 str, as long as I know it's +2 to hit and dmg, and lasts until someone casts dispel magic on them, that sort of thing.

Now, If I have time, I'll break out the computer programs, the PCGen, etc. and stat them out fully - mostly if I want to throw a little trick their way, like a buffed up gargantuan scorpion, or a druid who has prepared for an assault. It's especially fun when I'm in a character-generating frame of mind, which I'll get if I have time to kill. But 90% of opponents my players face have just enough bailing wire to fight and die, and nothing else.

I am glad to see you found a good replacement with C&C, however, and I hope you have continued to keep your players' interest in it. It certainly sounds to be a good alternative to 3E.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

Which under 3rd Edtion is not quite the same. If all you do is move, the square that you start out in is not considered threatened for purposes of AoO. So, in most cases, if you run away, you don't get hit.

The rule on this is slightly different between 3.0 and 3.5. Plus, there is a difference between retreating (normal move speed) and *running away* (speed X 4). Running away always results in an AoO; plus you'll lose DEX bonus to Armor Class, to boot. :\

 

[fredramsey]

Withdraw

Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. (Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can’t withdraw from combat if you’re blinded.) You can’t take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw.
If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal.

You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you don’t have a listed speed.

Note that despite the name of this action, you don’t actually have to leave combat entirely.

Incorrect. If you do anything but withdraw or a 5' step, your first square is eligible for a hit.

This is why changed the verbology on "double move" to "withdraw" in 3.5.

 

[Psion]

Please note that I was only repeating what somebody else had said, and was not saying that D20 was more complex.

No worries here.

Personally, I think that the level of perceived complexity depends upon the individual.

Indeed.

But I would put in another way. It's not a capability issue. It's a preference issue.

Most gamers have the capability to deal with the rigors that 3e requires. Some just don't wish to. My point is that those who point to complexity of 3e as a failing don't have an objective point, as many pretend. It's a preference.

The point is, that the rules to have a little bit of complexity built into them (most systems do), however, how much that complexity affects the total game will more often be determined by personal preferences and perecptions than by any actual complexity that might be there.

Just so.

For me, chosing games is a matter of a trade off. What does the game offer, what challenges does it offer in order to play it? The balance of those two questions, which game gives me what I want for what I am willing to deal with, determines "what game is right for you."

 

[Akrasia]

... I am glad to see you found a good replacement with C&C, however, and I hope you have continued to keep your players' interest in it. It certainly sounds to be a good alternative to 3E.

Thanks!

In addition to myself, one player is very pro-C&C (for reasons similar to my own). Another player likes both systems (he has a mild preference for 3E, but likes the fast pace of C&C and is happy to let C&C be 'my system'). A final player wants to stick with 3E, but is willing to play C&C once I made it clear I would not be up for DM'ing 3E again (it is worth noting that this player has not tried C&C yet).

This just goes to show that, even within the "fantasy domain", there is room for different systems in the same group. Different systems have different virtues and vices, and play to the strengths of different DMs.

I am happy to play 3E -- especially with a DM who has mastered the rules.

But as a DM, I see now that it really is not my cup of tea.

 

[Mallus]

I think that one of the central tenets of balance is that all players feel like they are given a chance to contribute.

.
Well put. Its the issue when discussing game balance.

The rules try to acheive this, but really, when there are optimal and suboptimal builds (and indeed, optimal and suboptimal play styles), the capabilities of the players becomes a balance issue.

Capabilities is a really loaded term... when that usually breaks down to different players wanting different things out of the gaming experience. The last game I played in sported characters with terribly suboptimal builds, insane rolled stats [I think on the order of a 43 pt. buy], and some of the best roleplaying I've ever experienced... were we 'capable' or not?

 

[fredramsey]

"Run" was a poor choice of words on my part for the SECOND part of the sentence, but the first part is still true. You can move up to double your move and the square you start out in is not considered threatened.

The rule on this is slightly different between 3.0 and 3.5. Plus, there is a difference between retreating (normal move speed) and *running away* (speed X 4). Running away always results in an AoO; plus you'll lose DEX bonus to Armor Class, to boot. :\

 

[Storm Raven]

And I am not saying that people should get rid of choice. I just believe that feats and spells requiring complex record keeping should be dropped from the game. Anything that modifies the "statblock" for a short period of time should be removed.

So, basically, uou advocate eliminating Bless, Prayer, most bardic singing abilities, Enlarge Person, Reduce Person, and virtually every other spell that is not a direct damage spell, and every feat that only works "some of the time" (like Point Blank Shot, which only works within 30 feet).

That will make for a very different game. One that diverges greatly from any other version that has ever been printed. In point of fact, I'm not sure you could call it D&D any more.