What mechanics do you like?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Feats are definitely my favorite aspect of 3e. It allows characters of the same class to differentiate themselves stylishly, something that was painfully missing from 1e/2e. Feats can get a little "John Woo" for my taste sometimes, but I forgive them because they are more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Skill system is vast improvement but it is still only okay. It is easy to use so I happy enough with it.

I prefer the BRP experience system. It may be doable to port over some Pendragon d20 to d20 d20, if you get my drift.

mmadsen is onto something there with the Traits to replace the alignment system.

I have never really liked the D&D magic system, but at least 3e is cleaned up enough that its rough spots are mostly tolerable.

I prefer Ars Magica and HarnMaster mechanics for magic.

 

[mmadsen]

I like the combat maneuvers. Anything that allows a fighter to do more than just hit the monster with a weapon is Good.

Good point. I especially like Grappling, but it could sure use a clearer (and more succinct!) description. I'd love an example of a dozen Zombies trying to Grapple our hero.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: What mechanics do you like?

I might miss the kits if they were ever implemented right -- as a DM I liked the ability to focus chargen from level 1. I also like some of the flexibility afforded by S&P.

I wish the PHB or DMG had taken variant classes a bit more seriously. I think Bonus Feat lists instead of Special Abilities could've indirectly solved that problem too. It's easy to switch out which Feats go on the list, or which Skills go on the Class Skill list.

 

[mmadsen]

I agree with Victim and hong that 3E multiclassing is a great improvement.

Classes like the monk and paladin (and to a lesser extent, the barbarian) are relatively set in stone, true. However, the multiclassing mechanic means that you still have options if you want to play these classes. You can be a handy martial artist by being a fighter/monk, for instance; or a ninja by being a rogue/monk. It's just a matter of finding the right combo.

Unfortunately you can't reasonably remove unwanted powers (and replace them with appropriate ones). For instance, there's no such thing as a Barbarian without Rage -- even though Conan isn't necessarily a berserker. There's no such thing as a Ranger without Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Favored Enemies, and Spellcasting (at higher levels) -- even though such a class would fit Robin Hood (and his men), Faramir (and his men), and other woodsmen players might want to play. And, of course, every Monk has the same powers: Stunning Fist, Deflect Arrows, Still Mind, etc. No combo of classes gets around that.

Again, flexible classes (e.g. classes with a Bonus Feat list) could get around this. So could very narrowly-defined classes -- and narrowly-defined classes can be joined together to form the agglomerations of abilities that we call the Ranger, Paladin, etc.

 

[Mordax_sighs]

I like:

- The new combat system.
I've created some wonderful victories by taking advantage of grappling and disarming. And I love that there's a good reason to hold the line, now.

- Named bonuses.
I like knowing what kinds of AC apply when, what buffing spells stack, etc. This was a great idea.

- Spontaneous Healing.
Finally, I can play a Cleric and have fun. (Domains help in this regard, too.)

- 3E Familiars.
Finally, having a familiar is no longer a weakness.

- 3E Item Creation rules.
Oh, they're not perfect (!), but they're a vast improvement over Olden Times, when items were strictly DM judgment calls.

What I miss:
- Kits.
Some of them were very bad, but I like the idea of customizing core classes just a *little* for everybody. Feats come close, but they're not enough, IMO.

(I recently introduced a Wilderness Rogue, for this.)

What I hate:
- Sacred cow classes.
I've mutilated the Paladin and Ranger beyond recognition, trying to find a house version of each that isn't just a 2E rehash. I wish they'd done the work for me.

- The lack of guidelines for PrC creation.
I generally use pre-existing PrCs as guidelines, but I'd like a behind the scenes discussion of it, someplace.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Likes:

AC goes UP.
THAC0 is gone.
Multiclassing is intuitive.
CR
Alphabetical spellists
Linear ability score modifiers
Cyclical initiative
Streamlined saving throws
Streamlined advancement charts
Feats

Dislikes:

PRCs
"Guidelines" for magic item pricing
Class skills
Skills are too specific (Use Rope. Yuck. Appraise different than Profession: Merchant? Um...why?)
L1 Ranger/Lx Fighter/Lx Barbarians (I see way too many of these)

 

[hong]

I agree with Victim and hong that 3E multiclassing is a great improvement.

Cool.

Again, flexible classes (e.g. classes with a Bonus Feat list) could get around this. So could very narrowly-defined classes -- and narrowly-defined classes can be joined together to form the agglomerations of abilities that we call the Ranger, Paladin, etc.

Out of interest, do you actually PLAY D&D, as opposed to complaining about it?

There have been six million fixes written up for the problems you mention. Use them.

 

[Bagpuss]

Conspiracy X's Psionics game mechanic which uses Zener cards, so if your players actually do have ESP then they will do better.

That has to be a classic game mechanic.

 

[mmadsen]

Feats are definitely my favorite aspect of 3e. It allows characters of the same class to differentiate themselves stylishly...

I love the way you put that, and I think it really gets at the allure of Feats. Having more Hit Points might make you more powerful, but it's so bland. Getting to Whirlwind attack a horde of Orcs -- now that's...more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Skill system is vast improvement but it is still only okay. It is easy to use so I happy enough with it.

I basically like the skill system too, but it shares a common flaw with many other game systems, and one that a class system should be able to work around. If all your skills come from the same shared pot of skill points, then you naturally min-max based on what you expect to encounter and what should be most useful. That's the bane of point-based character-generation, right?

Older versions of D&D basically had this right: you had no rules for noncombat skills. That way you assumed the Cleric could lead his flock, the Wizard could read ancient manuscripts, the Fighter could fletch his arrows, etc. If Aragorn the Ranger needs to recount the lineage of the kings of Gondor, he just does.

Ideally, I guess, background skills could come from a separate pool, or they could be tied to class level like Bardic Lore, so that Clerics might actually have Knowledge: Religion, the King's Rangers might actually know the history of their land and its leaders, etc.

mmadsen is onto something there with the Traits to replace the alignment system.

Thanks. I doubt it would be worth the effort to track Law/Chaos and Good/Evil traits except for Clerics and Paladins, but it could really pay off there.

I prefer Ars Magica and HarnMaster mechanics for magic.

Those systems obviously have very different design goals than D&D though.

 

[Victim]

Older versions of DnD had nonweapon proficiencies, which meant that a character would have to go many levels before learning what he was studying. Also, they came out with new ones with every book, so even if you thought your character could do something, the next book would take that ability away.

I remember hearing about one person who wanted his rogue to learn to read and write. Because that was a cross group proficiency, it took two slots. It would take the character between 5 and 8 levels of advancement to learn to read and write. In other words, years.

Now a 5 int human barbarian can learn to read and write in one level. Not that it would do him much good with a 5 int, but it's an extreme case.