|
5 years ago ::
Mar 13, 2008 - 11:27PM
#51
|
|
|
Like a lot of us here, I'd been playing D&D since 1980. When 3rd Edition came out, I had no idea where to start or what to do, and haven't touched it sense. I saw no reason to look at 3.5 because I had no idea what was going on in the first place. Recently, WotC has pointed out all the things that were problematic for 3 and 3.5, and that alone is enough to give me confidence in the franchise again.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 13, 2008 - 11:40PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2005
|
If the system so convoluted that it requires a monthly (weekly?) online supplement to explain something ...
Psst... An acronym for you... DDI.
There. Enough said.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 12:17AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2006
|
You mean Dungeon and Dragon magazines?
Or was there some other aspect you're referencing?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 5:07AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2002
|
I would just like to point out that in order to be an acronym the letters must form their own word such as scuba or nato which are both pronounced as words. Abbreviations like DDI or WotC (when said as letters) are initialisms.
Thank you, that is all.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 5:13AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Now let's change that over to being an 8 HD animal with two claws and a bite.
Here are my questions using an owlbear as an example (taking -20) with Improved Grab:
OWLBEAR:
Base Attack/Grapple: +5/+14
Attack: Claw +9 melee (1d6+5)
Full Attack: 2 claws +9 melee (1d6+5) and bite +4 melee (1d8+2)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Improved grab
1.) Let's say on a full attack the owlbear successfully grabs someone, can he use his remaining claw and bite attack against the grabbed enemy or only other creatures?
2.) If it begins its turn with a grabbed opponent, can it make a grapple check to damage the grabbed opponent, and still use its remaining claw and bite attack?
3.) Can it have two grabbed characters and make a grapple check against each one in the same round, and attack with its bite, or can it make only one grapple check a round due to BAB +5?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 5:23AM
#56
|
|
|
Psst... An acronym for you... DDI.
There. Enough said.
At least with DDI we're getting something more than just a "well, we screwed up, so here's some eratta that only a small percentage of the populace will know about." The uber-SRD, while great for correcting issues like the multiple possible interpretations of Grapple in 3e, isn't the only reason to get DDI.
The express purpose of that column was to fix rules they'd written (twice, goddammit, they'd written them in two different editions) that were crap and that they recognized as crap. That's a flawed system.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 5:55AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
I believe this is explained in one of the Rules of the Game articles.
Oh, you mean Skip's vague and cryptic interpretations of the rules.
All the RotG articles did was high-light his lack of knowledge of how the 3.5 rules actually worked.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 6:05AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Of course, I have to wonder, is it really that some of the 3.5 mechanics are really that difficult, or are they just presented that badly. For the most part, the Rules of the Game articles just explained the rules differently, they didn't errata them. When I play 3.5 I usually have the internet open to the SRD d20 with hyperlinks since it can be hard to find the info in the actual books some times.
I think you are correct calvin. A major problem was that the way the actual rules were written often was vague, poorly worded, and often required constant referencing in either another section of the book or another book all together. That is both a deterent to new players(it makes the game look far more complicated) and it slows down gameplay as you sort through rules.
I do think though, that the rules had some major flaws, such as class imbalance between casters vs martial, SoL/D, feat progression, issues with playing outside of the "sweet spot", etc. They can make the game more tedious and, in my opinion, less fun.
When you combine the two, its obvious that the game needed a rewrite, both to make the rules easier to understand from the get go and to eliminate those game unbalancing mechanics.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 6:06AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2002
|
So I'm supposed to tell my player who wants to grab the monster, "No. You can't."
Sorry, sir, but I'm not that sort of DM.
Then you will hate 4E because it is full of such "you can't" moments (Trip, and everything else which has be reduced to a class specific /encounter power).
Whats wrong with 3.5? Nothing. Of course it has its flaws but 4E will have them too, just different ones. But marketing a new edition always involves exaggerating the flaws of the previous system while downplaying its strengths.
When was the last time you heared a Designer saying that 3E solved something in a good way?
Oh, you mean Skip's vague and cryptic interpretations of the rules.
That grapple is based of BAB is directly in the rules/SRD and not based on someones interpretation. The only thing which is "wrong" with 3.5E is that it expects players and DMs to learn the rules before playing.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 14, 2008 - 6:12AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
That grapple is based of BAB is directly in the rules/SRD and not based on someones interpretation. The only thing which is "wrong" with 3.5E is that it expects players and DMs to learn the rules before playing.
I know the 3.5 rules inside and out, but I bet you can't answer my owlbear questions above with absolute certainty.
|
|
|
