[RPG]: Players Handbook, reviewed by Wandering Wilbur (4/4) [Archive]

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 08:32 AM

Post originally by Buzz at 2003-03-13 08:32:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

 The cover however, doesn't work -- a really good piece or Elmore, Easley, or Parkinson would have stood the test of time better

Couldn't disagree with you more. If I never see another piece by Larry Elmore, it'll be too soon. And Easley, imho, hasn't really "aged" all that well. The few pieces he's done for 3e stick out like a sore, second-edition thumb.

The look-and-feel of 3e totally rocks my world. Granted, I found the more conventional depictions of armor in the WoT rpg more to my taste than the ones in the PHB... but who knows what 3.5e will bring. :)

Otherwise, I thought this was a pretty good review, if a tad brief. One of the few 3e reviews that actually seems somewhat objective. I totally agree that giving undead a turn DC would make life a whole lot easier.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 09:47 AM

Post originally by Fallen Pallando at 2003-03-13 09:47:43
Converted from Phorums BB System

Third edition is a vast improvement over the first and second editions, managing to maintain the flavor of the earlier games while banishing much of the mechanical inconsistency.

I agree with some of this. 3e is *much* more mechanicaly sound and balanced than it's predecessor, but it it completely and utterly soulless.

The game has lost
something almost undefinable. It no longer feels like you are exploring a real, living, breathing world. It no longer seems like you are visiting exotic places, meeting interesting people, uncovering ancient secrets, and slaying great beasts. It feels like, well, it feels like you are playing a *game*. I know what you are thinking: "But wait, it *is* a game. Why shouldn't it feel like one?"

Because it's a *Role Playing Game*! Like reading a book or watching a movie, the more real it seems, the more immersed you feel, the better it is! The whole point is playing the role of an interesting character and to feel like you *are* that character.

How did this happen? How did the "feeling" of the game change? Two reasons. First, consider these rule changes:

The arrow of slaying now offers a saving throw.

Poisons are weaker.

Aging effects have been removed entirely, even from spells like haste and ressurection.

Items like magic books and robe of the evil
archmagi now have much lesser punishments for use.

The penalty for dying is much less severe. Consider these factors: It is automatically sucessful. Losing
XP is much less severe than losing a point of Con(ability scores were hard to come by). The caster of ressurection no longer ages three years, and even the caster of true ressurection suffers no consequences aside from aging a mere ten minutes. In
a standard 3rd Edition campaign setting (FR, Greyhawk, ect.) clerics capable of casting these spells are common, and would easily do it without hesistation if paid (admittedly, 5,000 gp *is* alot). Still, the penaty for death borders on nonexistant.

Energy drain is now much weaker.

You probably consider these to be good changes, after all, they make life much easier for your average PC. But they take away the feeling of a world and replace it with the feeling of a game. Ironicly, I miss these thing the most when I am a PC in a d20 game, not a DM.

When a character is raised or ressurected in AD&D, he is filled with a sense of gratitude and relief. He is grateful for all of the hard work by his companions to get him back to the cathedral in time and he appreciates the great sacrifice the priest made to bring him back. He is also relieved that his body was even *able* to come back and that it did not fail him at that crucial moment.

Sure, it can really make you feel sad when your 17th level mage that you have been playing for years loses a few levels to a wight and must travel far to a priest who can restore him. When he has spent a year
of his life, the life of one of his most loyal compainions, endless riches, and a point of Constitution to forge a wand of fire, only to then have it fail at the last moment. When he fails his ressurection survival roll. But at least you feel
*something*. You feel what your character feels. How can you ever completely feel a titantic success if you don't have a titantic dissapointment to compare it to?

How is someone supposed to roleplay a character who has been true ressurected? "Gee thanks, Richard. Now we're 15-14. I guess I owe you a flawless 5,000 gp gem. It will only be a few days as my 1st level dwarven expert companion uses his
tools of +30 craft (only cost 18,000 gp) to
finish off the raw materials from my major creation spell."

How can a DM create a realistic campaign where death for the wealthy is only a 10 minute delay? I consider myself a fantastic DM, and I cannot do this. In AD&D this is not a problem.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 10:28 AM

Post originally by LD at 2003-03-13 10:28:23
Converted from Phorums BB System

Im with you. 3rd edition is the first and only version of D+D to have basically sound mechanics, but I would still rather play 1st edition. My reasons are more concrete than yours: I hate the proliferation of goofy abilities and items, hate the meta-plot infected game settings, and hate-hate-hate the infiltration of trading-card-game art and sensibilities into role playing games. I am something of a ludite, but 3rd edition just doesnt smell like old D+D.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 11:05 AM

Post originally by Kathy at 2003-03-13 11:05:47
Converted from Phorums BB System

...but Resurrection/Raise Dead are not "automatically successful" in 3E. The person coming back has to want to come back, which can become an issue if roleplayed properly. When my 3E character died, her return was at least as traumatic as her death.

Also, the person being brought back loses a level, or a point of Constitution if they're first-level. So there is a price, apart from 5,000 gold (not exactly chump change) and a "10-minute delay" (assuming there's a 13th-level cleric standing right there when you kick, and she's got Resurrect already prepared).
That said, I will agree that Greyhawk is more a sketch of a campaign world than any kind of solid setting. I actually think of that as a selling point, though, since so many DMs like to create their own worlds. Plus it paves the way for other published settings like Forgotten Realms.

I have to respectfully disagree, though, with the notion that the 3E campaign world is too "safe", that the risks aren't great enough. Some people enjoy "safe" campaigns, and for the rest of us, it's easy to create a world where, for example, high-level clerics aren't exactly thick on the ground, and 5,000 gold pieces is more money than the average adventurer sees in ten years. Bad things can still happen, believe me.

--Kathy, whose character's cohort got ripped in half by a troll last week.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 11:34 AM

Post originally by Fallen Pallando at 2003-03-13 11:34:09
Converted from Phorums BB System

It's easy to create a world where, for example, high-level clerics aren't exactly thick on the ground, and 5,000 gold pieces is more money than the average adventurer sees in ten years. Bad things can still happen, believe me.

But that's not really 3e. If you level up every 10-15 encounters, there will be quite a few powerful NPCs. If you follow the wealth table in the DMG, low level characters will be able to easily afford ressurections.

Sure, you *could* just say PC advance much faster than NPCs, but that comprimises believability. You *could* just change the XP rate, or change the wealth table. You could even rewrite true ressurection. But then you might as well just integrate opposed rolls and BAB into AD&D.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 12:03 PM

Post originally by Wandering Wilbur at 2003-03-13 12:03:06
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hmm....I think I agree overall that the rules seem more "homogenized" (sp?) than previous editions (especially 1st).

Regarding resurrection in particular, this has caused me no end of frustration. I agree death is stripped of much of its dramatic potential in 3E. I have actually had my high-level party work out strategies that involved the deliberate sacrifice of one or more characters, as they could "just be resurrected later." This seems to especially be a problem once true resurrection becomes available. Obviously in this case I stepped in to quash the meta-game thinking, but I really shouldn't HAVE to.

I have been toying with the idea of resurrection requiring a bit of the "life-force" from several willing individuals. After all, if the person is really worth having back, certainly many people (i.e. the party) would be willing to make the sacrifice? So in games terms, everyone in the party would have to agree to suffer a level's worth of XP loss to bring someone back. Not ideal, but does solve the problem of someone always being a level behind while making resurrection expensive enough to think twice.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment!

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 12:11 PM

Post originally by Singing Smurf at 2003-03-13 12:11:06
Converted from Phorums BB System

...but I'll confine my commnets to the death angle. Bringing a character back with no penalty requires a 9th level spell, unavailable to most parties that start at 1st level, even when purchased (if that's even possible).

Losing a level sucks rocks. It's a LOT of XP. I'd much rather suck up a point of Con loss, especially if I'm not playing a melee fighter or the like.

-Smurfy

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 12:13 PM

Post originally by Singing Smurf at 2003-03-13 12:13:22
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree. The old art in 2e and other games of their era looks...well...old. 3e set the stage for some really nifty graphic design choices that are, IMHO, much cooler and less cheesy. Dammit.

-Smurfy

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 12:58 PM

Post originally by Buzz at 2003-03-13 12:58:30
Converted from Phorums BB System

 I agree with some of this. 3e is *much* more mechanicaly sound and balanced than it's predecessor, but it it completely and utterly soulless.

The game has lost something almost undefinable.

As I said in the art thread, YMMV. AD&D1e was a lot of fun for me, but I eventually grew tired of its weaknesses and moved on to other games, save for the occasional "nostalgia-fest." AD&D2e annoyed me to death; afaiwc, the game of "D&D" was dead.

3e, however, I fell in love with. It really puzzles me to hear people constantly complain about how "soulless" it is. It's got great rules, great art, and a wealth of quality supplemental material from both WotC and other companies. There's so much inspirational material there that it just boggles my mind.

So, I would consider that "undefinable" quality some people think 3e lacks to simply be preference and/or nostalgia.

BTW, your depiction of cheating death in 3e is a bit off. Raise Dead was a 5th-level spell in 1e, and remains so in 3e; the only difference is that the 3e version requires a 500gp diamond, doesn't require a "Resurrection Survivial" check, and the raised PC loses a level (or 1 Con point, if 1st level). Ergo, the 3e version has harsher consequences. The same goes for Resurrection: same level, cheaper compnents, and fewer consequences in 1e. I would also say that calling 17th-level clerics "common," even wihtin a high-magic setting like FR, is an extreme exaggeration.

(I'm not sure where you're getting the the Con loss and aging three years thing, unless that was in 2e; the former is no different, and the latter has no real in-game effect other than flavor [Oo! I aged three years! Harsh.].)

The only real difference is that your PC's chance of getting to a level where these spells are available is a lot better in 3e. Your description seems to have a lot more to do with campaign feel than any real difference in the rules.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 02:15 PM

Post originally by Belphanior at 2003-03-13 14:15:01
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Another little nitpick -- a few unnecessary inconsistencies do manage to hang on -- for example, why does one not earn bonus 0-level spells for high ability scores?"

But you do get that. Take a close look at the table for bonus spells and try to see the pattern.
What ability would give you a bonus 0-level spell? 10-11.
What is the minimum ability required to cast 0-level spells? 10.

The bonus is already integrated. WotC simply saved you the trouble of having to add in something that is automatic.

Belphanior
"This is a cool sig."

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 02:58 PM

Post originally by Jeffrey Moore at 2003-03-13 14:58:48
Converted from Phorums BB System

2 easy solutions to these issues.

1) be stingy with money. Have the party help villagers, foil desperate gangs that are running low on resources. If they're dipping into an imperial pocket book, 3rd E. starts to break down, no doubt. especially with those dang magic item creation rules.

2) Remove raise dead/resurrection altogether. What's that I say? Remove a class-defining ability? Trust me, if people can't come back from the dead, your cleric will be more popular, not less, as everyone wants to stay as healthy as possible.

In the 1 1/2 year long compaign I ran, I did the first, not the second, and it was very illuminating.

Up until mid-level characters, I had the players at the edge of their seats. Between all of them they could squeeze together maybe 2000 gp. They had few magic items, and the encounter with a wraith when they had a single magic sword amongst them was pretty nerve-wracking experience. If I'd run them thru the wringer, giving them no chance to breath or the casters to replenish their spells, they were excited and terrified by the time they got through. All in all, it was very fun.

Then Druid reincarnation/Cleric resurrection came along. We had a big ol' smack down, drag out battle with a major villain and one of the characters sacrificed himself to save the day. Very heroic, noble, it was all good. Then pop, bam, boom, up his character pops again. Well, there goes the drama. Hrumph.

That campaign convinced me that, no matter the system, I want dead to be dead. I'm pretty good at stretching players out without killing them off, but the occasional death does occur, also almost always at dramatic junctures where the player can be satisfied. Resurrection removes alot of the suspense generated from a hairy situation.

So, those two solutions I've found improve a campaign dramatically in D&D. I think they make 3rd ed. a very strong, enjoyable gaming experience.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 03:19 PM

Post originally by Bloodcat at 2003-03-13 15:19:57
Converted from Phorums BB System

The difference between D20 D&D and the 2 AD&D games?

IT DOESN'T COMPLETELY SUCK.

The AD&D gamesystem was apparently created by a dozen crack addicted monkeys who were dropped on their heads as a baby.

D20 actually turns the random snippets of poo into something almost playable, provided you don't fall asleep reading the rulebooks.
(They are a GREAT cure for insomnia!)

And I don't wanna hear how its the group that makes a game good, because you D&D only sheep could play a good game with a good group and have an EVEN BETTER game right?

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 03:21 PM

Post originally by John at 2003-03-13 15:21:39
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well done, Pallando. You disagreed, but expressed your disagreement civilly and reasonably.

I think you are dead wrong. D&D feels as much like D&D as it ever did.

But then, we all have our views. I am replying that I think you are wrong simply to balance your comments. Your opinion is certainly your right, though, and I applaude your well put (though in my opinion completely erroneous) views.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 03:21 PM

Post originally by Bullet eye at 2003-03-13 15:21:41
Converted from Phorums BB System

First off, I have to admit that I never played 1st or 2nd edition. Therefore, maybe my bliss IS due to ignorance. However, I like 3rd edition. I feel that it provides a *general* rule system that works pretty well. I tend to feel that core-books work best when there really isn't a sense of a particular world. It seems like people feel obligated to stick to that world. If one wants a campaign world, there are plenty of that type of product out there. That's just me though. Also, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but does the fact that it's less deadly really make it seem less "real?" Also, (and people do look at me like I'm crazy when I say this) but if you don't like a rule (arrow of slaying too weak) then change that rule. Role-playing isn't an officially sanctioned sport. The "rules" are not hard and fast. I don't know, it just seems like a lot of DM's and their players have a somewhat confrontational relationship, where each one is trying to put one over on the other.(I'm certainly not pointing this at you Pallando, I'm just throwing this out there) If the DM and the players want to play a deadly game, then make it so. If the players don't, then I don't understand why a DM would insist on making it so.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 03:33 PM

Post originally by Kathy at 2003-03-13 15:33:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

Bloodcat wrote:
-------------------------------

And I don't wanna hear how its the group that makes a game good, because you D&D only sheep could play a good game with a good group and have an EVEN BETTER game right?

---------

Okaaaaay.

How about "it depends on what you mean by 'good'?" For example, there are things I like about Everway, and there are things I like about D&D. They are not the same things. Different people come to the hobby seeking different things from a game, which makes it really difficult to objectively dismiss any non-broken game as "bad". Or at least, difficult for people who put any degree of thought into the topic.

Also, FWIW, crack cocaine wasn't widely available when AD&D was being developed, making it extremely unlikely that the developers were crack addicts.
--Kathy, who swears by her fluffy white coat that she is not a sheep :)

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 03:44 PM

Post originally by Herb Nowell at 2003-03-13 15:44:35
Converted from Phorums BB System

Fallen Pallando wrote:
-------------------------------
You *could* just change the XP rate, or change the wealth table. You could even rewrite true ressurection. But then you might as well just integrate opposed rolls and BAB into AD&D.
-------------------------------

That's a silly comment considering:

1. Adjusting the XP and wealth tables are discussed as DM customizations in the 3ed DMG.

2. Changing SCALE of rewards is light years from adding new resolution characteristics. It's like saying the difference between my Mazda and my boss's Cadillac are the same as the differences between my Mazda and hybrid car vehicle. One is essentially the same design (gasoline engine, mechanical breaks) on a larger scale. The other is a different engine type (electric motors) powered by two methods (battery and gasoline powered generator) with dual braking (dynamic and mechanical). To claim this differences are equivalent are even linearly related is idiocy.

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 03:45 PM

Post originally by Kathy at 2003-03-13 15:45:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

Fallen Pallando wrote:
-------------------------------
If you level up every 10-15 encounters, there will be quite a few powerful NPCs. If you follow the wealth table in the DMG, low level characters will be able to easily afford ressurections.
-------------

If NPCs level up every 10-15 encounters, they will become high-level...provided NPCs in the campaign world all spend a lot of time having encounters. But how realistic is that, really? In the case of clerics, specifically, NPCs are far more likely to spend their days tending the temple and healing the sick than going out and beating the crap out of dragons. PCs are supposed to be special, which means that not everybody is running around having encounters.

If you follow the wealth table in the DMG, then low-level characters can afford resurrections...provided they never spend money on lodging, never upgrade their armor or weapons, never buy mounts, never need arrows, never drink, never gamble, and never buy scrolls or potions. If they do any of those things, though, they're going to be caught a little short.
--Kathy, whose fighter character goes through horses the way some people go through socks

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 06:12 PM

Post originally by Travis Casey at 2003-03-13 18:12:21
Converted from Phorums BB System

Considering that you expressed a preference for 1st edition, I find it interesting that you think having PCs advance differently than NPCs makes for a believability problem. After all, in first edition, it's explicitly stated that most NPCs can never advance in levels at all, and that some NPCs can only advance to a certain point, then never advance beyond that.

As for following the recommendations for wealth, I'd no more follow those than I'd follow 1st edition's money rules. After all, in 1st edition, a character's "living expenses" are 100 gp per level per month -- never mind that this makes no real sense, especially for monks, paladins, and rangers.

Further, the training to go from first to second level costs a *minimum* of 1500 gp, and an average of just a bit under 4000 gp... and since 1 gp gained -> 1 xp, this means that the average fighter has to gain more xp than it takes to get to 3rd level before they can afford to train to go up to 2nd level!

--Travis

RPGnet Reviews

03-13-2003, 07:06 PM

Post originally by Mark Johnson at 2003-03-13 19:06:32
Converted from Phorums BB System

How about add a number of 0 level spells equal to the revelant ability modifier?

Thanks,
Mark

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 01:32 AM

Post originally by Belphanior at 2003-03-14 01:32:35
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well you coulddo that I guess, but it completely breaks the pattern of the bonus spells. If you just take the pattern as it is, you'll see you already have that bonus spell.

Changing the pattern is a houserule and has nothing to do with the topic at hand (ie. "why no bonus?").

Belphanior
"This is a cool sig."

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 02:38 AM

Post originally by Nahan at 2003-03-14 02:38:16
Converted from Phorums BB System

For me 3e feels lika D&D. It doesn't feel like Basic D&D did twenty years ago, but then again I don't think any rules system or game world could capture that feeling of wonder and disbelief.

We gamers grow older, wiser and more jaded. And judging from the reactions of the kids (eleven year old) I play D&D3e with a couple of times every month, the sense and wonder is there to be discovered, in 3e. For them, the journey is beginning. Me, I've seen the multiple planes, I've vanquished dragons, defeated hordes of goblins and orcs, found magical artifacts. In short, been there, done that.

I think it's more that when roleplaying is a new experience it is a powerful feeling, and after 10 or 20 years it could feel a bit... soulless, maybe. It's still fun, but not as much a journey of discovery anymore.

But I don't think it's the rules that are at fault.

Of course, if your sense of wonder immediately reappears when you sit down with a 1st ed. AD&D rules system and play, then I could see how you fault 3e for being soulless. For you it is then a question of 3e not capturing the spirit.

Have you trid to play 1st ed AD&D and compare the experiences?

Cheers

N.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 04:53 AM

Post originally by cnath at 2003-03-14 04:53:46
Converted from Phorums BB System

Which is (near as I can tell) why the Iron Kingdom's setting from Privateer Press ditched the Resurrection and Raise Dead spells and (for the most part) the whole concept.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 07:04 AM

Post originally by Dale Norman at 2003-03-14 07:04:29
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree & disagree with everybody here, lol. No, really, I umderstand the base problem here. You can't please everybody all the time. Remember that people. I pesonally have fallen in love with D & D again, because of 3e. I had given up on it for about 7 years. There are a multitude of campaign styles out there. Just look at all the homebrew sites on the net. It tells you in the DMG that any DM is encouraged to change anything they want to. You are NOT straight-jacketed into using any of the core rules. If you dont like ressurection, take it out. Make it only possible after a Quest. Require them to become ardent followers of the god of the cleric that ressurected them. Whatever floats your boat. As mentioned here by a number of people, most NPCs will NOT go adventuring. This makes for very few high level NPCs running around. If this still bothers you, then double the xp requirements for advancement. I saw this suggestion on the net once & it makes sense. The biggest glut of encounters are geared for characters of 4th to 11th levels, approximately. This keeps the DM buried in good material to run. And to the guy that calls D& d only people sheep....well I can sya the same about people of alot of game systems. I know people that only play Shadowrun, Vampire, Star Wars, Battletech, etc...I play what I like. That company gets my hard earned money from purchases. I went thru a phase of buying alot of different games. I just feel comfortable with the system I know the best. Everybody has different tastes, so dont go knocking somebodies preferences based on that. That is about as blind as being a bigot.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 07:08 AM

Post originally by DM Jeff at 2003-03-14 07:08:34
Converted from Phorums BB System

I was going to write an email that sounded nearly exactly like this, so I'll simply add to it, thanks!

Some grow up and loose their sense of wonder. I run 3E games for 25-35 year-olds who have never played and they act just like I did when I was 13 at finding a Ring of Jumping or defeating a spectre, and wonder at the cities they explore and the tombs in which they delve.

It is a role-palying game, right, so step out of yourself, approach it with the open mindedness of a child perhaps and let go, it'll all come back!

-DM Jeff

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 09:13 AM

Post originally by Fallen Pallando at 2003-03-14 09:13:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

That is not really acurate. Only thieves receive XP for money, and training is an optional rule.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 09:22 AM

Post originally by Fallen Pallando at 2003-03-14 09:22:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

I couldn't disagree more.

It is alot of work to rewrite rules for poisons, rewrite many spells and magic items, rewrite wealth and XP tables, even if you have existing 2e stuff to guide you.

As for integrating 3e stuff into 2e, it might not be that difficult. But is it really worth it? I can live without stats for monsters (after all, I've played that way for years an have had plenty of fun), but I can't live with true ressurection.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 09:23 AM

Post originally by Belphanior at 2003-03-14 09:23:35
Converted from Phorums BB System

Fallen Pallando wrote:
-------------------------------
That is not really acurate. Only thieves receive XP for money, and training is an optional rule.
-------------------------------

I was under the impression that this was only the case in 2nd edition, and that 1st gave xp to all classes for gold. Thieves just got more.

Belphanior
"This is a cool sig."

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 09:28 AM

Post originally by Vorpal_Bunny at 2003-03-14 09:28:30
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hiya -

Actually in 1E AD&D all characters get XP from gold at a 1 XP = 1 GP rating, but only for gold which was attained via "adventure."

The stricture that only thieves (and bards to a leser degree) received this XP came in 2nd edition.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 09:40 AM

Post originally by Fallen Pallando at 2003-03-14 09:40:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

---------------
Raise Dead was a 5th-level spell in 1e, and remains so in 3e; the only difference is that the 3e version requires a 500gp diamond, doesn't require a "Resurrection Survivial" check, and the raised PC loses a level (or 1 Con point, if 1st level). Ergo, the 3e version has harsher consequences. The same goes for Resurrection: same level, cheaper compnents, and fewer consequences in 1e.
---------------

This is wrong for several reasons.

1. Res. Survival makes a HUGE difference. A 10% chance that you will die and NEVER BE ABLE TO BE RAISED AGAIN is an enormous incentive to treat life and death seriously.

2. Losing a point of con is also much worse than you describe. In 3e, it is not too bad, because there are many ways to gain con. There are magic belts and books that grant con. There are spells that temporarily grant con. (With a few meta-magic feats and a respectable level you can almost make these effects permenent). And of course, every four levels you get an ability point to spend.

In 2e, there is only one way to gain con. A magic book (which only grants +1, as opposed to +1 through +5). Two other things to keep in mind. As your con worsens, so does your res. survival chance. Also, your starting con is the absolute limit to the number of timesyou can return from the dead, wether or not it is raised by magic.

---------------
I'm not sure where you're getting the the Con loss and aging three years thing, unless that was in 2e; the former is no different, and the latter has no real in-game effect other than flavor [Oo! I aged three years! Harsh.].
---------------

Yes, aging the caster 3 years is a 2e thing.

Aging makes a HUGE difference. When does a cleric gain access to ressurection? 40 or 50 at the absolute earliest. That means he can perform no more than 20 ressurections in his lifetime. That means if you walk up to a cleric, hand him the component and say, "Can I have ten minutes of your time?" he will say, "No.". He will only ressurect close friends, great heroes, and those he is very close to.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 09:43 AM

Post originally by Fallen Pallando at 2003-03-14 09:43:22
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thank you.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 09:58 AM

Post originally by Buzz at 2003-03-14 09:58:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

A 10% chance that you will die and NEVER BE ABLE TO BE RAISED AGAIN is an enormous incentive to treat life and death seriously.

Granted, though if your Con is above 13, the chance gets even smaller.

Losing a point of con is also much worse than you describe.

So, Raise/Resurrection involves a loss of a Con point in 2e? It doesn't in 1e (FYI, I have no 2e products, so can only speak about 1e, which is more "old school/flavorful" anyway).

When does a cleric gain access to ressurection? 40 or 50 at the absolute earliest.

I thought it had to do with when they reached a certain spellcasting level, not what age they were.

In 1e, a human cleric starts the game between the ages of 19 and 22. Unless you're playing Pendragon-style and only adventuring once a year, I'm not sure I see how it will take every human cleric 18 to 32 years to reach 9th level and up. And if you're talking about non-human clerics who live for centuries, the aging is even more meaningless.

Though, I'll grant you that it was shown that 1e/2e PCs rarely if ever made it past 10th level, so high-level resuureciton power was certainly harder to come by. I, however, consider this a flaw, not flavor.

Whatever. This is all a matter of taste, really. What's "soulless" to one person is "heroic" to another. I will continue to enjoy 3e, look back fondly on 1e, and dance a happy jig on 2e's grave. :)

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 12:35 PM

Post originally by Dale Norman at 2003-03-14 12:35:13
Converted from Phorums BB System

The advice I would give you is.......implement those rules in your campaign in 3e....prblem solved. I'm aware of quite a few DMs that ignored your resurrection penalties when I played 1e & 2e....DM's choice....that is always the deciding rule.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 02:50 PM

Post originally by Rich at 2003-03-14 14:50:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

Actually, I have to agree with Dale Norman about this topic. Very simply put, with 3e, if you don't like a certain rule, ability, spell, race, class or other element, you aren't forced to use it. After seeing Chain Lightning in action at a convention a year or so ago, I decided it didn't exist in my campaign. 3e makes it very easy to adjust the game to your own personal style and tastes. Personally, though I grew up playing 1st Edition (Pink box, Basic Set rules), and survived 2nd Edition, I find that 3e is the best version of the game yet. And, with the Modern rules, and the upcoming Future rules, not to mention all the new publishers and the flood of material out there, 3e is by far the most versatile system ever.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 06:04 PM

Post originally by SteelCaress at 2003-03-14 18:04:36
Converted from Phorums BB System

I would have released a different 3rd Edition...

NO CLASSES...Yeah, they re-did them, but make few characters and the classes grow stale. Forking out $20 for the latest "handbook" doesn't appeal to me. Creating variations yourself can run into snags. My rogue character was more of a salesman-charlatan type, not the sneak-attack type.

NO ALIGNMENTS...Although I'm no great fan of Palladium, they did their alignment system correctly. D&D still is very grey and vague, to me, anyway, and multiple interpretations still abound.

NO ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY...I remember multiple articles in Dragon Magazine about Attacks of Opportunity. They stretch that rule to the point of being ridiculous. Merely being alive seems to provoke an attack of opportunity.

DICE...Multiple dice are getting a bit old. Rolling a d20 for a level of damage (like in the Kult RPG) would have been cooler, to me.

ARMOR CLASS...People stripped naked should be harder to hit than people dressed to the nines like a human tank. The core mechanic should be that if you're armored, you are easier to hit but harder to damage. This is not the case. I know what the abstract mechanic represents, but to me it simply feels wrong.

HIT POINTS...Hit points are not realistic at all. Tell me, why does it take a high-level fighter, reduced to 1/4th of his hit points, more time to heal than a 1st level fighter brought to the brink of death? Why does it take more "oomph" in your healing spells to heal a high-level character?

LEVELS...Back in the early days, I guess this was the best way to do it. I still prefer the idea of getting a little more powerful bit by bit, than gaining a whole slew of stuff when you gain a level. There are plenty of CRPGs that do this, why not a game that's had 29 years to get it right?

I can understand wanting to be true to the original system, but this probably wouldn't outweigh my need for a more polished system, were I writing it. Now, all of this is my opinion, and I'm glad there are people who like it, but to me they didn't fix what was broken.

Don't get me wrong. I've played D&D, Basic, Expert, Companion, Advanced, 3E, and every variation in between. But so many other good systems are out there, why couldn't they have addressed the problems inherent in D&D, and solved them? I would have been less disappointed with the new edition.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 06:26 PM

Post originally by SteelCaress at 2003-03-14 18:26:00
Converted from Phorums BB System

I have to agree. Take, for example, the section on potions from Diablo, arguably one of the shallowest and most repetitive CRPGs ever made:

"By far the most common of these draughts are healing potions, which can instantly mend torn flesh and knit broken bone back together. Mana potions are infused with raw magical energy to restore the abilities of spell casters that have expended their power...It's known that the greatest of the Horadrim alchemists created strange concoctions that permanently affected the drinker."

And now, the D&D3E version:

"You can create a potion of any spell of 3rd level or lower that you know and that targets a creature or creatures. Brewing a potion takes 1 day. When you create a potion, you set the caster level...The base price of a potion is its spell level multiplied by the caster level, multiplied by 50 gp. To brew a potion, you must spend 1/25th of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this base price."

*Yawn!* The Diablo version was very flavorful. The D&D version was lacking, if very informative.

I solved the XP times X times 4 million gp divided by the number of stars in the sky problem awhile ago, by setting base prices for healing potions based on percentage of hp healed. That way, a 1st level Fighter will get the same ratio of hp back as a 10th level fighter. But the original reading is still pretty boring.

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 06:36 PM

Post originally by Travis Casey at 2003-03-14 18:36:05
Converted from Phorums BB System

Fallen Pallando wrote:
-------------------------------
That is not really acurate. Only thieves receive XP for money, and training is an optional rule.

---------------------

In first edition (which is what I specified), all classes receive the same amount of XP for money gained as treasure. It's not always 1 gp = 1 xp, though -- it can be less, if the party got the money easily. 1e DMG, page 85.

In second edition, only thieves get XP for money by the "standard" rules -- XP for money for other characters is optional. However, if one *does not* give other characters XP for money, then in my experience thieves will tend to advance *much* more rapidly than all other characters, since they get 2 XP for each GP of treasure obtained. (And note that the rule doesn't specify "stolen" -- merely "obtained".)

For myself, I adjusted things by changing it so thieves got XP for treasure *stolen* using their thief abilities... but that's not an "official" optional fix, just a house rule.

In first edition, training is only an "optional rule" in the sense that all rules are optional. See the description in the 1e DMG, page 86. The word "optional" or some equivalent does not appear.

In second edition, training is an optional rule.

Looking back at the posts, though, it does appear that I made a mistake; somewhere I picked up the impression that Pallando had expressed a preference for 1st edition AD&D; it seems that I was wrong, and his preference is for 2nd edition... which I must admit has a better "core" set of rules than 1st edition, eliminating quite a few of the worst things.

--Travis

RPGnet Reviews

03-14-2003, 06:52 PM

Post originally by Travis Casey at 2003-03-14 18:52:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

Personally, I found a lot of the art in 2e to be "flavorless". First edition's art, though, while it wasn't always of the highest technical standard, had a very interesting feel to it. The best of it is stuff that I'd still find very good today, and even the art which isn't that technically good has a strong *feeling* to it.

Darlene, David S. LaForce, Erol Otus, Dave Trampier... they executed artwork that was, at it's best, simply incredible. Consider the Trampier's "Emirikol The Chaotic" full-page piece in the 1e DMG. The stirge swarm on DMG 177. The snake with the dagger, DMG 136. Erol Otus' work in the Cthulhu section of the original DDG. Darlene's unicorn on the frontispiece of the DMG. The dwarves in the mine, PH 15. The mouth in the wall, PH 108.

And one thing which 1e did much, much better than its successors was humorous art. The little cartoons in the DMG were wonderful... I still love "Get the Barbarian in the corner a drink, quick!" and "This'd better work!" More subtle is the illustration on PH 102, with the adventurer and the troll rolling up opposite ends of a string.

Art is a very personal thing, of course, but to me, the 1e artwork feels like it was done by people who loved the game and its possibilities... where too much of the 2e and 3e artwork feels like something made-to-order by an artist who may have been very good, but didn't really love the game.

--Travis

RPGnet Reviews

03-15-2003, 04:54 AM

Post originally by FDP Mike at 2003-03-15 04:54:39
Converted from Phorums BB System

----------------
I can understand wanting to be true to the original system, but this probably wouldn't outweigh my need for a more polished system, were I writing it. Now, all of this is my opinion, and I'm glad there are people who like it, but to me they didn't fix what was broken.
----------------

"More polished" in what sense?

The elements you note as unfixed, broken, unrealistic, and (I suppose) unpolished ultimately come down to a matter of taste -- you have a personal preference for different mechanics and a bias against the d20 mechanics. Yet this taste does not in any way prove how the d20 mechanics are broken or unpolished. I find calling a system unpolished that is the most extensively playtested system in RPGs a bit ... well, off the mark.

If you don't like classes, alignment, hit points, and levels, then play another system that offers mechanics suitable to your sensibilities. Don't knock d20/D&D for using mechanics that are essential to the flavour of D&D and that were designed consciously and expertly.

There is no definable, tangible standard in RPGs that proves or demonstrates how one set of mechanics is explicitly "better" than another set of mechanics. One can certainly note good vs. poor design decisions within a set of mechanics. Still, you cannot really quantify that D&D's classes, alignments, and levels are any more broken or "worse" than systems without such mechanics. Ultimately, the issue comes down to preference -- to taste. Plain and simple.

I'm really tired of people knocking D&D for being D&D ....

Take care,
Mike

www.fierydragon.com
mikejohnstone@fierydragon.com

RPGnet Reviews

03-15-2003, 05:04 AM

Post originally by FDP Mike at 2003-03-15 05:04:44
Converted from Phorums BB System

------------------
*Yawn!* The Diablo version was very flavorful. The D&D version was lacking, if very informative.
------------------

This comparisons is apples to oranges, in a way.

Of course the Diablo description will have more "flavour": the writers are working within a specific setting, and they are attempting to capture the mood of that setting and the game. True, the Diablo passage feels more engaging.

On the other hand, the D&D writers are -- necessarily, I might say -- writing from a "setting neutral" standpoint. The PHB, you might note on the cover, is a "rulebook"; the PHB is a set of rules and mechanics, not a setting within which are set the rules and mechanics. It's technical writing, really. Granted, technical writing is never the most exciting read possible.

I'm not sure why reading a rulebook should be wow! bang! exciting. I can see why reading a setting book with rules should be more engaging and inspiring. The very point of D&D/d20 is to provide you the mechanics to create your own sense of flavour.

Oh, and Bloodcat, that whole "sheep" comment is immensely disrespectful to the many intelligent people who choose to play D&D because they love the game. Such insults do nothing to encourage such people to give your criticisms much credence.

Take care,
Mike

www.fierydragon.com
mikejohnstone@fierydragon.com

RPGnet Reviews

03-15-2003, 10:44 AM

Post originally by Zeus at 2003-03-15 10:44:31
Converted from Phorums BB System

I don't believe that voicing an opinion makes you an idiot, Herb.

RPGnet Reviews

03-15-2003, 11:03 AM

Post originally by Styer at 2003-03-15 11:03:30
Converted from Phorums BB System

>This comparisons is apples to oranges, in a
>way.

Further, the Diablo writers can write to an audience "within" the reality of the game because the reader won't be designing anything, and so doesn't have to understand the underlying game system. The D&D writers must write to a reader who will almost certainly be engaging in SOME amount of game design, even if it's just equipping a character, and so must understand the underlying game system.

A more reasonable comparison to the D&D text would be a passage from the Diablo manual telling the player what buttons on his keyboard or mouse to push for what effect.

RPGnet Reviews

03-15-2003, 12:48 PM

Post originally by Zeus at 2003-03-15 12:48:21
Converted from Phorums BB System

I think that says it all...

RPGnet Reviews

03-15-2003, 05:24 PM

Post originally by Tsyr at 2003-03-15 17:24:23
Converted from Phorums BB System

I've always taken the stand that any death that was gone into willingly and knowingly can't be undone by anything short of a true resurection/wish spell. Self-sacrifice and a brutal but untimely death aren't the same thing, conceptualy. Possible exceptions might occour for incredibly heroic sacrifices.

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 01:59 AM

Post originally by SteelCaress at 2003-03-16 01:59:42
Converted from Phorums BB System

I stated what was broken. At length. I also stated that all this was my opinion.

"Expertly designed" is as biased a statement as any.

And "extensively playtested" does not mean "good." It never has. It remains broken for the reasons I stated, and 4 million, or 4 billion, or 4 googleplexes of games run with D&D aren't going to change that.

Budweiser sells the best of any of the beers in America. It also tastes the worst. Being imbibed by a zillion people doesn't mean that it tastes any better.

They've had 29 years to address the issues I've had. I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm not knocking it for being D&D, I'm knocking it for not changing the problems I see with it.

Fortunately other d20 developers saw fit to fix a fair amount of its problems, but not all. A lot of the changes were so drastic that it perhaps would have been better to write their own system, rather than discard everything about the system that made it D&D in the first place. Why do you think they felt a need to do that?

I fell in love with roleplaying with my first game, Dungeons & Dragons. I just got tired of seeing "hey this doesn't work" again and again, and each edition keeping the problems I've outlined. "Judge Dredd" and "Mutants & Masterminds" and the d20 conversions in "Godlike" really showed you what the system was capable of. I'm not knocking D&D, I'm knocking the developers of the d20 system.

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 02:04 AM

Post originally by SteelCaress at 2003-03-16 02:04:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well, they could have made it at least more interesting. That's just my opinion.

Bloodcat's whole rant was disrespectful, really. If you're gonna knock the system, tell me what's wrong with it. Don't simply rant and namecall. 14 year olds do that...wait, I take that back. Even 14 year olds are beyond that.

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 02:33 AM

Post originally by Phil Masters at 2003-03-16 02:33:12
Converted from Phorums BB System

So far as I can tell, D&D3 tries (successfully, in my opinion) to be a cleaned-up, rationalised version of of "classic D&D" as it was actually played by its largest, most faithful audience. In some areas, this may well mean making it less chancy and dangerous than earlier editions played by the book - because most groups made their games a little bit more survivable than the letter of the rules would imply.

We all heard the rather munchkin war stories about resurrection-filled games where death was barely an inconvenience. More moderately, there was a time when your cleric only got the Cure spells he had memorised at the start of the day - none of this trade-in-another-spell nonsense. However, that meant that clerics could only safely take Cure, Cure, and Cure - anything else was risking the party's lives. Booooring. Everyone kludged their way round that, sooner or later; D&D3 just formalises the kludge.

Perhaps some of the people who witter on about the "spirit" of the game really did play first or second edition by the book, as written, and aren't just suffering from terminal nostalgia. But I'm sure that they're a minority - and I'm willing to bet that they almost all had their own little kludges to make the game semi-playable, back in the good old days.

--
Phil Masters
http://www.philm.demon.co.uk

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 05:33 AM

Post originally by FDP Mike at 2003-03-16 05:33:21
Converted from Phorums BB System

----------------
I stated what was broken. At length. I also stated that all this was my opinion.
----------------

Well, "broken" shades into the area of quantifiable analysis because it makes a claim about a system that must be supported: i.e., that the game is unplayable for fundamental reasons. Your examples are not truly analytical in this sense; they are personal opinions regarding elements of D&D/d20 that you do not like -- "broken" as a matter of perspective.

Having classes is not in any way "broken"; this is a design decision but also a key element of D&D. The game is not unplayable because it has classes. You would simply prefer a different mechanic.

Again, alignments are not "broken." In fact, in D&D/d20, alignment has very specific game effects, so I'm not sure about "grey and vague." This is once more a mechanic that you would prefer to see done in a different way, not something that severely hampers the game's playability.

With regard to attacks of opportunity, you're overstating the case. True, it's not the easiest mechanic to grasp, but it does not break the game. Of course, you can just do away with the mechanic in your games -- no harm done.

Your comment about dice honestly just mystifies me. Multiple dice is most certainly not a "broken" element of D&D/d20, but an essential part of the game. You're sort of grasping at straws here. Several systems use multiple dice; using just one die type is a design choice, and not in any way necessarily a better one.

As for Armor Class and Hit Points, the designers give clear rationales for these mechanics and how they work within the confines of D&D and the d20 System. Again, these mechanics are not "broken" in the sense that they severely hinder game play; they can, of course, be tweaked in different ways, but that's the beauty of the OGL and d20STL. You're opinion is that you don't like these mechanics; this does not demonstrate conclusively that these mechanics kill the game.

Levels are, finally, just another statement of preference and taste. The mechanic works just fine; in fact, it's more flexible than ever before in D&D. Nothing quantifiable in game design can assert definitively that no levels is better and "less broken" than levels. It's purely a matter of design choice and taste.

-----------------
And "extensively playtested" does not mean "good." It never has. It remains broken for the reasons I stated, and 4 million, or 4 billion, or 4 googleplexes of games run with D&D aren't going to change that.
-----------------

For the reasons I stated above, no, the game is not "broken." You have not proven this at all, beyond delineating your opinions about certain mechanics that you would prefer to see done differently. Moreover, extensive playtesting, one might think, should catch most of the problems in a system and at least provide the basis for a "good" game. We have seen with LotR how a lack of playtesting can actually hurt a system and permit broken elements to remain. Granted, D&D/d20 was not perfect upon its release and since, but 3.5E will address most of the problems and quite expertly at that.

If other designers have tweaked the d20 System for different genres or different design goals, that is their prerogative. This does not mean that they have "fixed" what was "broken," for the system was not actually broken in the first place. What this does prove, however, is d20's flexibility to evolve and adapt. Apparently, it can accomodate different design goals and preferences while remaining "d20."

The developers of d20 did an expert job of design because they fashioned a versatile, generally balanced, very playable system. Sure, the system's not perfect; no system is, really. Yet it's most definitely not broken.

I mean, if you want a game that does not have the elements you describe as broken, then don't bash on D&D/d20 for not being that specific game. There are lots of games out there that meet your needs, I'm sure.

Take care,
Mike

www.fierydragon.com
mikejohnstone@fierydragon.com

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 07:57 AM

Post originally by Pingleypoo at 2003-03-16 07:57:16
Converted from Phorums BB System

>>Budweiser sells the best of any of the beers in America. It also tastes the worst. Being imbibed by a zillion people doesn't mean that it tastes any better.<<

So, you admit that it's an issue of taste then?

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 10:01 AM

Post originally by John at 2003-03-16 10:01:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

SC, save yourself some grief. You came off like a prig, FDP Mike called you on it, and now you are whining.

D&D3E is FAR from my favorite system, but you are quite simply wrong. It isn't broken.

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 10:17 AM

Post originally by Iceberg at 2003-03-16 10:17:31
Converted from Phorums BB System

In other words, except for attacks of opportunity (which don't confuse me now as much as they once did), you would have made it not D&D.

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 10:21 AM

Post originally by Iceberg at 2003-03-16 10:21:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

So, in other words, your hate of d02 know no limit.

-- Ice

RPGnet Reviews

03-16-2003, 05:42 PM

Post originally by Jody Macgregor at 2003-03-16 17:42:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

Am I the only person in the world who finds the AoO rules to be intuitive? If you do something non-combatative in combat, you get slapped -- I don't even bother looking at the table. On some occasions I may differ with the rulebook on what kind of action provokes an AoO, but if you understand the spirit of the rule and stay consistent, what does it matter?

RPGnet Reviews

03-17-2003, 07:34 AM

Post originally by Nahan at 2003-03-17 07:34:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

This is not a joke posting, but merely an observation.

3E books certainly don't smell like 1st edition books did. Or does, actually.

Especially the orange backed book had a very peculiar smell, and for me I just can't seem to decide whether I hate the smell or love it.

Anyone else feel the same about the smell of old and new D&D books?

Nathan

(I apologise for the hi-jack of your post, but since you mentioned smell, I sorta gotta thinking about this issue. If I'm way out of line here, just ignore me)

RPGnet Reviews

03-17-2003, 10:41 AM

Post originally by lord ogre at 2003-03-17 10:41:39
Converted from Phorums BB System

I'm just curious what you think is goofy; which abilities I mean.

As for the proliferation of stuff...so what? 3E is the "options" version onf D&D and that's all that they are giving you. I know lots of people who hate the double weapons (especially the double-axe) so they don't include them. Same with most of 3E. You don't ever need prestige classes if you don't like them or AoO or tons of other things. WotC gives you more than you would ever need in the way of options so that you can take what you want, tweak what needs tweaking and leave the rest. And, btw, I think poisons at present are nasty. The amount of HP damage a Con poison can do is gross.

RPGnet Reviews

03-17-2003, 12:50 PM

Post originally by Dale Norman at 2003-03-17 12:50:32
Converted from Phorums BB System

A thought. If you like 1e soooooooo much, go & buy Hackmaster from Kenzer & Co. It is 1e AD&D. Or so close, who cares.

RPGnet Reviews

03-17-2003, 01:31 PM

Post originally by SteelCaress at 2003-03-17 13:31:41
Converted from Phorums BB System

This post achieved less than I had hoped. It was what I expected, but I had wished for more.

As for coming off like a prig, I in no way bashed anyone for liking D&D. But my specific criticisms of the systems weren't addressed. Just the fact that I criticized. It kinda seems like that with any system these days, from White Wolf to D&D to HERO and GURPS, etc. Are we that defensive and closed off?

I was hoping to get a bit beyond this:
"How was the movie?"
"It was good. I liked it!"
"No it wasn't. It sucked!"
"It was great. It rocked!"

Why was it good? Why was it bad?

RPGnet Reviews

03-17-2003, 02:09 PM

Post originally by Harbinger at 2003-03-17 14:09:05
Converted from Phorums BB System

I don't have any problems with them.

RPGnet Reviews

03-17-2003, 02:17 PM

Post originally by FDP Mike at 2003-03-17 14:17:06
Converted from Phorums BB System

----------------
Why was it good? Why was it bad?
----------------

Well, I'm honestly not sure, then, exactly how you expected to engage in such analysis with the tone and thinness of your initial post.

What you point out as problems that require fixing in D&D/d20 are not truly problems at all. The system is not "broken" because it includes and/or relies upon certain mechanics that you happen not to like. As I mentioned in my initial reply, I'm tired of folks knocking D&D for being D&D.

I think that I've addressed your criticisms of the system from the standpoint that they're not really analytical criticisms but more expressions of taste. To this point, you've not clearly demonstrated how D&D/d20 is broken. Instead, you've made quite obvious your dislike for certain game mechanics and your (implied) preference for others.

If you give me an analytical, objective, supported criticism of how D&D is actually "broken" because it uses classes, hit points, AC, levels, alignment, etc., then, sure, we can get into the "why." Until then, we're not likely to achieve what you were originally looking for.

I guess that, yes, I am bit defensive. I see unsupported opinions such as yours a lot lately, and I'm a tad unwilling anymore to let them just pass as apparent criticisms of the game holding the weight of gospel truth.

Let's try this: you explain why the mechanic of classes makes D&D/d20 a "broken" system and then offer a solution that would "fix" the problem. It would be great if you can offer some hard, detailed evidence -- both for why classes are "broken" and why your solution would represent a "fix." This sort of approach I would honestly like to see; it's one would listen to and consider carefully.

Take care,
Mike

www.fierydragon.com
mikejohnstone@fierydragon.com