D&D anyone here (still) play it?

[consequences]

For me, Fourth edition commits the cardinal sin of an rpg, in that it simply fails to excite me on a visceral level. I could bitch about assorted nitpicks that piss me off, but honestly, those tend to be countered by the fewer but more significant drastic improvements, and the assorted thing I consider a null-value change(balancing out the classes being one of them for me personally, I can see the merits of not making anyone the party bitch, but if I want perfect balance between all players at a table, I'll break out a board game).

3rd was the same way, as was pretty much all of what I saw for D&D20 until Eberron came along. So until they come out with a setting book that sings to me, I really just can't muster much of a damn about the game one way or the other. I'm playing it regularly, but I'd regularly play Palladium at this point just to get my gaming fix in.

[Hotfoot]

I've read through a large part of this thread, and while I'd rather not join the dogpile, my sentiments on D&D in general are pretty well known, but for those of you who don't feel like searching for some really old shit, here's a recap.

AD&D was crap, but classic crap. It was my "proper" induction into RPGs. It's neither the worst nor the best system out there, but it was hopelessly dated even fifteen years ago when I started playing it. As they say, THAC0 is wacko. Basically, this is DOS.

D&D 3rd Ed was a big leap into the modern age, but still bogged down in a lot of the issues of the old system. Like Windows 95, it was cool, but had several issues.

3.5 is basically Windows 98. Everyone loved it, but most everyone who knew about other systems knew it was hopelessly limited by the ties to the old DOS architecture. It didn't make huge changes over the previous system, but rather just fixed some things that were clearly broken. People bitched about how their old supplements didn't really work, but nowhere near the bitching we hear now, even though the timeline from 3.0 to 3.5 is roughly the same amount of time between 3.5 and 4th. PS, I saw 4th coming in this time frame years ago, so I never bothered getting ANY books. Why should I have? The rules were free online at the SRD website and supplements that added things like classes, gear, feats, etc. were often poorly written pieces of shit that broke the game or were basically useless. This is largely because all of D&D is one big balancing act where nobody seems to be taking balance into consideration. Of course, it's hard to really balance games where things like "classes" and "levels" are integral, but that's of ALL D&D, not specifically this edition.

4E is an attempt to modernize D&D somewhat, streamlining bits that overly complicated the game and making things much more straightforward. Having never actually played more than an introductory adventure, I can't comment on how the game really plays, but from what little I've seen, it's a lot smoother than the old system, especially combat. All the previous games I've played have involved combat sessions that range from 1-3 hours, as people look up rules, argue over minutiae, and decide what to do. A lot of the fluff stuff the people hate is often time easily solved by very simple additions to the game through house rules. Now I know there's an argument that house rules can make 3.x easier to handle as well, but the simple matter is that some of those changes are very severe and end up changing the entire tempo of the game, sometimes requiring large-scale rebalancing.

I'm just going to note a few things here that I saw mentioned.

*Lack of a crafting skill/Infinite Knowledge skills:
Well clearly putting 20 ranks in Craft: Basketweaving instead of 20 Ranks in Bluff is a wise career decision. I mean, really? REALLY? No thank you, I choose life, and Bluff can actually save my life in a regular fashion. Most of the craft and knowledge skills were absolute shit unless you knew ahead of time that your GM would cater to them. Most of the time they were useless gateways to overpowered prestige classes, never to be heard nor seen from again. If you really want, you can add the skills you miss, and the game doesn't break that much, since skills were consolidated and skill points are given a little more freely.

But really, most were an absolute waste of time and rarely brought up. Make a skill or feat if you must, and you're done.

*Consolidation of Skills:
Spot, Listen, and Search being separate is a GOOD thing? That must be some good shit you're smoking, because that's one of the worst things about 3.x in my mind. Extremely limited skill points combined with far too many overlapping and redundant skills. Don't put ranks in it? Well you suck ass at it, congratulations. This sorely limited "breaking molds" because you had to scrape together enough skill points to become good at whatever you could, and in this case "good" means "max out points" because anything less and you were commonly fucked in the ass. Want to make a fighter who's a good blacksmith? Sure, if you don't mind being unable to do anything else BUT that and fighting.

Worst of all was the extremely limited fashion in which "cross-class" skills worked. Ever notice that the classes best suited to being "guards" were the ones that realistically were the best suited to getting past guards? Yeah, awesome. Fighters are dumb AND blind. Deaf too.

Maybe I'm spoiled by skill-based systems, but I like my skills to be good. If I see a skill that is worth shit, I am not taking that skill, period, and if I have to spend too many points to feel less than competent, I'm not happy. Granted, I almost always played a Human Rogue with a high intelligence, and even THEN I felt gimped in 3.x, and I had the most skills mechanically possible without delving into batshit crazy territory.

4E has a much better system, largely cribbed from Star Wars Saga, which is the only version of "3rd" Edition I would even think of playing at this point.

*Lack of....wait what?:
So I was looking through my 4E books to find out what was missing from 4E that was present in 3.x, and I noticed that one complaint was the utter lack of illusions. I'll sum up the next few paragraphs in two words.

That's wrong.

Fuck it, I'm counting the contraction as one. There are combat illusions like blur, invisibility, etc. in the standard wizard list, and there are more conventional illusions in the ritual magic section.

PS- I'm still of the opinion that character customization options are better and more varied in 4E than 3.x because you can do things like cross-class skills, get abilities from other classes, or even cast ritual magic with very little effort and nowhere near the penalties you had in 3.x. I can have a thief who can raise the dead, a warrior who can cast illusions, a wizard who can pick locks, and a cleric who can backstab, all without seriously gimping my character's primary abilities.

Now, maybe one or more these points was brought up earlier and I just missed it, but whatever, I'm saying it again. Now, you can have a good time with nearly any system, and I've had a good time with 3.x in the past, as well as AD&D and even, I shudder to say it, RIFTS. I don't consider any of these systems to be great, it was the people I was playing with that made it all worthwhile. I will say that from the perspective of a GM, I'd MUCH rather run a game of 4E than 3.x for the sake of my sanity, because as a GM 3.x to me is an absolute nightmare to set up, even with all the tools that are out these days to simplify it.

[Agent Sorchus]

I have to agree with consequences, 4e does not excite me. Even the artwork mostly looks like it comes from WoW. It just is mostly not something that is interesting to play with unlike the 3.5e Dragonlance books. Those were written well and cover the necessities of the world, like adjusting the Paladin to create the order of Knights, while staying exciting and full of useful information for the DM.

One of the other things that can not satisfy my requirements as a DM is the at will powers. They take a lot of the ability of the DM to wear at the party away.

Why shouldn't a core game at level 1 be a good idea? Why is it even there if that's the case?

Level one and two are more for people who are just getting into the game and have not really 1) read the rules 2) decided that they actually want to play the game. However once you pass this threshold then it is almost worthless to start at lvl 1 or 2. You bore out of the simplicity of the low level to fast to actually get into the game or world.

Skills in general do not have to have high DCs. I know that it seems wrong but even at high level if the DM is not being a sadistic fuck you should be able to pass any check, even if barely. If your DM is simply requiring that you max your skills to pass even if you do not want to, s/*he should realize that and set the difficulty so that while tough it is not actually impossible, so that the game remains fun and does not turn into do exactly as the DM wants you to or die. And yes this happens all to often because the DMs are simply bad.
* who am i kidding this is a thread on dnd

Crafting skills are one of my favored things but they handled it in 3e badly. They could be used to simulate an economy, but it was one of the things most players completely ignored due to its lack of use in the dungeon. D20 modern had a better setup for craft and profession but still was less than satisfying. Why do I like it? Because I do not plan upon my PCs to just freely ransack a dungeon and carry back all the wealth, over the month long trip back to town. Yes I am an ass and will use the weight of a gold coin and actually penalize my players from having too much. As such I am hoping to repeatedly run them down to the last scraps of wealth, where the craft or profession skills can actually matter.

Knowledge is horrible to deal with in DnD, because most DMs do not realize that the base knowledge checks are just guidelines for creating their own in universe checks. You do not need to include any skill that you do not plan on including in your universe, this is basic world building that most DMs refuse to do. Once again it is necessary to give your players the ability to roleplay with out having to use the 20 sided dice. So for Knowledge checks I have my players make a single check that is the basis for the IC knowledge that I reveal to them before the game starts and that they have to roleplay with.
For example, I have decided that knowledge of all the gods is not actually free, as such I can either check the base modifier of the player to determine what they know about religion or I can have them check to see how much they have learned. Since this is a one time check they have to find a new source of knowledge to make a new check.

As to the consolidation of skills I cannot disagree more. Why would a nearsighted character be able to see out as far in a spot situation as when inspecting an object in front of him. I can understand how it makes it easier, but not how it makes sense. I know that cross classed skills seem so very stupid, but if you are looking to make guards better and are only looking at the base characters you are ignoring one of the basic tenants of being a DM, to change it if you want to. Ie make a new feat for guards or just replace ride with listen and spot since most guards are not going to be mounted anyway. But no that requires the DM to not just open the book in the last hour before the game starts. The 3e DMs guide had explicit guild lines for adjusting classes that were easy to understand and use. I am not to certain about the 3.5 guild though (I only borrow it when I actually need it) and I have not gotten to check the 4e book, but it was there and most DMs were to lazy to try to use it in 3e.
So no the Character customization is not better in 4e, it was simple underutilized in 3e.

The Economy is a valid point Utsanomiko, but it assumes that the DM thought or planed ahead. Which is something similar to house ruling the old system, something that seems to be antitheses to what you would have us do (as DMs). I think that most of the problems with 3e were that DMs did not put enough effort into a world.

I would like to say that the world I have created has been heavily influenced by the Heroes of horror book and that I am going to attempt to frustrate and cajole my players at the same time. For this to be possible I have homebrewed the world as much as possible, to keep my players in the dark about as much as possible for as long as possible; have reveiwed as many ways as possible of denying them resources, or eliminating resources that are going to get in the way; and will have to make sure that it does not end up to frustrating for those who are under prepared.

[Agent Sorchus]

Addendum: I am not against other roleplaying systems. I would play Dark Heresy if I could find a group. I have also worked extensively with a friend who has developed his own system because he refused to make the transition from 2ed to 3ed, who has since decided that 3e was not that bad.

I am all for a different system, but in my opinion it is the people who use the system that ruin it, usually by being lazy and not using their brain to make it work right and stay fun. Hell I broke my friends system by playing a simple archer and forcing him to use his mind to make the standard system work.

And I would like to through this question out: What is the difference from house ruling and making a full and complete game world for yourself?

[Hotfoot]

Level one and two are more for people who are just getting into the game and have not really 1) read the rules 2) decided that they actually want to play the game. However once you pass this threshold then it is almost worthless to start at lvl 1 or 2. You bore out of the simplicity of the low level to fast to actually get into the game or world.

I would argue that the low levels in previous versions of D&D were absolutely shit. Damage does not scale at the same rate as hitpoints, and at no other point in the game will one good shot kill even a tough fighter in one go, barring massive damage rules, which are still rarely, if ever invoked.

Skills in general do not have to have high DCs. I know that it seems wrong but even at high level if the DM is not being a sadistic fuck you should be able to pass any check, even if barely. If your DM is simply requiring that you max your skills to pass even if you do not want to, s/*he should realize that and set the difficulty so that while tough it is not actually impossible, so that the game remains fun and does not turn into do exactly as the DM wants you to or die. And yes this happens all to often because the DMs are simply bad.
* who am i kidding this is a thread on dnd

Oh please, read the sections on what DCs should be given and when and you'll see that high DCs are common. Never mind that you have to adjust for the fact that a D20's huge range means that even if you have a +20 modifier in a skill, you still can fail a DC 25 check....25% of the time. Let's also remember that at first level, at most you can possibly have a +9 modifier to a given skill, and that's assuming a massive +5 bonus from the appropriate attribute. Unless your GM allows constant "take 20's", this is only good enough to ensure a reasonable rate of success against DC 15 checks or so. By the way, if you're a rogue, DC 20 locks are "simple", so you can shove "low DC values" somewhere anatomically unsound. At first level, a good rogue might have a grand total of +10 if they've got masterwork thieves' tools, which are not cheap. That's a 50% chance of success, which doesn't go up to 75% until...oh around level 5. That's for the EASY locks. You know, the ones you really shouldn't have a problem with. That's not bad GMing, that's going by the basic rules. Unless you're saying going by the basic rules is bad GMing.

Crafting skills are one of my favored things but they handled it in 3e badly. They could be used to simulate an economy, but it was one of the things most players completely ignored due to its lack of use in the dungeon. D20 modern had a better setup for craft and profession but still was less than satisfying. Why do I like it? Because I do not plan upon my PCs to just freely ransack a dungeon and carry back all the wealth, over the month long trip back to town. Yes I am an ass and will use the weight of a gold coin and actually penalize my players from having too much. As such I am hoping to repeatedly run them down to the last scraps of wealth, where the craft or profession skills can actually matter.

Craft skills only matter if and when you give PCs enough downtime to use them, something 90% of GMs don't do, especially in D&D. Hell, I remember most of the games I've played where anyone who took any sort of crafting feats for scrolls, potions, or whatnot was penalized because we never slowed down for the days it takes to make that shit. Granted, that's a GM thing, but still.

Knowledge is horrible to deal with in DnD, because most DMs do not realize that the base knowledge checks are just guidelines for creating their own in universe checks. You do not need to include any skill that you do not plan on including in your universe, this is basic world building that most DMs refuse to do. Once again it is necessary to give your players the ability to roleplay with out having to use the 20 sided dice. So for Knowledge checks I have my players make a single check that is the basis for the IC knowledge that I reveal to them before the game starts and that they have to roleplay with.
For example, I have decided that knowledge of all the gods is not actually free, as such I can either check the base modifier of the player to determine what they know about religion or I can have them check to see how much they have learned. Since this is a one time check they have to find a new source of knowledge to make a new check.

Knowledge is a way for GMs to control what a player knows about the in game universe, since most players read all the material anyway, a GM can say, "Oh, don't have Knowledge: Colons? You can't say anything about the Sphincter of Asmodeus, even though you know out of game."

Useful, but better controlled by players having a better idea of what their characters would or wouldn't know simply by, you know, TALKING with the GM.

As to the consolidation of skills I cannot disagree more. Why would a nearsighted character be able to see out as far in a spot situation as when inspecting an object in front of him. I can understand how it makes it easier, but not how it makes sense.

Well hey, while we're on that subject, why don't we get into all the other meaningless minutiae that makes games more "realistic"? Like how a character might have astigmatism and can only see well out of one eye, so when the good eye is closed, they get a penalty, and when the bad eye is closed, they see just fine.

Seriously, nearsightness? That's the metric you're using? You're talking about a skill that you can improve with use. The skill, in this case, is being observant. It can be improved upon. Does this mean that if your "nearsighted" character multiclasses to Rogue and dumps a bunch of skill points into spot and listen, they stop being blind and deaf? Because by using a rather permanent defect such as nearsightedness, that's what you're implying. Not that the character is generally clueless and unobservant, which low skill ratings should imply, but that there's a genuine defect that can't be corrected.

Asinine apologistic bullshit like this pisses me off. You're trying to defend a laughable broken system by any means necessary. Let's put it this way. In a number of other systems, if you were to make a character who was nearsighted, here's how you'd do it:
Put points into Notice skill
Put points into Perception attribute
Take Flaw: Poor Vision for a number of points equal to the negative you want to take. Boom, you take a negative when making any Notice check that relies on your vision.

And there you go. Simple and easy. Of course most skill-based systems like the ones I'm used to make all such customizations easy, including doing things like making characters not utterly defined and limited by their classes. Not only can I make a soldier with a damn decent Notice skill, so he can see trouble coming, a lot of times that's rather the POINT of a combat character, to be able to see trouble before it hits you.

I know that cross classed skills seem so very stupid, but if you are looking to make guards better and are only looking at the base characters you are ignoring one of the basic tenants of being a DM, to change it if you want to. Ie make a new feat for guards or just replace ride with listen and spot since most guards are not going to be mounted anyway. But no that requires the DM to not just open the book in the last hour before the game starts. The 3e DMs guide had explicit guild lines for adjusting classes that were easy to understand and use. I am not to certain about the 3.5 guild though (I only borrow it when I actually need it) and I have not gotten to check the 4e book, but it was there and most DMs were to lazy to try to use it in 3e.
So no the Character customization is not better in 4e, it was simple underutilized in 3e.

Ah, so basically the make shit up clause to make character that make an ounce of sense. Never mind that in 4E, the "take a skill not in your normal set" is a standard feat, in the basic rules, while what you're suggesting, which is making entire new rules on the fly, is not. Sure, they say "do what you want", but that's true of all RPGs. When there's an existing structure for customization that works, it's better than having to come up with one that may break the game. After all, if we're swapping out skills, can I take "Use Magic Device" instead of "Knowledge: Stonecrafting"? (That's another example of skills with massive differences in utility, of course).

See, in the skill-based systems I'm used to playing in these days, I don't have to jump through hoops to make characters that do what I want them to do, because there aren't these stupid class limitations in my way. The by the book ways of getting around them in 4E, however, are infinite more simple and less painful than the ways to do them in 3.x. See, in 3.x, the PROPER way to do it is to multiclass to the class with the skills you want, then pump up those skills. This means stopping your progression in your primary class and potentially giving up things like extra feats, spell slots, etc. Nobody fears a 10 Rogue/10 Wizard like they do a 20 Wizard in 3.x, period. Prestige classes with multiclassing in mind helped to ease the pain, but it was a slipshod patch on a basically broken system.

This is what a lot of 3.5 adherents don't seem to get. There's a big difference between adding to an existing dynamic that's already fairly open and re-writing the rules as you see fit. If I were to re-write the 3.x system to my specifications, I might as well just make my own system from scratch, or use a different system from the get-go, because I am not satisfied by the way it works. 4E is much closer to my tastes, though even it falls dreadfully short.

Baseline 3.x does not have a way for a fighter to notice things, and even if it did mimic the "take a non-class skill as a class skill" feat, you'd need THREE of those feats to achieve what one feat does in 4E with many skills. Take into account that feats are much harder to come by and worth a lot more individually in 3.x than in 4E, and you have a very serious problem.

I would like to say that the world I have created has been heavily influenced by the Heroes of horror book and that I am going to attempt to frustrate and cajole my players at the same time. For this to be possible I have homebrewed the world as much as possible, to keep my players in the dark about as much as possible for as long as possible; have reveiwed as many ways as possible of denying them resources, or eliminating resources that are going to get in the way; and will have to make sure that it does not end up to frustrating for those who are under prepared.

You know, I've run plenty of games where my players have been given plenty of resources, and oddly enough, I've never had a problem with keeping them under control, because other factors will limit what they run around with and/or try to buy. Still, that's mostly a style thing, and if people like it, cool. I know that I've not really enjoyed it, but hey.


PS- House rules refer to rules modifications or interpretations that better suit the group/play style you play with, nothing to do with the setting, really. Making a setting is reasonably easy, depending on how you do it. Making a game system that's not essentially broken isn't even that hard if you set down to it and have a good knowledge of game theory. What matters most in a game is that the players want to play and the GM wants to run. This means, to me, you ideally want to make a system that allows players to achieve their goals and is conducive to a GM managing the whole thing. Make any one aspect difficult, and, well, there you go. I like to customize characters well outside of the limits of the D20 system, which as a player makes the game less than ideal for me. As a GM, I find 3.x especially difficult in terms of constructing a game session and campaign, to say nothing of running it. Far too many other systems run more smoothly in combat, handle out of combat situations better, and even allow for far grander scales of combat.

[Stark]

It's interesting that it sounds like DnD still suffers under it's half-assed attempt to have a skill system but not. It's very common for class-based systems with skills to be awful as they're either tacked on and useless (and the system is basically class-based) or they're so significant the existence of classes is redundant.

Is there a reason DnD still uses classes? Even 'classless' games still have pretty art and choices from archetypes/prebuilds/etc, so nothing would really change except design focus.

[Hotfoot]

It's interesting that it sounds like DnD still suffers under it's half-assed attempt to have a skill system but not. It's very common for class-based systems with skills to be awful as they're either tacked on and useless (and the system is basically class-based) or they're so significant the existence of classes is redundant.

Is there a reason DnD still uses classes? Even 'classless' games still have pretty art and choices from archetypes/prebuilds/etc, so nothing would really change except design focus.

I honestly don't know. The class system would be the first thing I would axe from D&D to be honest, but the fans would be in such an uproar because they're not told how to advance a character that they would probably lose their heads.

Maybe it's the flavor of D&D to be pigeonholed?

[Stark]

But you could totally work it - presentation wise - that classes were totally unchanged, and a single jig on the tables would allow the game to be indistinguishable for the nerd players... while still allowing the flexibility to actually have skills that make sense and affect your character instead of being window dressing. The backend mechanical changes would add to the game and remove nothing for the unimaginative led-by-the-nose DnD person.

Let's face it; Shadowrun did it in 1986. Wasn't that even before ADnD2 came out?

[Hotfoot]

But Starkers, don't you see? That removes all the uniqueness from the classes! If you start melting them too much, you might have something silly, like a spellcasting ne'er-do-well who stabs people in the back with a bow and has an animal companion named Mr. Jitters, a squirrel with the intelligence of twelve half-orcs (which, incidentally, makes it still marginally stupid, ha-ha).

THAT CAN'T HAPPEN!

No, we must have our attributes rolled up by a number of D6s inversely proportional to our penis size and our jobs as narrowly defined as possible, with exceptions for when we feel like breaking the rules to do something reasonable and/or cool outside the limits of the normal rules and potentially gamebreaking.

Seriously though, I doubt we'll ever see this, since a lot of D&D is based on nostalgia. You know, that thing that lets us forget how bad something really is because of fond memories.

[Utsanomiko]

The art and setting is definitely something I am not fond of for 4th. It's gone very 'punk fantasy' without much basis on believable attire or varied character types (William O'Connor being the big culprit). Howard Lyon, Lee Moyer, and one or two other artists stand out to me, the rest are tolerable or serviceable. Then again 3rd's art was very hit or miss, and it's late 2nd Edition that chiefly calls out to me as evocative and nostalgic. The planes in the default cosmology are so vague I'm not entirely sure how they're supposed to work, ironically. I tend to just go with a looser and lighter version of the great wheel and not worry about the details until somebody gets there.

The flavor text and names of some monsters and most powers are just embarrassing. They're trying too hard to cater to the current youth and their penchant to decry anything without a shaved head, goatee, and rape-face as 'faggy'. Fortunately you don't have to declare names and can make up your own descriptions for powers, as long as you've got the effects right.

But I make my own settings for the most part and we don't really spend time looking at the art while playing.

Fuck it, I'm counting the contraction as one. There are combat illusions like blur, invisibility, etc. in the standard wizard list, and there are more conventional illusions in the ritual magic section.

Plus the entire range of Illusion spells featured in the Arcane Power PC option book. And double the number of class builds for each class. And the extra feats and paths, and background packages in PHBII (allowing PCs to take training or a +2 bonus in skills they might not otherwise have). We are afterall only looking at the first year of releases, as opposed to 7 years. Two nice things about the current expansion books is that they're very consistent with the core options (not really hard to balance with the modularity of the rules) and the online Compendium and Character Creator program get updated with new book options every month; I got a 1-month subscription for $8 and now I can look up spells, monsters, and races from every book I don't own and print them out.

[Utsanomiko]

But you could totally work it - presentation wise - that classes were totally unchanged, and a single jig on the tables would allow the game to be indistinguishable for the nerd players... while still allowing the flexibility to actually have skills that make sense and affect your character instead of being window dressing. The backend mechanical changes would add to the game and remove nothing for the unimaginative led-by-the-nose DnD person.

Let's face it; Shadowrun did it in 1986. Wasn't that even before ADnD2 came out?

I wouldn't mind seeing a fantasy adventure system that worked entirely around background packages; every major component of a PC's culture, birth, upbringing, training, and career could provide a different set of skills, abilities, and future powers. A street urchin from the slums could become a wizard's apprentice and study in a school of magic, and have a penchant for thievery & street life compared to someone with a better youth, but have equally valuable life skills. This would enable very fluid PC creation yet minimize 'double stacking' of bonuses and abilities. One thing I didn't like about multi-classing was it occurred artificially after level one, with little way of representing broad training before then.

But I don't think classes are inherently bad when done solidly. It's just the style of the game.

[Stark]

Do you mean in an integer way (like Pendragon's culture/social position/family system building up a character's starting skills at 15 at which point the player can shape them) or in a complex way (like Millenium's End where your professional mercenary 'buys' skill 'packages' for things like 'was a pilot' and 'has EMT training' and 'served in Asia' and 'grew up in the west') whcih are then number-crunched down to some kind of value?

I like these systems too, but the ME method was incredibly, incredibly slow due to the maths you needed to perform. Pendragon is basically the same but faster, and also allowed the 'scenario presets' of culture and society to have an effect on what players can do and thus get buy-in right from the start. Save points on rich noble parents so you can invest more in combat and awareness? Nobody takes you seriously! Amazing paternity gives you massive starting benefits? Have fun running dozens of landed estates each winter!

[Agent Sorchus]

4e has a lot simpler skill system, that is one of the best things that it did. But I challenge the statement that 3e cannot do most of what 4e does in terms moving skills to other classes, just that almost no one thinks about using it. Having a feat is a great idea, but not to different from doing the transference of skills that the 3e DMG outlines. Really I am only talking about 3e not 3.5, due to the rebalanced that 3.5 went through they did not take the time to enumerate the new balance guild-lines as clearly in the 3.5 DMG (to my knowledge).

I have played (a little) of a classless system and liked it a rule-set, but the time it takes to workout a character is prohibitive.

My problem with using any sort of premade or standardized setting is that my players have to much knowledge that they can abuse. Our FR campaign was absolute BS because of the exploitation, and that was with the DM incorporating a huge amount of his own work into it. Every time we do anything that is vaguely recognizable it is analyzed and worked over for similarity and exploits. Thus I have been forced to take a very top down approach to the rules and setting.

When looking at a lot of the 'official' campaign settings I have come to the opinion that House rules and creating your own setting is only a little different. If one wants to, as Utsanomiko mostly does, play a standard setting like the great wheel they reinforce the traditionalism of DnD.

Truly I look upon Dragon Lance as the standards for a campaign setting. If you tried to play in the setting without adjusting the base classes you cannot really get into the world. If I can work with the rules to fit into such a restrictive setting then I know that the rules will be good for working in any setting I can imagine.

This is what a lot of 3.5 adherents don't seem to get. There's a big difference between adding to an existing dynamic that's already fairly open and re-writing the rules as you see fit. If I were to re-write the 3.x system to my specifications, I might as well just make my own system from scratch, or use a different system from the get-go, because I am not satisfied by the way it works. 4E is much closer to my tastes, though even it falls dreadfully short.

This is where I do not think that you understand what I was saying. The specifics of the character class is not integral to the rules and is something that the DM should feel free to change some.

I have had the fun of tearing apart my friends homemade system twice, and that has shown that it is not easy to think up a new system. Really the classes are not that integral to the system as a whole. Looking at the rules and saying that the classes are that important is easy because we play the classes; but the actual rules, especially for combat, do not care what classes are involved.

Really I just do not have any love for 4e but do not hate it either I just have not had the time or patience (or players) to give it a chance yet. I am acting as an apologist for 3e here but I actually have little more patience for the BS it has either. But the argument that I came in on was about the utility of 3e versus 4e. If you want to call defending the under utilized aspects of 3e being an apologist than do so, but you cannot overlook the fact that there where those aspects in the first place.

And I would be happy to play a system that incorporates your background better, if it were not to much hassle to work with. However most systems are bloated unwieldy and hard to find.

[Hotfoot]

4e has a lot simpler skill system, that is one of the best things that it did. But I challenge the statement that 3e cannot do most of what 4e does in terms moving skills to other classes, just that almost no one thinks about using it. Having a feat is a great idea, but not to different from doing the transference of skills that the 3e DMG outlines. Really I am only talking about 3e not 3.5, due to the rebalanced that 3.5 went through they did not take the time to enumerate the new balance guild-lines as clearly in the 3.5 DMG (to my knowledge).

I would describe 4E's system as more elegant than 3.x, period. In 3.x, even using the more advanced options that let you pick up a new skill offered in some supplement or another, you don't get any extra skill points to spread to that skill, making levelling it an exercise in frustration even if you are a skill monkey class like a Rogue, which get the most skills anyway.

In 4E, you're either trained or not, focused or not, and, well, that's it. The spending of limited skill points to skills is done away with and things are more streamlined. Things like Intelligence not giving retroactive skill points (but Constitution giving retroactive hit points, lol), are done away with and replaced with a system that works and works well, and that doesn't overly penalize you for not being trained in a skill like 3.x does, with untrained checks being scaled with your level (amazing, I know).

So, yes, you can make custom classes in 3.x, that's true, but by that metric I can utterly destroy the game by making a character class that gets a fighter's BAB, a paladin's saves, a wizard's spell selection with a sorceror's spells per day, a barbarian's hit die, and a rogue's skills.

Because, hey, the rules say I can make a custom class, and there's really nothing stopping me from doing that outside of the GM telling me no, and if I am the GM, well then shit son, it's all over, isn't it?

Relying on GM fiat to fix a fundamentally broken mechanic shows a weakness in the system. 4E corrects this weakness in a positive way, but god forbid we acknowledge that less is more in any respect. Over complicating skills gives you fewer options in a game, not more, and needlessly limits your character.

Look, here's the final breakdown. In 3.x, if you didn't max your skills out, especially as a rogue, the skill monkey class, you were fucked. DC's given by the rules commonly assumed that you had maxed skills for a decent chance of success (a 20th level rogue, on average, has a 50% chance of beating an appropriately scaled lock). If you spread points around, you were basically useless past a point, unless the GM took pity on you. If you weren't trained in a skill, sometimes you could try to do something with an untrained check, but as levels and DCs went up, chances of success went down dramatically. Spending a feat on a +2 bonus to a few skills gimps you as you go, since so many other feats exist that can boost other things. Some feats in 3.x are ridiculously powerful, and you don't get many, even as a fighter, so you have to be very careful about what you select.

In 4E, if you don't have a skill trained, you're not too good at it, but you stand a modest chance for success as your modifier increases with your level. When you train, that's it, you're trained. You can spend feats to become more trained, more skilled, or have a wider range of skills, and since feats are far more common, it hurts less to do this. Since the skills are consolidated, you can do more with any given skill than you could previously.

So which is better, the system that gives you fewer options, or the one that gives you more?

I have played (a little) of a classless system and liked it a rule-set, but the time it takes to workout a character is prohibitive.

That rather depends on the system, the tools at your disposal, and your familiarity with the system. I can crank out a 3.5 Rogue in no time flat of just about any level because I know what I want and have several predetermined packages in my head ready to go to suit just about any situation, from raw dungeon crawling to heavy RP. For a new player, however, it can take a while, especially as they learn the system.

In most of the systems I've run that are skill oriented, I can toss out dozens of NPCs pretty much on the fly, easy as can be with far less work than D20 requires.

My problem with using any sort of premade or standardized setting is that my players have to much knowledge that they can abuse. Our FR campaign was absolute BS because of the exploitation, and that was with the DM incorporating a huge amount of his own work into it. Every time we do anything that is vaguely recognizable it is analyzed and worked over for similarity and exploits. Thus I have been forced to take a very top down approach to the rules and setting.

Players that abuse knowledge are shit players, end of story. Problem is that starting players off in the dark leaves them without the knowledge of things they SHOULD know. So this is why discussions with the GM are helpful for establishing boundaries. I ran a game where the players knew that sometime in the future the city they were in was going to be wiped out by an antimatter bomb, it was part of the metaplot for the setting. Oddly enough, they didn't run screaming as the clock got closer. In part, because I told them that I was fiddling with the timeline as I saw fit, and they knew I wasn't just going to cook them in antimatter for shits and giggles. Unless they were being stupid.

This is where I do not think that you understand what I was saying. The specifics of the character class is not integral to the rules and is something that the DM should feel free to change some.

The problem, really, is that the character class system is at it's core a rotten architecture and really just should be left at the wayside. Maybe it works for MMOs, where progress is basically automated, but even then, I'm not sure it's necessary. Problem is, if you start tinkering with the established order, it opens a floodgate. "Well, if he can have x instead of y, I want y instead of z!" bitchfests start, and the established balance, even if it was broken, goes to shit. MMOs have problems with balance to this very day, even with years and years of patching and fixing. Tabletop games are hardly different in this regard. Having a system with better internal balance is better than having one that doesn't and trying to fix it.

I have had the fun of tearing apart my friends homemade system twice, and that has shown that it is not easy to think up a new system. Really the classes are not that integral to the system as a whole. Looking at the rules and saying that the classes are that important is easy because we play the classes; but the actual rules, especially for combat, do not care what classes are involved.

Really I just do not have any love for 4e but do not hate it either I just have not had the time or patience (or players) to give it a chance yet. I am acting as an apologist for 3e here but I actually have little more patience for the BS it has either. But the argument that I came in on was about the utility of 3e versus 4e. If you want to call defending the under utilized aspects of 3e being an apologist than do so, but you cannot overlook the fact that there where those aspects in the first place.

I'm curious about what you're even talking about really. 4E has methods for customizing classes that are right out in the open and part of the basic rules. 3.x just says, "yeah, if there's a problem just wing it" and moves on. That's not a method for fixing things that are broken, that's a way that designers say, "fuck it, we give up, you make your own rules." At that point, you might as well just say, "fuck it, let's make our own system." and be done with it.

The fact remains that cross-classing in the 3.x rules is massively more of a pain in the ass than cross-classing in 4E. I really don't see what's hard to grasp about that. Your response seems to be, "well, if you just make up your own rules, it's just the same", but that argument can apply to ANY system, including 4E.

And I would be happy to play a system that incorporates your background better, if it were not to much hassle to work with. However most systems are bloated unwieldy and hard to find.

Out of curiousity, what systems have you played, other than D20?

[Agent Sorchus]

I have tried d6 once or twice and the aforementioned homemade system in d% and another really weird form. While the Exile series shouldn't really count, do to being on the computer, I believe it is a good glimpse into what a classless system could look like. I have also looked into Everway and Dark Heresy (I would love to play but am the only person who has any interest in 40k), but the people I have usually played with are the sort who are stuck in DnD because it is traditional. That is not very many different systems, but they represent the majority of differing archetypes.

Yes Cross Classing is not favored and feels tacked on in 3e. But the part of modification for the classes is in the very beginning of the 3e DMG pg25 where it talks first about classes and (apparently) on page 174 in the 3.5e book. It even includes two examples, the witch and an unnamed undead stalker. It edoes warns most DMs away from modification, but for a decent DM it is nice to read how the publisher feels you can change the setting. I have no clue if it is in the SRD or just the DMG.

This thread has become a pileup on both sides though and I am glade that we can reach some understanding. I do find many of 4e's rules for skills to make more sense than 3e. I also find that the system still doesn't hold my interest very well and hope that it is actually better than that for those who find it more interesting to actually play than I read. As you have no doubt noticed the majority of my complaints more reflect my hatred of bad RPing practices that are common for players and DMs who are not interested in putting forth a large effort to make the game fun.

I do not have a major gripe against 4e, except for the cost of the books being as high as they are. And it is not like I can change anything about that now. I simply am here to challenge the idea that 3e is a totally inferior system. It does have its flaws, but 3e and 4e are to different to really compare.

I would have liked if 3e had been sufficiently fixed without having to rip it up as much as 4e did, but they did not do that. As a new game 4e is fine, but it different enough that trying to pass it off as simple a fix for all the ails of the last two editions is next to impossible. 4e is inspired far to much by recent mmo's to be enjoyable for me.

I apologize but it is late and I probably rambled a lot toward the end trying to say what I want to say and be understood completely.

[Hotfoot]

I have tried d6 once or twice and the aforementioned homemade system in d% and another really weird form. While the Exile series shouldn't really count, do to being on the computer, I believe it is a good glimpse into what a classless system could look like. I have also looked into Everway and Dark Heresy (I would love to play but am the only person who has any interest in 40k), but the people I have usually played with are the sort who are stuck in DnD because it is traditional. That is not very many different systems, but they represent the majority of differing archetypes.

I have several systems to recommend, but in the end it all comes down to what sort of game you like to play. I prefer more modernish or futuristic games with a reasonably lethal combat system that forces players to think about how they go about fighting things, rather than just running in with guns blazing. Dark Heresy is decent, FUZION/INTERLOCK is pretty good (FUZION more so than INTERLOCK), and I really enjoy Silhouette, especially for the scalability in the combat system. My dream is to run a game that involves a planetary invasion, bringing the players from space to air to ground combat in a free-flowing style, but that's a bit of a diversion.

Yes Cross Classing is not favored and feels tacked on in 3e. But the part of modification for the classes is in the very beginning of the 3e DMG pg25 where it talks first about classes and (apparently) on page 174 in the 3.5e book. It even includes two examples, the witch and an unnamed undead stalker. It edoes warns most DMs away from modification, but for a decent DM it is nice to read how the publisher feels you can change the setting. I have no clue if it is in the SRD or just the DMG.

I'll be honest, multiclassing has always been broken, because they've always failed to balance the addition of new options with the continuation of old ones. Hell, the AD&D version of multiclassing was ridiculously broken, because due to the way experience and levels worked, you could have a character who was a level 16/16/16/16 deal going and be a beast. It was hard to do, but it was there.

The 3rd edition method had levels as the metric, rather than experience points, which helps immensely to tone down the lameness, but they went too far in nerfing it to where a multiclassed character simply could not compete with a pure class character without special prestige classes.

All to achieve the same effect as more classless skill-based systems. To pull a shtick from the Order of the Stick, "I'm not a Bard, I'm a Rogue/Warrior/Sorcerer" "Doesn't that seem needlessly complicated?"

This thread has become a pileup on both sides though and I am glade that we can reach some understanding. I do find many of 4e's rules for skills to make more sense than 3e. I also find that the system still doesn't hold my interest very well and hope that it is actually better than that for those who find it more interesting to actually play than I read. As you have no doubt noticed the majority of my complaints more reflect my hatred of bad RPing practices that are common for players and DMs who are not interested in putting forth a large effort to make the game fun.

Shit players and GMs are sadly just the way of things. It's hard to find a good group, especially one that can meet often enough to make it all worthwhile, believe me, I know. These days the only time I can really expect to run or play a game on time is at a convention, though I have recently found a Shadowrun group that meets often enough.

I do not have a major gripe against 4e, except for the cost of the books being as high as they are. And it is not like I can change anything about that now. I simply am here to challenge the idea that 3e is a totally inferior system. It does have its flaws, but 3e and 4e are to different to really compare.

I would have liked if 3e had been sufficiently fixed without having to rip it up as much as 4e did, but they did not do that. As a new game 4e is fine, but it different enough that trying to pass it off as simple a fix for all the ails of the last two editions is next to impossible. 4e is inspired far to much by recent mmo's to be enjoyable for me.

I apologize but it is late and I probably rambled a lot toward the end trying to say what I want to say and be understood completely.

Book costs are going to go up, it's just the way of things. The market is hard and these are smaller run books with not as many sales. As far as one system being inferior to the other, well, I'll be honest, 3.x is on the lower rung of systems I will willing play. 4E is considerably higher. The simple fact of the matter is that I can't think of one thing that I think 3.x does better than 4E, much less one that makes a difference to me. If you want a version of 3.x that isn't quite as severe as 4E, take a look at the Saga Edition of the Star Wars RPG. It's a decent straddling point between the two that isn't quite as severe in its changes.