D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[Warbringer]

I think it would work very well for the setting, but would produce a much different style of play. I suppose with d20 cthulu you could do something closer to d&d ravenloft, because that still has levels. But chaosium cthulu would run very different. It actually might play a bit like hammer films, which would work because ravenloft drew a lot from that. The characters would basically be normal folk.

NPC only classes, E6 style ....

Initiative .. You win, you run; you lose, you die ....

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

3rd IMO would be even worse as a fit.

I disagree because with 3rd edition, you could easily limit what is being used such as classes and races. We played a Ravenloft game using Pathfinder rules and it was fantastic.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah I agree with that. The mechanics of DnD don't lend themselves to horror very well since the pc's individual power rises so fast.

A great deal of 2e Ravenloft required a lot of more free form play and ignoring a lot of mechanics. 3rd IMO would be even worse as a fit.

But there's an excellent example of a setting where it was setting first and mechanics second.

For me 2e worked fine for Ravenloft. Didn't have to ignore the system at all. But AD&D is more free form by nature. The robustness of 3E got in the way of Ravenloft a bit for me.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

For me 2e worked fine for Ravenloft. Didn't have to ignore the system at all. But AD&D is more free form by nature. The robustness of 3E got in the way of Ravenloft a bit for me.

Ravenloft just felt better in 2e, the idea of terror may just have played better in my teenage mind though...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ravenloft just felt better in 2e, the idea of terror may just have played better in my teenage mind though...

I think which system one prefers for ravenloft (3E or 2E) depends a lot on your individual preferences, i know people who adore the d20 Ravenloft material and really prefered it when i was running d29 Ravenloft campaigns (and i ran quite a few). But for me, i have always prefered 2E for Ravenloft (mainly as a Gm but also as a player). I did think perhaps it was nostalgia or me being younger when i used to run 2E ravenloft, but i did a 2E campaign for it quite recenlty and it made a difference. YMMV

 

[Bedrockgames]

I disagree because with 3rd edition, you could easily limit what is being used such as classes and races. We played a Ravenloft game using Pathfinder rules and it was fantastic.

And there is also a lot of newer material for Ravenloft using 3E rules. This is largely going to be preference. My experience is both systems impact how Ravenloft plays, but people will disagree on which type of play is better. I ran Ravenloft since the original black boxed set was released, and did so pretty much exlusively. Both systems work fine. And i have seen players who prefer 3E and those who prefer 2E.

The call of cthulu system is an interesting idea, because using that players almost become, i think someone else pointed this out, npc classes. They are going to be far less heroic, and more mundane, i have never run a ravenloft campaign that was that removed from the D&D feel, but i think it could work wel if you draw on hammer films and gothic horror stories. I still think D&D ravenloft works great. The scale fine (you have foes like geists and gremishkas early on and eventually get to the point where you can face vampires and liches). Also, because it focuses less on combat and the dungeon, campaigns tend to progress very slowly. As a GM i found this helpful because i was quite prepared by the time the players got to the 12+Level range.

 

[Hussar]

I disagree because with 3rd edition, you could easily limit what is being used such as classes and races. We played a Ravenloft game using Pathfinder rules and it was fantastic.

Note, difficult=/=impossible.

I'm going to stand by the idea that 3e does not do horror particularly well. The characters are just too capable. Far too powerful.

Then again, I wasn't a bit fan of D&D horror in the first place in 2e for exactly the same reason. 2e characters are just too powerful to be challenged particularly by 2e monsters. You start so high on the power scale that minor undead are a speed bump. The only real challenge is "Do I have the right plus sword to kill this thing?"

D&D, for me, has been strongly a heroic fantasy and pulp fantasy game. Neither lends itself to the idea of PC's being on the weak end of the power scale. I just haven't played D&D at that end of the spectrum to be honest. 3d6 in order? That may have been Method 1, but it was never the default where I played. It was always 4d6 arrange to taste.

So, yeah, I saw 3e as a major powering down of PC's relative to the creatures that they faced.

 

[Brock Landers]

2nd Ed was designed with an eye to non-miniature/grid use, play at a coffee house (in arm chairs) type deal, which Ravenloft lends itself to perfectly.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Note, difficult=/=impossible.

I'm going to stand by the idea that 3e does not do horror particularly well. The characters are just too capable. Far too powerful.

I don't get what you mean here. What exactly makes the PC's too capable and powerful?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

So, yeah, I saw 3e as a major powering down of PC's relative to the creatures that they faced.

Well which one is it? Are PC's in 3rd edition too powerful or are they powered down?