Loading ...
« Chi Powers | Home | In Memory of Gary Gygax »
Critique of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition
(Out of 3 votes)
Loading ...With 4th edition just around the corner, I thought I’d give my impression of 3rd Edition and the d20 system.
Good Ideas
The d20 system has several good ideas that make it easier to understand and more easy to play.
- Positive AC. A larger AC is better than a smaller one makes more sense.
- Magic. I like the idea of the effectiveness of saving throws being based on spell level. This makes more powerful magic inherently harder to avoid than less powerful magic, and it makes a lot of sense. I never liked the way a sixth level spell like Death could be simply shrugged off by a Save vs Death Ray, the easiest saving throw to make.
- Saving Throws. Having saving throws based on “reflex” or other descriptions of how a character may actually avoid a situation is clearer.
Bad Ideas
Unfortunately, the d20 system sometimes made things “too logical” and went a little overboard on the complexity of certain areas.
- Every class can be mixed with every race. I don’t like this idea, however it is easy enough for a DM to decide in his game world to restrict certain race/class combinations.
- Sorcerors. It’s not a bad idea as far as game mechanics go (which is why I think they used it) but a “sorceror” isn’t conceptually different enough from a “wizard” which I think makes it confusing. I think they should have come up with a more unique name/panache for this class. Kind of reminds me of how they used to make a big deal out of “Illusionists” in AD&D 1st edition.
- Combat. Where should I start? Combat in the d20 system is basically a mess. It’s overly complicated, and appeals to the “high role-player,” as I would like to call those who are mostly into game mechanics. Complicated combat rules are good for video games sometimes, but they aren’t good for tabletop games. I have this opinion because I think combat should be fun but quick.
- Spell Feats. I think this just makes the game more complex. I asked a friend if you could just rule out spell feats as a DM, but he said that it would unbalance the classes.
Topics: Rules Hints & Tips |
January 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for your review.
Unfortunately for you games of this day and age and beyond will be about mechanics at it’s core. That is how combat is balanced and maintained. But I fail to see how that stops you from role playing how you like.
Basing your abilities without rules to govern their use is just playing Calvin ball. It’s fun for a bit, but eventually it will get old because you just can’t lose. Strong mechanics make a game, or break a game. Just look at BESM.
Fourth edition is heralded as one of the best systems in production. It balances everything around a universal code of conduct. Saves, ACs and everything defensive being used as a score to beat, while an attacker will most likely always roll, whether it be an attack or a spell.
The only path to improvement is with complexity, but if done right you will not be burdened with complex rules, just complex ideas.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Huh? Complexity != balance. That’s fallacy in and of itself. Complexity creates loop-holes which -encourage- unbalanced character. Ask any half-way decent munchkin min-maxing player. 4th Ed is going to suck because they are basing around an MMO style of play; which is mostly stupid because table-top and MMO rpgs are different beasts.
Want a simple system?
http://basicfantasy.org
March 18th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
“playing Calvin ball” gets “old because you just can’t lose”
I thought D&D was a game without winners or losers? This is semantics, I know. However, baroque rules systems are just one way of achieving the kind of consistent, persistent game world you talk about.
To put it another way, the complex rules can help you to grasp the complex ideas, but they are not totally necessary to do so. As long as the players and GM understand the complex ideas (the theme of the campaign world, its internal logic etc) you don’t need complex rules.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:04 am
I cannot agree with you. Combat rules in 3rd ed. might be complex, but they are made that way that you as player or DM can use them all or just a part of them. If you find grapple or attacking weapon too complex, you will not use it. That is not a problem. My opinion is that it is much better than 2nd ed. where the rules were not so strict, and where many concepts that are normal in fight were not available. The truth is that 3rd ed. combat rules are much more realistic than 2nd ed.
If I have to address weaker concepts in the 3rd ed. I would say that there are other too complex rules, such as undead turning. There are some other concepts that are kind of ambigous: multi-class characters, unbalanced strenght growth of wizards, which are totaly unusefull on the lower levels, but overgrow other clases as they gain levels. Monk class is out of the context in the game, and so on.
Another thing: complex concepts and simple rules are little stange idea for me. Remember, it’s a game, and sooner or latter, concepts are thing that are more or less forgotten, and rules stay for game.
It is not true that 3rd ed. favorize combat over role-playing. Looking at the available adventures (which probably mirroring the way people play the game), I find much more good defined role playing in 3rd ed. adventures than in 2nd ed. ones. Also, I find that 3rd ed. adventures are much more realistic than older ones, which were much more combat oriented. But, it is on players and DM how you play the game. The only truth is that DM now have to know the concepts of the system, and cannot took it as he likes in the particular situation. So, DM’s still have to have imagination, but they also have to have much more knowledge on game concepts and rules.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Thanks for the notes. I didn’t really get into it long enough to pick up details about Wizard progression or even the complications of Turning Undead.
None of what I wrote really takes into account DM’s modifying rules, but this is another problem: the people who play 3rd edition seem less tolerant of home rules, or modifying the rules. I don’t know if there’s something inherent in the rules or not, but this does seem to be a trend as D&D progresses–people expect the official rules to be followed.