Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 3302929" data-attributes="member: 3586">You can't have variety without a certain level of complexity.For players, D&D 3e has a big bonus over 1e as it invests the player's interest in the game *outside* of play of the game, as they design their character and how it advances. In AD&D, you played a fighter or magic-user, and there were no choices to make at all as to how your character advanced. New spells were dependent on those found in-game. In 3e, the player has feats, skills, spell choices, prestige classes, multiclassing, the ability to buy magic items... all these ways of customising his or her character and investing in it heavily, and all things that can be planned without needing to be playing the game.Er? Where am I disagreeing in my post?Mind you, boxed sets have problems from a profit side of things.The framework *must* be there from the start. You don't have to give all the feats or uses of skills, but you can't bolt it on later.Hmm? Not really. I don't like Synergy bonuses and the problem with changing Int on skills. Some skills should be combined. Otherwise, the system is easy. Max skill ranks in a number of skills and stat bonuses? Very simple. It's the people who think "oh, we have to split the points" that are the problem.No, the problem is that PCs and NPCs have different needs, and they're both using the same system. With PCs, complexity is much less an issue, because it's the one thing you devote all your time to. For the NPCs, the DM must deal with lots of them, and they get used up very quickly.Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification