Well, I did promise I'd write on this ^_^...
Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition is produced by Wizards of the Coast. It's intended to provide a framework of rules for a fairly adaptable fantasy setting. It can, as many will tell you, be quite fun. This is a good game for beginner RPGers as it doesn't take significantly much to get into. In fact, it is quite possible to play with only barely having glanced at the Player's handbook or gotten a quick explaination from another player. This system puts, as is right, a lot of the emphasis on the GM, allowing often an expert GM to keep most of the complexities of the game GM-side, away from the players eyes.
I won't be going over all of the system yet, just the core rulebooks at the moment. A first warning one should mention when considering D&D 3rd Edition is how it is run. For the players, the best levels for any D&D game to be run at is between four and sixteen. Below four and characters tend to be quite fragile, the average adventure length size being a couple of rooms at best. Once you cross that barrier into the midrange, the game suddenly runs a lot smoother, most characters having decent abilities to actually do things. Low level characters in this game are generally marked for their inability to accomplish things with skills. A notable flaw in the game which provides poorly to explain the craftsman (Who shouldn't have fifty or hundred hit points) who is very skilled as the ability to 'accent' one area of growth above all others is very limited in this gaming system. After level sixteen you run into the reverse problem of before. Your characters will begin becoming rather exponetially powerful, often automatically making all skill checks and ability checks. This often is contrary to an entertaining game as the simple power levels of the characters become quite absurd (Yes, I travel fourty miles on foot, then walk through the solid stone mountain to defeat the entire army of goblins with my bare hands while not taking a single point of damage).
The game uses a system of Challenge ratings and Encounter levels in order to determine the experience to be given by any encounter. Each monster gets a challenge rating, which is exactly equivelent to a level of player character. By a simple math formula, Challenge ratings are converted into Encounter levels for any given encounter which can be used with a table in the Dungeon Master's Guide to provide the acceptable award levels. All in all a fairly apt method of controling character growth with nice explainations in the books on how to keep control of players.
A few other notable flaws with the system include the time to create a character, the almost necessity for house rules, the monster system, the opportunity for slowdown, and most importantly the lack of diversity.
Character Creation: A GM will feel this far more than any player. It is not quick to toss together a character. Even a skilled character creator could find themselves taking nearly twenty minutes on a low level character. For a player, a twenty minute time payment for building a character you will probably use for months isn't bad... But the system is just as time costly for the GM side of things, often leading to hours being spent by even a quick GM to design all the characters necessary for a somewhat deep adventure. A good sidestep for this is adventure modules (which often include all the npc data), but this system can certainly be overwhelmingly time consuming to run a good campaign for.
House Rules: The rules as they stand are complex and often, if not broken already, just waiting to be broken. This becomes more notable with expansion packs and such, which further crush the trembling grip on sanity the game often has. Any GM running this game should look through anything and be well prepared to disallow it in his campaigns or rework it. It's recommended to do this once you have a bit of a grasp on the system. It's the preferred method to reduce the often huge venues of abuse the game rules allow for.
Monster System: The game lacks a 'base' monster to act as the lowest common denominator in which everything can be defined in terms of. Therefore the "Challenge Ratings" given in the book can often be faulty. A GM will have to keep a close eye on whether the monsters are appropriate for their rating, especially with multiple monsters. A key example of this is the lightning lizards which by themselves are a low CR 2...but who when placed in large groups swiftly go up in damage dealing ability well more than the Encounter levels would merit.
Opportunity for slowdown: This game will provide you with the opportunity to have dice rolled for everything. It will provide skills to be used and you can almost reduce the game to nothing but numbers... This is not a good thing. As a GM one has to know when to use the dice rules this game provides and when not to. Using the dice every time you have an opportunity to in this game will easily provide a huge slowdown in your campaigns.
Lack of Diversity:This game gives a lot of benefits to those who specialize over those who multiclass. In fact it almost actively discourages multiclassing, giving nasty penalties for trying to multiclass. A level 19 wizard who wants to study the basics of forestry as a ranger will find this an insanely complex task, requiring as much training as it would to master the highest level of wizardry. This is a huge flaw internal in the system, mainly brought about by the emphasis on classes and growth as an entire individual rather than just in a given area. The prevelence of this antagonism against multiclassing tends to lend towards less multiclassed characters.
Anyhow, rambling aside, the game is okay with a bit of patching. It's not remarkably awe inspiring, but it can be a pretty solid gaming system with a few modifications and a simple adventuring premise. Keep it sane and it'll provide some fun gaming experiences.
Kind Fearless Leader
Ah. One thing about multiclassing.
It can, quite simply, create some of the twinkiest characters around. Unfortunately, there isn't much middle ground between twinky multiclassing and low-power multiclassing, which can get incredibly annoying.
Rat raises a good point, while multiclassing is a pain in the ass, there is rarely any middle ground. Either after a while a combination is virtually game-breakingly good and will overpower things several levels higher than itself. And this is without even considering the prestige classes, which are normally designed to be more powerful than the normal classes.
On the other hand, the vast majority of multiclass combinations end up being weaker than either of the original. I know a guy who once went out of his way to create a 20th level multiclass character that, in all honesty, could be beaten up by a level six character because it incurred so many penalties.
Anyhow, the nature of the level system sort of rules out balanced multiclassing IMO.
Fearless Leader
Question.
You seem to have a fair number of reservations about 3rd edition. With this in mind, do you feel 2nd is a better roleplaying product because of this, or is 3rd superior despite this drawbacks?
Hmmm... I can not accurately assess that. The amount of third edition I have played is exponetially higher than the amount of 2nd edition I played. The vast majority of my 2nd edition experiences came from playing computer games using the AD&D system, which were less than admirable in how they used it.
While I have played a number of games in 2nd ed, not nearly enough to truly compare it as an entire system.
Fearless Leader
As a avid, and generally far TOO intrested, player and sometimes GM of various D&D campaigns, I have a comment that I feel might be slightly off, but possibly worth saying anyways.
That comment being, having run (and run in as a player) campaigns from the Basic, Advanced, AND Expert systems of the earlier (1st, SOMEtimes 2nd) editions of D&D, being confronted with completely WACKED changes being emplimented in 3rd ed can at times make the game as difficult to understand or run as playing an Expert-level campaign!
Multi-classing has be deep-fried, exotic weapons have been introduced to the game (kama, gurisyama, etc) and are WAY off base as to ACTUAL possible damage AND impact, not to mention what they did to quite a few of the NORMAL weapons (subdeural (sp) damage is BRUISING and welts which do not break the skin, and anyone who hasn't seen properly used whip break skin has NOT seen a properly used whip). And it is WAY too easy to create a god-like being with no flaws in the D&D system as it IS...
Okay, so maybe I'm a bit obsessed, but ... GEEZ!
*notes that she tends to use a house rule of balancing great skills and feats with drawbacks...*
Siobhan L.R. Ward
The Cybernetic Ninja
On the other hand, DM's continuouslly forget that they can have NPC's with such attributes. @_@ If a player suddenly puts together the last feat and ends up with a nigh-unstoppable character...
...the DM can do the same! o-o
It has it's flaws, but so did 2nd ed. I refuse to think that you really, really, REALLY need to spend an entire profiency slot on Knife to use it without a penalty. And that it'd take you three levels to learn how to use it with any skill. @_@
And the stupidly low amount of spells mages can cast.. ugh.
imho, the biggest problem with 3rd edition is the idea of templates. sure, it sounds all well and good, at first, to make a troll who trained a bit in the fighting or monk arts, but what happens when pc's get ahold of this?
i'll tell you what: you get one half-orc druid/barbarian with celestial abilities and with stats that are minimums of 24 without spells up... in a party of just plain-old normal 11-13 level charecters.
this is so very unblancing to the game that I actually intentionally killed my charecter several times until I finally got the result on reincarnate that I wanted just to be able to enter combat again. The fact that this charecter is even here causes all of the challenge ratigns to jmump about 4 notches above us, meaning that everyone else in the group spends every combat poking at one enemy and barely scratching it while I kill one a round and the half-orc thingy guts 3 or 4.
sure, this is a gm problem more than anything, but the fact that the system allows this sort of crap is most distressing.
Well.. technically..
...your GM is an idiot.
And that's all I have to say.
Erm....
I've been known to have strange combinations allowed for characters in my campaigns. For example: One guy played a half-black dragon half-red dragon half-gargoyle character who used a yoyo as a weapon of all things... @_@... not something that even *I* would have normally allowed, but he came up with one DAMN good background story AND RPed it to the HILT.
But for all his power, he had slowness as a drawback. Not to mention sheer WEIGHT.
See, not even I would have allowed a celestial (plane-touched?) half-orc in a 11-13 level party, even if I do have a habit for odd things. And if I did there would be serious drawbacks slapped on him to make it even.
There are many advantages to using a system like the GURPS advantage/disadvantage points system when making up an odd character...
Siobhan L.R. Ward
The Cybernetic Ninja
oh, it gets even better... the charecter in question drew a 'void' on a deck o many things, and the whole celestial angle was added to his charecter as a result of a deal he made with n extra planar being.
so yes, the charecter who is horribly overpowered got this way by fast talking his way out of what should have been instant death.
annoyed?
As I said.
Your DM is an idiot.
I'm sorry, anyone who bitches about a character becoming overpowered has a crap DM. DM's really, really should recognize when a character is too powerful for the campaign and DO something about it. @_@
Quote from: Dracos on December 01, 2002, 12:06:40 PM
Hmmm... I can not accurately assess that. The amount of third edition I have played is exponetially higher than the amount of 2nd edition I played. The vast majority of my 2nd edition experiences came from playing computer games using the AD&D system, which were less than admirable in how they used it.
While I have played a number of games in 2nd ed, not nearly enough to truly compare it as an entire system.
Fearless Leader
Oh man I thought you were a big D&D player! 3rd Edition doesn't even count as Dungeons & Dragons. Computer games *DO NOT* count either. I've played many of them and they're fun but nothing like the real thing. 3rd Edition is interesting but is an entirely different and inferior game. Its no longer Dungeons & Dragons in the true sense of the game.
And what's all this talk about GMs! Props to whoever used DM, the correct terminology for Dungeons & Dragons! If I ever walk into a D&D game and someone tells me who the GM is I walk straight back out because I KNOW they haven't been playing long.
Um... I use GM generally because in the same group in which I am the Dungeon Master (or Campaign Master... @_@), I also tend to run Cyberpunk/Shadowrun, Battletech, Vampire, and GURPS. Oh yeah, I've also run Tunnels & Trolls. Should I call myself a TM now? -_-;
I say GM as a general term. Cause I don't like specifying, OR having to remember which thread needs me to say GM and which needs DM or CM. Besides, with as often as the campaign ventures OUT of the dungeon, as well as the few campaigns I've run that never even WENT underground into the traditional dungeon area, I really fail to see the point.
Btw, since 3rd edition was written and created by the creators of 2nd edition (or at least endorsed thereby) it's a valid version of Dungeons & Dragons.
And, btw, buddy-boy, you're kinda rude to be dumping this garbage like that. -_-;
Siobhan L.R. Ward
The Cybernetic Ninja
Hah, Therein you aren't exactly correct. If I'm not mistaken, the term dungeon master was from D&D, but was also regarding the fact that the average campaign was symbolically arranged around a dungeon.
The term game master is more appropriate if the game is not symbolically organized around a dungeon. it's rather silly to call someone the Dungeon Master when they are running an intrigue game in the city. Also, IIRC, certain systems never actually referred to either. WoD refers to the GM as the story teller. I personally simply refer to the term GM because I prefer it.
Now, you do realize, that I was more referring to the fact that comparing a system that I largely played just the bare bones with when I played (D&D 2nd ed) to a system that I've seen everything for (3rd Ed D&D) isn't very fair. I know there are better experts on the system, So I step aside there. ^_^
I'm a big gamer, not simply D&D'er.
Fearless Leader
Quote from: Priss on March 10, 2003, 11:50:50 PM
Um... I use GM generally because in the same group in which I am the Dungeon Master (or Campaign Master... @_@), I also tend to run Cyberpunk/Shadowrun, Battletech, Vampire, and GURPS. Oh yeah, I've also run Tunnels & Trolls. Should I call myself a TM now? -_-;
I say GM as a general term. Cause I don't like specifying, OR having to remember which thread needs me to say GM and which needs DM or CM. Besides, with as often as the campaign ventures OUT of the dungeon, as well as the few campaigns I've run that never even WENT underground into the traditional dungeon area, I really fail to see the point.
Btw, since 3rd edition was written and created by the creators of 2nd edition (or at least endorsed thereby) it's a valid version of Dungeons & Dragons.
And, btw, buddy-boy, you're kinda rude to be dumping this garbage like that. -_-;
Siobhan L.R. Ward
The Cybernetic Ninja
You sound like my Mom bustin' out the "buddy-boy" and "rude."
You're wrong on one point - D&D was not taken over by, it was SOLD OUT to the makers of third edition. I don't know the details but I know that 3rd edition is NOT in the spirit of the original D&D and is should NOT be called D&D in the true sense of the game.
Anyone who thinks differently and has played 3rd edition is welcome to come to my house in Michigan this summer and I'll arrange for my Dad (who actually knew Gary Gigax & family quite well when he was younger) to DUNGEON MASTER (that's right, not "game master") for us for a REAL game of Dungeons & Dragons (2nd edition or earlier) I think you'll be singing a different tune after you play a real game of D&D.
I admit that I do not play a lot of other serious RPGs but then again there really isn't any need since a game of D&D can easily last a lifetime without getting boring.
...
I really don't care if i sound like your mom. And I honestly don't know why you just *had* to tell me I sounded like her. -_-;
Another thing? I don't care whom you are your dad know. I've played 1st edition with Margret Weis and Tracy Hicks. I've played in a campaign that has been going on since early seventies, and is currently *still* running to the best of my knowledge, though I've since left it.
That said, I've played a REAL D&D game, and if you'd actually read an earlier post you'd realize that I've DMed REAL D&D games as well, up to and including the Expert system.
HOWEVER, I play and DM/GM 3rd edition for the simple reason that the group I play with would rather play the version of a game that the members can EASILY get books for.
Just because *I* might know where to get copies of 2nd and 1st edition rulebooks and supplements doesn't mean the rest of the group does. And just because *I* might have the money for it doesn't mean the rest of the group does. And, finally, just because *I'm* willing to drive over fifty miles out of my way to go and *get* these books doesn't mean the rest of the group can or will be either.
I'm picky about my books. I don't really mind if someone wants to borrow my 3rd edition books to roll up a character. I can either replace them myself or get the person who damaged them to replace them without too much trouble at all, because the things are *everywhere*. But there's *no way* I'm going to let them *touch* my 2nd or 1st edition books simply because I might not be *capable* of replacing them if they're damaged.
Thus, the group I'm playing with runs 3rd edition.
And, btw, the high and mighty stuff? It's really pointless.
Siobhan L.R. Ward
The Cybernetic Ninja
PS: I'm hoping this doesn't post twice. >_<
Ohh, a fiesty one.
I know what ya mean about the books. But there are the ways of the internet that now allow us to (perhaps slightly illegally) to download files containing the necessary information to play these older games.
I'm not saying playing 3rd is bad, I've played some myself for similar reasons. I'm saying you aren't a real D&D player unless you have played earlier edition because third is just plain not in the spirit of D&D as a game. I wasn't insulting you as a gamer and I did read earlier posts and the DM comments were not directed at you.
The "high and mighty stuff." You really do sound like my Mom though, hee hee hee... Is there any chance your last name or someone in your family is Haycox or McIntyre (uh, I don't even know how to spell my own grandmother's last name but its Irish and it sounds like I spell it but is actually spelled totally differently)?
Oooohkay, bucky.
The mom comments are getting REALLY surreal.
As for my background, my clan is the Stewart clan, Scots Highland on my mother's side and Dutch/French Canadian on my fathers's. We've neah a drop o' Irish blood in us! ;p Bit o' Indian we do, Cherokee and Lakota Souix, but not Irish.
^_^
Siobhan L.R. Ward
The Cybernetic Ninja
2nd Ed only works even semi-realistically if you invoke many house rules.
I, for one, refuse to believe a Mage cannot use a crossbow.
Houes rules are great as long as the rules are agreed upon at the start of the game. I almost always end up playing with some. I know what ya mean about the crossbow thing especially when you run out of useful spells.
Scottish, eh? Me too but not very much. Mostly Polish and Irish. Oh well I guess you're not my long lost relative. I'll stop making mom comments since it seems to bother you sooo much.
The one thing I've found runs consistant throughout all the versions of D&D is, while they are good models perhaps, and have a fairly good system in there, they generally are broken. 2nd ed I found had some stupid stuff designed into it's math setup to make it more complex than need be, but it didn't really break until you looked at the additions. 3rd ed is broken off the bat easily, IMO. And 1st ed is well, 1st ed. 'nuff said regarding realism there. Having house rules are a major part of the game. I do also believe this is intentional. Once a GM has some experience, they modify the rules to fit what their players see as the game they want to play. The strength of D&D tends to be not the perfection of it's core system but the ease with which it is modifiable and adjustable for other circumstances or beliefs.
Fearless Leader
heh... dumb-ass GM (and no, i don't care if you want to say DM) saga continues!
We go to this temple sort of place, all high-and-mighty tomb of dead gods or some shit like that, and almost every monster in the place has an AC and Damage reduction so high that half the party is useless. Then we run into this demon thing, I swear he made it up, that has 30 points of D.R. and a freakin anti-magic field! Well shit, guess we won't be going down that hallway... so we go a different way and run into this unpronaouncible trap that breaks nearly all of our magical shit (especially pissy because we just got back to town and unloaded almost all our loot to upgrade equipment across the board)!
yes, this is where the GM wanted us to go in his campaign, direct from his own mouth.
needless to say, I will not be retruning to this game.
...on a lighter note, all the players (and quite a few people who aren't even vaguely conected to the game, including his boss) got together on a pool to bet on how many times this chump scratches himself durring the course of a game session, a rather disturbing habit of his. Nobody was even remotely close... 262 times in 5 1/2 hours. This guy's getting some medicated gold bond for his next birthday!
Only place a monster like that might have come from is Manual of the Planes or Epic Level Campaign Handbook.
Fairly sure it doesn't exist anywhere else. Regardless, a DR of thirty is effectively unbeatable without magic. Hell, a DR of 25 is all but effectively unbeatable without magic.
Fearless Leader