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: 18:39:40 10/10/00 Tue
Author: Kaan
Subject: RE and What I don't like about 3E
In reply to: Fender 's message, "Re: 3rd Edition thoughts" on 17:36:47 10/09/00 Mon

I apologize if my responses seemed inflammatory in any way. It was not meant to be but in retrospect it looks like a few of my pet peeves kinda got mixed up in there. I'm pretty knowledgable on 3E and I am glad to have addressed some of your concerns but again I apologize if I kinda went overboard on a few.

On the whole flexibility thing it seems I misread it. Since they were in two different sentances I interpreted the inflexibility comment to be about 3E in general. Although I would still say that the 3E system of skills and feats goes a long way in helping flexibility, the two weapon fighting thing, one of the class's advantages, is pretty restricting because you are passing up two free feats for more flexibility.

I never said 2E isn't playable in anyway and I quite enjoy my 2E games with ya'll but, honestly, how many other games besides D&D have you tried? And with what success did you meet with in trying to find other people to play with? It's been about half a year and I'm STILL trying to find someone to play Alternity with.

On the subject of supplements, I seriously doubt that WotC said that they will not make supplements as they are a major source of income. Their current policy as I understand it is to make it so all future modules should only require the three core books as a reference. Besides that, they can easily expand the 3E system with new feats, skills, prestige classes, etc... while totally remaining within the boundries of the game system and not making any new rules. Something else they are shooting for is to ration out their releases, allowing each supplement time on the shelf to sell as much as it is going to before releasing the next new thing.

I'd like to hear more about playtesting of 2E. I doubt it was on the same scale that 3E playtesting was done on but I would still be very interesting in hearing about it.

Wow, that seemed like a lot of typing. Well it was in the title so I got to give it up. I never actually recall saying that 3E was perfect but I do believe that it is much better than 2E in a number of significant ways. And now without further aideau:

1. Ranger Class: You've seen most of my views here already and while I don't agree with all of the flak that this class gets on the boards, I do think that it could have been so much better. I've seen some great versions on the internet.

2. Half-Orcs: This and rangers are, or used to be, pretty hot topics in the ENboards. All in all, while I don't have problems with the two negative modifiers, I do agree that the race is pretty bland otherwise. Give it some skill bonuses and orcish weapon proficiencies then we'll talk.

3. Artwork: Actually I really like the new and more modern look in general but they seem to go overboard with the armor spikes some times, which is just stupid. Some of the art in the DMG leaves something to be desired and not all of the monsters in the MM have, illustrations! These include some classics such as most elementals, some giants(Frost, Fire, Storm) and Ogre Magi. Go to gamers.com and see ALL the illustrations in the MM. Argh!

4. No Death Knight in the MM. Plus a bunch of other what looks to be stupid or useless new monsters in the MM. I'll have to wait and see on that, though.

5. Harm Spell. Just look at it. Pay special attention to the saving throw or lack thereof.

6. Clerics are better conjurors and necromancers than conjurors and necromancers. Bleh.

7. Shields still aren't very good. They aren't that bad either but a few shield related feats would have been nice.

8. All the errata we're seeing for the PHB and DMG. Quite a bit of it and it worries me a little.

That's all I can think of for now. There are probably alot of other little things that I can't remember. Not neccessarily big things but things nonetheless. Whodathunk, eh?

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