Yes to 4th edition

[Ranger REG]

And, oh, by the way...you're really not going to compare the complexity of those two games in a serious manner?

Are you saying D&D too complex for you?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Whooot! I'm not the oldest coot! By 2 full years even.

And I'm certainly not the oldest here, either. There are posters here 15+ years older than me.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Are you saying D&D too complex for you?

I guess, in a manner of speaking. I like having a solid, complex base of rules on which to rely. On the other hand, getting a machine to crunch the numbers and make combat go faster would be helpful.

 

[Ranger REG]

I guess, in a manner of speaking. I like having a solid, complex base of rules on which to rely. On the other hand, getting a machine to crunch the numbers and make combat go faster would be helpful.

Then buy a calculator. Not like we are currently using the THAC0 formula. :\

 

[sullivan]

Because people like to exploit game systems to maximize their fun? You may think it's constructive. I think it's overthinking it.

Well, if you're going to go to the point of not using classes, there are already plenty of skill-based game systems out there. Classes have been, are, and likely will always be, an integral part of what makes D&D, D&D. Removing them would be pointless and would remove a big part of D&D's identity. It would be like me advocating imposing a class-based system on GURPS or BRP. That's not what they are or what their creators intended them to have. Some people like class-based systems, some like skill-based systems.

I guess I'm not being clear enough here. I'm not saying go classless, but to try understand why they think it the use of the PrC as a way to maximize their 'fun'. Then to better handle it.

30+ years have shown indications that the vast majority of D&D players prefer classes. GURPS players prefer skill-based characters. Trying to make each more like the other just makes no sense.

Really? Then why are the PrCs there? Because that is what they, and the multiclassing do, roughly approximate classless by making it easier to roll up you own little class and to mix and match between classes. How about all these skills, where did they come from? Really you feel that 3.5 is the pinnacle of D&D, but at least partially for reasons that make it somewhat closer to other systems.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Then buy a calculator. Not like we are currently using the THAC0 formula. :\

It would take more than a calculator to really speed up combat in D&D.

 

[Ranger REG]

It would take more than a calculator to really speed up combat in D&D.

Sighs. Like what?

 

[ST]

While you may personally disagree, it's not a rare opinion that D&D 3.x is too complex to be enjoyable. That's simply true for some people. It's just not an opinion you hear much on boards devoted to D&D 3.x, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I'd absolutely try D&D 4 from what I've heard of it, which is weird, since I'm really not its target audience.

 

[babomb]

The MM would be released in the same form as the 2Ed Monsterous compendium...but with a twist: Monsters would be released in packages of 30 pages each, containing a variety of monsters. And by variety, I mean COLLECTIBLE! That's right! Monsters would be released randomly with distribution determined by their ACTUAL rarity!

I know you're joking, but I want to seriously address this common prediction: it wouldn't work. Not only would it make a lot of us rather angry, but the way D&D works is quite different from Magic. In Magic, having multiple copies of a card could be a benefit -- up to a point, at least; in D&D, there's no reason I couldn't use a single kobold card to make an entire army of kobolds. Sure, I might not have enough kobold minis, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who isn't above using Lego men or generic counters or a mini of a different monster. And they could make it against the rules to do so, but most people would ignore it as D&D is not a competition. So a group would share their copies, and a large portion of the set of monsters would be wasted (as compared to the marginal utility in Magic), both of which would tend to reduce sales.

The idea of distribution by "actual" rarity is intriguing, but unfortunately that would mean, for example, in a typical pack, I might get a gang (4-9) of goblins and a warband (10-24 plus 2-4 dire weasels) of kobolds. That would be much less useful than 1 goblin, 1 kobold, 1 dire weasel, and 27 other monsters.

Something that would be interesting, perhaps, would be breaking up the monster manual into low-level, mid-level, and high-level books, or breaking it up by terrain, like the XRP monster books. However, while this might be useful for us, it would most likely reduce total sales, because many people would only buy a few portions, and as I understand it, there is more overhead in producing two small books than one large book.

The PHB would receive similar treatment, with all of the crunchy stuff the players would need- grapple rules, AoO rules, etc.- but with seperate binders dedicated to collectible Spells, Psionic Powers, Feats...even CLASSES & RACES!

"Oh...you want to play a Halfling Rogue? Awwwwww- I don't have that class...or race! Here- try a Feral Duskling Spellthief instead!"

Again, if Larry in your group has a halfling card, you can just copy the stats off of his.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I guess I'm not being clear enough here. I'm not saying go classless, but to try understand why they think it the use of the PrC as a way to maximize their 'fun'. Then to better handle it.

You're making the assumption that most people have problems with PrCs. I don't think any of us have the data to make such assumptions. Some people on the internet claim to have problems with them. That's hardly a good sample.

Really? Then why are the PrCs there? Because that is what they, and the multiclassing do, roughly approximate classless by making it easier to roll up you own little class and to mix and match between classes. How about all these skills, where did they come from? Really you feel that 3.5 is the pinnacle of D&D, but at least partially for reasons that make it somewhat closer to other systems.

I think you're rationalizing to try to make D&D seem more classless than it is. Sure, skills, feats, multiclassing, and prestige classes make it so that, in effect, each person can create his own "class," in a manner of speaking. I will admit that I misspoke - skills/feats/multiclassing do skew the game towards being more similar to GURPS (or whatever classless system you prefer). But the game remains firmly, and obviously, a class-based system. But if I were inclined to rationalize so, starting packages in GURPS makes that game more similar to D&D's class-based system than one which doesn't present any such packages, so it would seem GURPS players long for the structure classes would give them.

I don't think 3.5 is the pinnacle of D&D. Could it be made better? Sure, and we've seen some movement towards that with stuff like the recent revamp of polymorph, Mike Mearls' redevelopment of classic monsters. But just because D&D borrowed some tropes from skill-based games doesn't mean it should, or would, skew even more heavily in that direction. Matter of fact, there is plenty of squawking about the complexity skills bring to the game, hence we see games like C&C, which (effectively) dispenses with skills.