Poll . You hate or love D&D rules ?

[PennyAnte]

Actually, Dual wielding is the weakest of all fighting styles in 3E.

Not a dual-wielding Kama fighter/monk with the right amount of fighter levels to also get full weapon specialization and a near-full BAB. IIRC that's something like 11 hits per round ... granted they are all 1d6, but they are 1d6 plus strength and any other mods, so you would need more than half the number of attacks with a 2d6 two hander to make up for it, even with the +50 percent strength bonus for two handers. Shield users have an even harder time.

And D&D rules are in 4th edition now ... anyone have a take on those? I haven't read those rules yet.

EDIT: I just realized the beginning of the thread was six ... years .. ago after seeing some of the game references. Ei yei yei. And it's crazy how much has been wrong with D&D rules for so long.

 

[AlanC9]

I think that you could make a great CRPG using 1st Edition AD&D, but you would need to create a very complex game engine to do it justice. For example, when faced with a magic resistant monster, you should be able to use a lightning bolt to strike the ceiling and have it collapse upon the monster. Or when fighting wights you should be able to use a rock-to-mud spell followed up with a mud-to-rock spell to trap them in stone so that they can't get close and level-drain you. And you should be able create undead minions yourself and use them as pack mules, trap spotters, etc.
.

That seems to be an argument that you could make a great CRPG out of any RPG rules, since nothing that you're talking about s ruleset-specific.

 

[Xor]

I got bored one day and did the math for melee combat. Of course, I was mainly interested in high-level scenarios (15+) so that's what I modeled for.

Dual wielding is usually better, but using a two-hander overtakes it in some situations or with crazy builds (Frenzied Berzerker, for instance). That doesn't take the extra avoidance from a shield into account, of course. I generally don't favor shields because with the way attack values scale the monsters will hit you every time anyway, but that's more of a playstyle issue than anything else.

All of that is outside role-playing, which will usually change what style I stick with - for example, I wouldn't want to take dual wielding on a paladin, or use a two-hander with a rogue, simply because it would be silly.

I have not and probably will never get into 4th edition. I have numerous complaints about it, first and foremost being that the classes and powers are too samey. Actually, 4th edition rules will probably work better for a Bioware style RPG, since the focus is on tactical combat and not much else.

 

[NOVD]

I like cast and forget a bit, at least over a mana system. It seems to really keep the importance of lower level spells more than a mana system by enforcing a set amount of high level to low level spells a character can cast in a single "go".

 

[Kavax]

Must it be only hate or love? I mean, I prefer systems like GURPS and FUDGE, but anyways... I only played D&D because Planescape is an awesome setting.

 

[1eyedking]

Why is there no 'love-hate relationship' option?

 

[Redeye]

I would change dual wielding by making it more difficult to parry against (because attack can come from an extra direction) and also give a bonus to disarm attempts by the dual wielder (for the same reason). The extra attack would only be given if the regular attack exceeded the required hit number by 3 points, less one point per dual-wielding enhancement feat.

To balance this I would give shield bearers an automatic parry attempt once per round. For free. Maybe with a bonus.

Those using only a single weapon and no shield or second weapon would get +1 to hit and damage. (Get a shield, not everything has to even out. It's called technological advancement.)

or whatever


Also:

Mushashi

Film:
Also Known As:
Birth of two Sword Style
Miyamoto Musashi: The Duel Against Yagyu
Two-Sword Fencing Is Born (International: English title)


I think the D&D rules are good for nostalgia.

I like the learning curve.

 

[Ebonsword]

I think that you could make a great CRPG using 1st Edition AD&D, but you would need to create a very complex game engine to do it justice. For example, when faced with a magic resistant monster, you should be able to use a lightning bolt to strike the ceiling and have it collapse upon the monster. Or when fighting wights you should be able to use a rock-to-mud spell followed up with a mud-to-rock spell to trap them in stone so that they can't get close and level-drain you. And you should be able create undead minions yourself and use them as pack mules, trap spotters, etc.
.

That seems to be an argument that you could make a great CRPG out of any RPG rules, since nothing that you're talking about s ruleset-specific.

Well, I guess that my point was that you don't need all of the fancy multi-classing, feats, skills, etc in later editions of D&D to make a cool game.

 

[Volourn]

D&D rules are awesome. Perind. Game over. End of discussion.



*exception: 4e sucks!

 

[Jaime Lannister]

your stupi

 

[Redeye]

" DM: Black Dougal gasps 'Poison!' and falls to the floor. He looks dead.
Fredrik: I'm grabbing his pack to carry treasure in."

 

[David Xachaturian]

the idea that you should have a conformed set of rules for a rpg game is just doesnt make any sen

What do you mean, conformed?

 

[Disconnected]

the idea that you should have a conformed set of rules for a rpg game is just doesnt make any sen

What do you mean, conformed?

CF-style artless irony. The answer costs San points.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

I don't mind the DnD rulesets from the original through to 3. Not sure about 4th as I haven't seen it implemented in a game.

This kind of thing doesn't really get to me, unless that is all there is being used in CRPG's. Wait a second...

 

[mondblut]

I don't like D&D in computer games. Yet, I literally worship most D&D-based computer games. Go figure.

I guess having to work with a proper pen'n'paper system sets the developers' minds on the right track. Keeps them from wandering too far into either FPS or "choose-your-own-speech-option" gameplay. Of course either was done multiple times all while slapping a D&D logo on the box, but it kinda defeats the purpose of attaching a rules system if they ain't gonna use it in the first place.

 

[mondblut]

I think that you could make a great CRPG using 1st Edition AD&D, but you would need to create a very complex game engine to do it justice.

You could make a great CRPG using 1st edition AD&D with a simple game engine from 1988. http://www.google.ru/search?hl=en&q=goldbox+series

 

[Redeye]

I think that you could make a great CRPG using 1st Edition AD&D, but you would need to create a very complex game engine to do it justice.

You could make a great CRPG using 1st edition AD&D with a simple game engine from 1988. http://www.google.ru/search?hl=en&q=goldbox+series

the RP part in those is weak, in fact I don't actually remember it.

 

[felicity]

I think that you could make a great CRPG using 1st Edition AD&D, but you would need to create a very complex game engine to do it justice. For example, when faced with a magic resistant monster, you should be able to use a lightning bolt to strike the ceiling and have it collapse upon the monster. Or when fighting wights you should be able to use a rock-to-mud spell followed up with a mud-to-rock spell to trap them in stone so that they can't get close and level-drain you. And you should be able create undead minions yourself and use them as pack mules, trap spotters, etc.
.

That seems to be an argument that you could make a great CRPG out of any RPG rules, since nothing that you're talking about s ruleset-specific.

Well, I guess that my point was that you don't need all of the fancy multi-classing, feats, skills, etc in later editions of D&D to make a cool game.

You don't for sure. But more option allow better customization, which is fun itself. Even a simple rogue you can build it in thousand ways.

 

[mondblut]

the RP part in those is weak, in fact I don't actually remember it.

WTF is an "RP part"?

"roleplaying" is for LARPing sissies who can't figure out a computer doesn't appreciate it nor care.

 

[CreamyBlood]

I've found that 3.x rules confuse me. I just want to play the game.

I grew up on AD&D around twenty five years ago and those rules are burned into my brain. When I was a lad, magic-users didn't wear armour, thieves sneaked and wore leather and half-orcs were brutes. If you 'multi-classed' it was at great peril and to your detriment, if it was possible.

I'm playing Icewind Dale 2 at the moment and everytime I level up it's a crisis. I get asked to pick a bunch of useless 'skills' that aren't really appropriate, unless you're a wizard, ranger or diplomat or something. I have no idea what to pick.

Then I have to choose a 'feat'. I'm only at level three now and I'm off to the web to figure out what it's all about. Of course that just confuses me more because you can be a min/maxer, munchkin (still don't know what that is) a power gamer, blah blah blah. If you are a level 3 Barbarian you should switch at level eight to a blah blah blah.

So I just look at the vague descriptions and pick something that seems close. I rolled my own magic user (I guess they're called Wizards these days, not to be confused with a Sorcerer) and grabbed a bunch of stock characters. I didn't realize I had a monk. So I have a Barbarian, Paladin, Cleric (of some sort, probably 'special'), Rogue (at least she's normal, we used to call them 'Theifs'), Monk (is she a thief or a fighter or long range?) and me, a magic user.

I've been living with it, I have developed tactics. Sleep spell and web work well. So does smashing on monsters heads. I reload on occasion.

I don't hate D&D rules. I'm slowly adjusting to this interpretation of them when applied to a computer game. Does it make sense? Not really. Am I having fun in this instance? Not really.

To me the adventure is what counts and in IWD2 I'm finding a lot of mindless bashing and I suspect that no matter how I mix my party, I'm still going to make it through.

Although BG2 was very high level and had a lot of counter-anti-counter-piercing-anti- piercing spells, it felt almost tactical to me. But in 'real' D&D after many years of playing I don't think I ever got a magic-user over level eight. Either we were brutal, just followed the rules or I don't know what. When it takes you two years in real-life (?) gaming to get to level nine and get permanently killed and then come back for more, starting at level one, you know it was about the journey, and not about the loot and leveling.

So yeah, I love D&D rules. The 'real' ones. They were a lot of fun.

 

[RK47]

hated it. it's not really well translated for pc games.
one thing that bugs me is the way spells work in the game as well as the levelling pace is always too fast at early game.

 

[cutterjohn]

While I don't hate them I dislike every edition 3rd and beyond more and more...

 

[Freelance Henchman]

I agree that they don't translate well into a real-time CRPG, especially when developers like Obsidian decide to translate class features like "+2 to a skill for 2 rounds" 1:1. Seriously, what the hell good will that do? Why even bother with activating that?

But, I enjoyed the various games that use it (BG, NWN, IWD) quite a lot, so I'm kinda divided on this. I think a turn-based single-player only CRPG would be the best platform for translating D&D rules on the computer, but that sort of thing won't sell much I guess.

 

[deuxhero]

3E is even WORSE about that "Getting powerful quick" thing, too. With Cleave, Great Cleave, and a powerful weapon, you can get three attacks per round, assuming everything is close to you. Combine that with the extra attacks a fighter typically gets, and Attacks of Opportunity combined with the Combat Reflexes feat, you can get an incredible number of attacks every round.

It's sickenning how powerful things get in 3E above level 15. In 1E and 2E, level 15 was moderately powerful. You could still have a decent, non-munchkin campaign at that level.

If you can drop a foe in 1 hit, (needed for great cleave) the character being over powered isn't the issue. It sounds more like the enemys were made poorly and ANYONE can take them down easily.

 

[Woreczko]

I dislike them, especially the 3.5 rules. Reasons:
1. Armour Class/To hit system. That was always absurd to me - your skill with a weapon has no (or little in 3.xx) influence, whether your opponent is able to land a blow on your body. What counts, is your agility and armour. While armour can help you in dodging a hit, it won`t help at all in lessening damage you receive. I do understand, that this is handy for a simple PnP system, where most things are just abstractions - the AD&D aren`t really a simple system and such simplifying is completely out of whack.

2. Bows, or why the hell do I need dexterity to be proficient with the bow?? Using a military bow is first and foremost dependent on your strenght and requires much more physicall fitness, than swinging an axe. Sure, it`s nice to be accurate, but accuracy won`t help at all if you are not able to stretch it and keep your hands stable.

3. In 3.xx There are skills for various occupations, be it diplomacy, thievery or acrobatics. You can invest in them, or leave them be on a starting level. What matters - you have a choice to be good in this or good in that. Yet, why is there no skill for combat? Only BAB, which you receive for free, whether you want it or not.

4. Gaining hitpoints per level. Same as with combat. Why can`t I decide, whether I want to be a tank or not? If I do not do anything to streghten my constitution, why should I be more and more tough? This fallacy is present on most cRPGs to date but is esepcially profound on AD&D ones, where going from level 1 to 2 may double your survivability.