D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3e to be changed to new d20 rules? 4e coming!

[hong]

The 3e "Options" series?

Ick.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ick.

I wouldn't buy it. Obviously you wouldn't either. But if there's a market it for it, why not?

 

[Larcen]

IMHO, ultimately RM is the better game, because it allows me to play a grittier style that I prefer. But the change of pace that D&D has brought will be an absolute ball for the two or three years that the campaign runs, before I return to my trusty RM.

Mua Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Or so you think! You WILL be back.

 

[Larcen]

The dagger Vs platemal thing is a real problem though.

Personally, I could never understand why people think this is a problem. A dagger SHOULD be severely limited against someone in full plate...unless the armored person is completely helpless, then the ole' coup de grace through the eye-hole still works.

If all you got is a dagger against a full-plated juggernaut, you should run away to fight another day, IMHO.

But, anyway, someone explain to me the problem. Is it less heroic? Is that it?

Does it give knife wielding rogue-types the shaft somehow? Their sneak attack damage should be more than enough to get past DR.

 

[SableWyvern]

Personally, I could never understand why people think this is a problem. A dagger SHOULD be severely limited against someone in full plate...unless the armored person is completely helpless, then the ole' coup de grace through the eye-hole still works.

If all you got is a dagger against a full-plated juggernaut, you should run away to fight another day, IMHO.

But, anyway, someone explain to me the problem. Is it less heroic? Is that it?

Does it give knife wielding rogue-types the shaft somehow? Their sneak attack damage should be more than enough to get past DR.

I would say the problem is that a lot of people, when they say they want realism, don't really understand what realism is, or how dramatically d&d would change if serious attempts to make it "realistic" were implemented. Or, they simply want some of their pet peeves fixed, and label this "adding realism", rather than "fixing the bits and pieces that don't fit my personal taste".

 

[SableWyvern]

Mua Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Or so you think! You WILL be back.

Given the amount of money I'm forking out, I would certainly think so.

 

[Psion]

Personally, I could never understand why people think this is a problem. A dagger SHOULD be severely limited against someone in full plate...

It should be? It should be based on what?

Realism.

That's the problem. D&D has not been a highly simulationist game, and nor should it be, IMO. By doing so, you move the game away from heroic fantasy and towards an melee infantry simulation.

 

[Larcen]

But a healing potion that would bring a peasant back from death's doorstep won't even heal our heroic fighter's scratch.

You know, in my 20+ years of playing the game, I have often pondered that mystery. The best explanation I have come up with, to appease no one but myself, is that high-level characters have developed a resistance to certain types of magic over time, be it through training or by having been exposed to it over and over again.

The saving throw system and the survivability of high-level characters to Fireballs and Disintregrates, certainly bears this theory out. This would be an uncontrollable, ingrained resistance so even they can't "turn it off" for healing spells.

Cleric: "Alas, my old friend Cedric, I fear you have grown too accustomed to my low magicks. Nowadays even my strongest healing miracles can but barely penetrate that thick stubborn hide of yours."

My point is, even the silliest and wackiest of rules can be explained to some extent by some DM creativity.

 

[Larcen]

It should be? It should be based on what?

Realism.

That's the problem. D&D has not been a highly simulationist game, and nor should it be, IMO. By doing so, you move the game away from heroic fantasy and towards an melee infantry simulation.

Don't misunderstand me...I am not saying D&D should be more realistic. I was addressing all the people who want more realism but feel they hit a snag when they encounter the dagger vs. armor "problem" with their new rules. That snag should be there if it is realism they truly want. See?

 

[mmadsen]

If all you got is a dagger against a full-plated juggernaut, you should run away to fight another day, IMHO.

Or, if you're a heroic knight, say, caught unarmed in the queen's bedchamber, you should grapple your armed opponent, wrest his sword away, and kill him with it.

It's just as heroic, much more plausible, and far more entertaining than trading 1d4 dagger attacks and 1d8 longsword attacks for dozens of rounds.

If you're a not-so-heroic dastard, armed with just a knife, you should sneak up behind the guard, grab him, and slit his throat or slide your dagger between his ribs. But the Sneak Attack rules already cover that just fine.