D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3e to be changed to new d20 rules? 4e coming!

[SableWyvern]

Even though hit points "work" (and work really well), it doesn't mean that you couldn't improve on the existing mechanic, even if the improvement was as simple as offering alternate hit point systems.

I think it would be great if they offered a book stacked with "alternate rules" and some kind of system that rated the effects of each one.

That sounds like a great idea to me; far better than the notion of incorporating many of these ideas into the core rules. The 3e "Options" series?

 

[Larcen]

Why the hell would they need a 4th ed already? And why make the combat even more detailed and slow. The incredible abstractness of 1e's combat was the beauty of it. It was quick and over, get back to the adventure. It's slow enough as it is now, I don't think we need to complicate it anymore.

Flexor, it's sad but true, but to a lot of gamers the combat WAS the adventure. I'm sure we have all played in campaigns like that, or are still THERE. These are the guys who want even more detailed combat, I'm afraid.

Can't really blame them though...how many movies and stories have we seen that would be BORING without the "good bits"..the fighting and action sequences?

 

[Zappo]

This may be true for you and your friend. It is not true for everyone.

It is true for a lot of people who recognize it, and for even more who don't. They are the countless people who give another system a try and then revert to D&D, without knowing exactly what felt wrong.

Considering that removing the wackiness would improve the game for some and would - most likely - not hurt the game for those who enjoyed the wackiness, why wouldn't you want to do this?

Try it. Market it. You can do it under the OGL. Then, count how many people play your system as opposed to how many people still play the usual D&D. I repeat: WotC are not stupid.

 

[LostSoul]

Try it. Market it. You can do it under the OGL. Then, count how many people play your system as opposed to how many people still play the usual D&D. I repeat: WotC are not stupid.

And that has nothing to do with advertising, production quality, or market share?

I'm not advocating a wholesale change to D&D. What I'd like to see are options for people who want to tweak this or that, or even overhaul a major part of the system.

What's more, the fact that some people don't like the way D&D is set up doesn't mean that they (we) are "wrong". Nor does it mean they (we) are "right". It just means that different people have different tastes.

Although I still don't understand why people like having to rationalize away inconsistencies...

edit: One more thing: can you explain to me why those inconsistencies are a Good Thing? (Or is it that you do not see those inconsistencies at all?)

 

[Geoff Watson]

But a healing potion that would bring a peasant back from death's doorstep won't even heal our heroic fighter's scratch.

How about "whatever helps him resist damaging spells etc also resists the healing magic."

The Vitality/Wound system introduces some complexity in order to keep hit points but work around some of the "wackiness".

It also makes so the first person to get a lucky critical wins.

Geoff.

 

[Zappo]

And that has nothing to do with advertising, production quality, or market share?

Also. But if a 4e came out with the changes suggested, published by WotC, still a majority of gamers will stay in 3e. Or, better, they would if 3e was still supported - if WotC actually discontinued 3e in favor of a "4e", most likely a good number of people would switch no matter how bad the new edition, because of support alone.

I'm not advocating a wholesale change to D&D. What I'd like to see are options for people who want to tweak this or that, or even overhaul a major part of the system.

I'm all in favor of new options! I've repeated over and over again that the rule you suggest are sensible and will certainly improve the game for a good number of players. What I would not want to see is them as core rules, simply because that's not how most people like to play D&D. I fear that including them as options in the core books would be unfeasible, because the whole system needs to be balanced in a totally different way.

What's more, the fact that some people don't like the way D&D is set up doesn't mean that they (we) are "wrong". Nor does it mean they (we) are "right". It just means that different people have different tastes.

Exactly. Which is why the core rules should appeal to the majority, and optional books should be out for the others. I'm not saying that a d20 book with the optional rules AND the balance changes needed for them to work would not sell. I'm saying that it would not sell as well, or even come close to, the usual D&D.

Although I still don't understand why people like having to rationalize away inconsistencies...

People with a strong suspension of disbelief don't need a perfectly coherent system. Hell, if a lot of people can enjoy The Matrix and ignore the glaring plot holes...

edit: One more thing: can you explain to me why those inconsistencies are a Good Thing? (Or is it that you do not see those inconsistencies at all?)

They make the game fun. They don't detract from it. This is not because of the inconsistencies, and not even despite them. It's simply that the fact that some things don't make sense has no impact whatsoever on the enjoyability of the game, and in fact a good number of gamers don't even realize some of the less obvious ones unless they get pointed out (see the example with my friend above).

Additionally, some of the inconsistancies are an integral part of the D&D 'style', such as for example the fact that you can fight normally at 1 HP, or the fact that a blow that would vaporize a commoner is just another wound for a high-level fighter. That's why I said that what you call a fault, I call a feature.

 

[Enkhidu]

It also makes so the first person to get a lucky critical wins.

Geoff.

Actually, you can make exactly the same argument in nearly any combat between two equally matches persons (PC or NPC or Monster, even) in core rules 3rd Ed. So much of D&D combat comes down to the way the dice fall, I'd be tempted to say that was an unfair statement if you mean it as an indictment of Armor as DR.

Now, just so I can get this out of the way, I am in favor of a simple (i.e. not complex) method to incorporate Armor as DR - however, I have yet to find a system that stands up to playtesting for my gaming group. At least everyone now knows where I'm coming from.

By the way, I find this topic fascinating.

 

[mmadsen]

To recap, this subthread started because I noted how most depictions of heroes in modern fantasy, and even in myth and legend, rarely feature them encumbered by heavy armour. The only people who wear plate tend to be the bad guys. What you are essentially saying is that yes, I'm right. So, thanks. I think.

The knight in shining armor is a bad guy now?

The heroes of myth and legend typically wore the best armor available. The ancient Greek heroes of Homer's Iliad wore bronze armor and crested helmets. Norse heroes certainly wore mail. King Arthur's knights obviously wore armor. Charlemagne's paladins obviously did too.

The heroes of Tolkien, R.E. Howard, and Moorcock certainly wore armor too.

As someone else pointed out, the lack of armor (and helmets) is more a Hollywood convention. Certain "everyman" heroes, of course, didn't wear armor -- Robin Hood comes to mind -- and using mechanics to penalize armor makes perfect sense if you're running a swashbuckling Star Wars game, but impressive armor is a common trait of a mythic hero.

 

[hong]

The knight in shining armor is a bad guy now?

The "shining armour" bit is typically interpreted in a metaphorical sense, ya know.

The heroes of Tolkien, R.E. Howard, and Moorcock certainly wore armor too.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I didn't say that heroes _never_ wore armour. I'm saying that heavy armour, in and of itself, is not a necessary component of fantasy heroes. I'm also saying that heavy armour -- full plate, plate mail, or whatever -- is something that in fact seems rare in fantasy. Chain mail seems to be the heaviest sort of armour that heroes wear; by contrast, villains don't seem to be so constrained. The nazgul in FOTR wear plate armour, as do the uruks. So do stormtroopers in Star Wars. By contrast, Conan wears chain mail at best (or no armour at all, if you go by the comics and movies -- which I consider to be just as valid starting points when it comes to the origins of modern fantasy). The same holds for most other fantasy characters around. Their armour is mentioned in passing, if at all -- leaving it up to the reader/viewer to fill in the details. It's just not something that forms a significant part of the portrayal.

 

[hong]

Actually, you can make exactly the same argument in nearly any combat between two equally matches persons (PC or NPC or Monster, even) in core rules 3rd Ed.

That's a silly argument. If two combatants are nearly equally matched, then of course random chance is going to have a significant effect on the outcome -- unless you intend to make combat into a completely deterministic game, like chess. The point is that a system that allows a large component of randomness favours the weaker party -- ie, it makes stronger characters more liable to go down from a lucky shot. The DMG mentions this itself.