1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.GAMES.FRP.DND

  • 3.0 rules are better than 3.5

    From Rollory@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 24 07:56:00 2022
    Including rangers. Fight me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Spalls Hurgenson@21:1/5 to Rollory on Fri Jun 24 10:19:05 2022
    On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:56:00 -0400, Rollory <rollory@dnmx.org> wrote:

    Including rangers. Fight me.

    No.

    Anyway, all rule systems suck in one way or another. Arguing about
    them is silly. Find a rule system you (and your players) are
    comfortable with, and just use that, whether its D&D 3.0, OD&D,
    Pathfinder, whatever. Switch only when you want to experience the
    change, not because you think somehow rules X will somehow improve the experience.

    Far more important is how the rules interface with the setting (for
    example, the melee-focused D&D rules tend to do poorly with modern
    weaponry, and so don't fare as well in anything but a sword-n-sorcery
    theme.) And even more important is the skill, attitude and
    compatibility of the GM and the players. Even the most perfect rules
    system in the world (not that such a thing exists) won't make a game
    fun if you have mismatched players or a GM who isn't into the game
    anymore.

    All the "rules system X is better than rules system Y" is just feeding
    into the hype created by marketing who want you to think that their
    product is worth buying. Don't fall for their tricks; you're better
    than that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CBRPunk@21:1/5 to Rollory on Tue Jul 26 17:28:40 2022
    On 6/24/2022 7:56 AM, Rollory wrote:
    Including rangers.  Fight me.

    I actually agree with you. I still keep my 3E books around from 2000
    hoping I can trick someone into playing it before they figure out it's
    not revised or Pathfinder :/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CBRPunk@21:1/5 to Rollory on Tue Jul 26 17:29:00 2022
    On 6/24/2022 7:56 AM, Rollory wrote:
    Including rangers.  Fight me.

    I actually agree with you. I still keep my 3E books around from 2000
    hoping I can trick someone into playing it before they figure out it's
    not revised or Pathfinder :/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Justisaur@21:1/5 to Rollory on Mon Aug 1 07:24:54 2022
    On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 4:56:03 AM UTC-7, Rollory wrote:
    Including rangers. Fight me.

    Roll for initiative!

    I got a 17!

    One of my favorite campaigns I ever ran out of 40+ years of D&D
    was in 3.0e. It was fairly heavily house ruled, and it also
    had only 3 of my favorite players playing. It did peter out at around
    17th level as the two fighter types said they felt useless compared
    to the M-U though.

    That's not a problem I had running 2e though, I had at least 3
    campaigns reach level 20, one of those got to level 27.

    I really wish I could get back into 2e, but every time I try to go over the rules it just seems too much anymore, and I prefer the 1e subclasses.
    Rangers, Paladins, Illusionists, and Druids are all far better in 1e,
    and Monks don't even appear in 2e except in some obscure book
    I don't have. Though 1e OA is being referenced as being compatible
    with 2e in the humanoid handbook, and to use that. I did play in one
    PBP of 2e that I enjoyed more recently, but like most PBP it quickly
    petered out.

    - Justisaur

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)