I don't touch D&D anymore

[Super Squirrel]

I still have about 1 1/2 years worth of my subscription to Dragon Magazine and I wish I could get a refund. I can't so I still browse it. D&D has taking a very bad slide down the tubes of roleplaying.

3rd Edition as a concept wasn't bad. New rules that were standardized allowing a DM to change the rules of his game as he saw fit and remain, for the most part, compatable. However, after running a campaign for a full year, I realized just how bad the game system was.

No big deal, I found HERO and moved on. Now I'm seeing that D&D 3.5 is coming out. I'm sorry but the name alone sounds dumb. And I can't help but feel like I was gipped with my money invested was wasted on a system that needed to be rewritten after three and a half-years.

I am going to sell my old D&D stuff now and have no intention on playing it again for any time in the future. Maybe when D&D 4 comes out I will consider it but I think that pending the release of Fantasy HERO for 5th might satisfy all my needs.

[Monolith]

As everyone knows I am not a fan of fantasy games, so D&D has never held fascination for me in my entire 16+ year gaming career. I do not know that much about d20 (my only real looks at the game system involve SAS d20 and M&M) but I think the game system has some merit. Heck, I would think the magic system spells alone would make it worthwhile.

It is somewhat crappy that WotC would be coming out with a 3.5 version after only 3 years, but modifications do sometimes have to be made. It is quite possible that the changes to 3.5 might fix all the problems you had with the game after playing it a year. Anything is possible.

Maybe I am just a pack-rat, but selling games seems like something I could never do. You never know when that one useful piece of information on page 214 might just come in handy.

[TheEmerged]

It has its flaws, but it's not unplayable if you're willing to work with it.

RE: 3.5. You know what I find funny? I'm a regular on the D&D boards too. You can't go 24 hours without somebody mentioning some rule or the other that needs changing or clarifying (insert "Attack of Opportunity within" crack here). Most of the people complaining about the rules are now complaining about "having" to buy the rules again.

Frankly, it's clear that 3D&D got pushed out the door to make money. There are some interesting aspects that beg to be expounded on -- which is part of what's driving the "let's do X under d20!" bandwagon, in my opinion.

I've been impressed with most of the 3.5 changes I've seen, given the sacred cows I know aren't going to be dealt with. I hope they continue the program, myself -- some of the "quasi-core" issues like psionics could use a revamp, and it would be nice to see the splatbooks rebalanced and released as a single compendium.

[James Gillen]

Just think:
Two more months to Fantasy HERO,
two more months to Fantasy HERO...

[SuperPheemy]

*Dons Environment Suit, checks oxygen, and heat-resistant coating. Ensures fireproofed shield is close at hand. Gives "ready sign" to pressure hose team standing behind.*

Okey dokey. Dungeons and Dragons version 3.5 is not a complete revision of the product (such as the revision from second edition to third, which changed core elements of the game design). It is an update incorporating many of the innovations, suggestions, and ideas from both WotC products and the third party publishers who took advantage of the OGL. Products that are produced after the new books come out will still be compatable with the current 3rd edition books as opposed to the incompatability of 3rd edition products with second or first edition rules sets.

Myself, I don't really like the "3.5 edition" tag line either. Mainly with all of the controversy and paranoia surrounding WotC being a part of the Hasbro corporation and the continuing fear that somehow they're going to screw the consumer out of any disposable cash with some Montgomery Burns inspired plot, calling any rules update a numbered edition change is just bad PR.

Having said all of this, I want to state emphatically that I do not intend for anyone to change their gaming preferance. If you never liked D&D, don't like D&D, and will never like D&D, then I'm not going to change your mind. I only wanted to help make clear what changes are being made to D&D.

*Gives pressure hose team the "GO sign" and waits for the expected firestorm*

[Super Squirrel]

See, my problem isn't the aspect of "3rd Edition has problems addressed in 3.5th Edition." My problem is that they rushed out 3rd Edition with all of these problems in the first place. I have spent well over $300 on a system that over the course of time became more apparent how buggy it is.

It isn't like you instantly find all the problems on day one. Here is an example. I had a group of 4 players. We played up to level 8 in a very short time. The first of my complaints became apparent, levelling is too easy. One of the four players retired his character and creates a level 7 monk.

Now before the monk has even played on session I have already purchased the PHB, DMG, MM, and 3 class books. Which puts me well over a hundred dollars. The monk isn't that bad, however, it becomes apparent later that it is a problem.

The players had decided to seek a poison that is lethal to dragons as the campaign has quickly turned into a case of dragon slayers. A very large black dragon was awoken and the players want to kill it. So I decide that in this forest to the east there is a rare berry that grows behind a waterfall that can produce a poison lethal to dragons. Of course, the players don't know that the berry is protected by dragons.

Next problem: I put the players, now level 12 against two young adult green dragons and a large green dragon. The scene is beautiful. The players reach the top of a cliff following a river to reach the waterfall. Below them about a hundred feet is a small lake. The dragons are there. One of them flies up to attack. Not wanting to die, the players cast feather fall and jump from the cliff with the exception of the monk (see later rant). A dragon casts fire wall vertically so that the two feather falled of the three players (one player was absent) pass through it. Despite the fact that this should have killed the players, the ranger casts a spell that makes the damage literally nil on the two of them.

The monk uses his special falling ability and lands on the ground with no difficulty. He rushes over and is able to punch to death two dragons with little difficulty despite the AC, HP, and such. The sorcerer uses cone of cold and other spells like mad and the ranger uses enhanced arrows (+1 or +2) I think.

In the end, I was fumed that my players were able to take out 3 dragons in under 15 rounds. Dragons should cremate players and under this new system, they don't.

So later in the campaign (by now I have two more books) I have built up the story to a climactic battle. I pit the players against not one, not three, but fifteen green dragons in this massive battle. And guess what, only an NPC died.

I was fudging numbers, both AC on dragons and HP. I gave all dragons max HP with some with max +50 and they still took out 15 dragons of variating ages. The monk was jumping from back to back of dragons punching through their necks and with four dragons working together they still could not stop him.

We later calculated that a level 15 monk can launch himself into orbit.

With all of the stuff I spent on D&D I felt invested. But that investment turned out to be a case of Enron where I felt cheated. I realized this when visiting some people in Asheville in September when we played 2nd Edition. At least with 2nd Edition that aspect of a challenge remained.

That is why I am so annoyed that now after $300 of my money that they are saying "we have decided to make a new version based on the complaints and suggestions of 3rd edition" that I feel like punching them.

[Bartman]

I abandoned D&D years ago. It didn't match my playing style. I still have a variety of books, mostly monster manuals. But I doubt I would ever play it again.



Just as a random note 3.5 makes me think of floppy disks. And I'm not the only one. I know several people who have started refering to it as D&D: Floppy Edition. That can't be good for marketing.

[SuperPheemy]

Like I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. Just laying out what changes are coming.

[TheEmerged]

Bartman -- If you think 3.5 is a bad name, how do you think people would have reacted to 3.1

[misterdeath]

Supposedly, all the changes that 3.5 is making will be in the SRD, which is still a free download.

While Hasbro would love for you to buy new books (and I've already got mine pre-ordered) it's not strictly necessary. Just print off the parts you need, 3 ring binder them, voila.
____

Some of the rules of 3.0 didn't work as well in actual gaming as in the playtesting. Haste and Spellcasters. Rangers with 1 level of the class, then bailing for Fighter. Bards. Monks. Confusion between Partial Action vs Move Equivalent vs Attack Actions. Just some of my pet peeves. And I'm one of the few that likes and understands Attacks of Opportunities.

And it looks like they're fixing things that I found wrong with the system. Now, I just have to see if I like the fixes, or if things are made worse.
____

Overall, I find the system to be quite amusing and fun, but then again I'm a point whoring rules lawyer. I look at the system to find it's peculiarities, and then twist them till they scream. (spiked chain wielders rock!)

I like 3E. I imagine I'll like 3.5 (the Floppy Edition Ha!) just as much.

D

[misterdeath]

Oh, yeah, in the FWIW department, Monte Cook is coming out with his own variant players handbook where he changes things he didn't like about the system.

I'm getting that one too. Sigh.

D

[Catacomb]

All I can say about fantasy is...RMSS

[Mark Taylor]

I haven't checked out D&D 3e. I have a bunch of 2e stuff, but my group drifted away from 2e years ago, basically because our style of roleplaying is very character driven. 2e (I can't comment on 3) doesn't really support that style because it provides only very limited support for personality modelling... basically it comes down to alignment. All my players prefer systems with disadvantages or some equivalent because it allows them to actually reap some reward for playing characters with a greater degree of depth and reality.

The other issue is that my players prefer a system that lets them realise their character concept in terms of abilities too, rather than a system that limits the range of character concepts which can be realised. To me, the only acceptable limits on character concept are power level and genre appropriateness. Arbitrary limitations like character classes aren't acceptable.

I've heard it said that good roleplaying has nothing to do with the system, it comes down to the players and how much work they put into their characters' backgrounds and personalities. There is some truth there, but in fact over 10 years of near constant GMing experience tells me that it's a damn sight easier for players to play 3 dimensional characters and far more likey that they will (especially if they are new to roleplaying) in a game that really supports character depth within the system.

Another strike against character roleplaying which D&D 2e made (though of course a DM could ignore it) was experience points for kills. Give players XP for kills, and all you are encouraging them to do is kill stuff... not to act like realistic characters. XP for kills IMO actually discourages in-depth roleplaying.

I find it unlikely that I'll have any need to check out 3e, because GURPS does everything I need for lower powered campaigns, and it now seems clear that HERO 5th will do the same for my higher powered campaigns.

The only d20 product I have looked at in any depth is The Wheel of Time, and it's not encouraging... it dedicates less than half a page to the all important matter of character personality and history. I am curious though... does 3e have any improvement in the areas I mentioned? I'd be interesed to hear opinions on it.

[TheEmerged]

Not really, unless you count a lot of campaign-specific material in the core rule books (one of my rant issues).

RE: Attack of Opp. Oh, I understand them now... but you've got to admit the original wording in the PlayHB is a shade above atrocious.

RE: Monte. Monte's opinion is interesting, even when it's dead wrong. I wonder if he's got a working ranger & sorcerer variant yet (because his last take isn't viable IMO).

[DocMan]

Originally posted by Realms of Chaos
I've heard it said that good roleplaying has nothing to do with the system, it comes down to the players and how much work they put into their character's backgrounds and personalities. There is some truth there, but in fact over 10 years of near constant GMing experience tells me that it's a damn sight easier for players to play 3 dimensional characters and far more likey that they will (especially if they are new to roleplaying) in a game that really supports character depth within the system.

Another strike againt character roleplaying which D&D 2e made (though of course a DM could ignore it) was experience points for kills. Give players XP for kills, and all you are encouraging them to do is kill stuff... not to act like realistic characters. XP for kills IMO actually discourages in-depth roleplaying.

It's funny you should put it that way. As I recall, under 2e one also gets XP for each GP value of treasure that one recovers. At one point in a campaign, we stopped counting kills because we got more significant XP from the treasure we brought back!

In the end, if the game isn't for you, don't play. Find something you like, and that's fine and dandy. But don't blame the game.

Squirrel, I hate to sound like I'm criticising you, but in the example you gave, it sounds like the players were doing their jobs. The GM is supposed to Challenge the Players, and the Players are supposed to Out-think the GM. It sounds like you have a group of good players who know D&D better than you do.

Doc