VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:18:45 10/06/00 Fri
Author: Kaan
Subject: Re: 3rd Edition thoughts
In reply to: Fender 's message, "Re: 3rd Edition thoughts" on 17:41:57 10/06/00 Fri

Well, the 3E whore has to defend his pimp:

Rangers: I'm not certain on your specific greviences but, as anyone who is on the 3E boards at Eric Noah's site knows, there is a great faction of people who think that the ranger got the short end of the stick in the new edition. While every other class got something new and exiting, the ranger remained basically the same with a new and, IMO, lackluster species enemy system. Personally while I think that the species enemy system is lackluster, the ranger is still a pretty good class. It gets moderate skill points and one of the best list of class skills in the game. That in addition to the fighter, hp, attack bonus and weapon profs make it into a pretty tight package. I've seen some alternate ranger classes on the net that look VERY intersting and if I am ever a full time DM I might implement it but for now I'll probably stick with the core rules for now. Btw, if you were refering to the scapped alignment requirements I would have to disagree with you and say that it is for the better but that is a matter of personal taste.

Flexibility: I completely disagree here. 3E is WAAAY more flexible than 2E in the things you can do especially considering that just the core books are out. No class/race restrictions, skills which every class can access almost all of them, feats, the lifting of most armor and weapon restrictions and I'd say that it is a pretty flexible system even when you don't factor in roleplaying. And don't even get me started on prestige classes! What were kits than just instructions on how to roleplay and develop your character with a choice power or two that may be or may not be balancing? Honestly I think a little roleplaying goes a long way. Look at my characters, Perith and Lazar, and observe that they were pretty standard rules-wise and both present the same basic role in combat, spellcasting. Does that mean I am bored with them? No way! and that is because they are very different, roleplaying wise. I try to use roleplaying to spice up my playing experience and I strive to make each character unique and interesting (wait till you see what I have in mind for AnvilX's oriental game!). A creative roleplaying idea and a little bit of working the rules, which is much easier in 3E than in 2E without going out of the game and talking to your DM, can make many a interesting and diverse characters, IMHO.

Changes: I'd have to disagree here to. The only reason we play 2E is because D&D is by far the most popular roleplaying game there is and it is seldom trouble to find people to play with. Not so with other systems, as I have learned through personal experience. Also the general sentiment is that D&D, compared to many of the other systems out there, is inferior and has been inferior for a long time and its popularity has been the only thing keeping in its place on top. 2E NEEDED these changes to at least stay competitive and from my perspective I like virtually everything they have done with it and think it is, by far, the superior of 2E. As for your concerns about balance, well the game has been tested by hundered of playtesters around the world for about two years so I would think that they have most of the kinks ironed out. Just try and make a game breaking character in 3E. Pretty hard huh? Tell me if you succeed. On house rules: Well, just how many house rules are there out there for 2E? Yessir that's quite a big number and while many peoples tastes will vary and will change the rules for aesthetic reasons I am pretty sure few of the house will be to balance something or another in the game itself.

Suppelements: More supplements than 2E? WOW that's alot. See the above paragraph for my thoughts on the need for supplements. WotC is adopting a fewer supplements policy for 3E. Apparently one of TSR's problems was that there were too many supplements and at any given month people would by one or two out of the four or five put out that month meaning less profit per product meaning bankruptcy. There will be fewer suppelemts for sure. For instance the 2E handbooks will be superseeded by handbooks type books that represent two or three classes at a time. For instance the Fighter/Monk book entitled "Swords and Fists" will be coming out in the near future and the same thing will happen for all the other class handbooks.

Climb Skill: There are bound to be smattering of little things that will get on peoples nerves. I think you have a good arguement but, having done some rock climbing myself, I've had to stop climbing and give up on many a cliffs because everything in my forearms and up was too sore. There is something to be said about strength while the handhold that you are holding onto with three fingers is the only thing supporting you as your feet are free, looking for a better foothold. Also, great strength does not always equal bad flexibility. Just look at body builders for example. But anyways I think it is definately arguable for both sides and it is bound to be one of the little things that get on people's nerves.

Dex: I don't really see how dex was underrated in D&D. A direct and absolute bonus to your AC is pretty damn good in my book. If anything it had to be scaled down in some places in 3E, such as the heavier armors restricting how much your dex bonus can help you etc... But even then it still has direct applications to the many dex related skills that can have DIRECT implications in combat. That plus weapon finess make dex a much more interesting skill in 3E, IMO.

Feats: Well feats are especially cool things to have, granting constant bonuses to skills or attacks or damage that are nigh impossible to take away. They're not really supposed to be that abundant unless you're a fighter. And there's a very good reason for that: Fighters are the masters of feats. That's what they do. In 2E you had your basic fighter class and then it would go on to describe how the ranger and paladin were better than it, right? Not anymore, now the fighter has something of its own and it's balanced and it works and fighters are now a damn cool class because of it.

Two Weapon Fighting: Let's face it: two weapon fighting in 2E was way overpowered. There really was no compelling reason NOT to take it if you were a fighter, right? This despite all the times in the books where it said that it was a very difficult style to master and it has very dubious historical origins(Can anyone think of any historical two weaponers other than the rapier, parrying dagger combo?) made it something that needed to be addressed. Now although it has been scaled back, it has not been totally destroyed (Though there are those on the Eric Noah boards who would say so). If you have access to two feats at first lvl, either by being human or a fighter, then you can get rid of everything except a -2 attack penalty to both hands at your HIGHEST attack bonus. Plus, when you qualify for it, you can pick up the Improved Two Weapon Fighting for another attack with your offhand weapon even though it has a -5 penalty. So all in all I think it is fixed in 3E. And as for the faction that think two weaponers got screwed on the ENboards, their arguements seldom had anything to do with the penalties mentioned above. Not to mention that two weapon fighting is now available to ALL classes if they have proficiency in the weapons and has the two feats to spend.

Just some perspectives that I have on your greviances. I've been following the 3E thing for awhile now and I have months of news reports and message boards to draw on for my opinion. If you have other problems I would be happy to address them as well, along with continuing to discuss the problems you already have. Everyone else can feel free to voice their opinions.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.