gamegrene.com

After hours of reading, over and over, I finally think I got it.....1. Spell layout is horrible, 2. The "extra non-player info" should have been on a pamphlet or something of the sort. 3. Some things get way confusing, especially if your an avid 2nd ed. player and aren't used to the new format. 4. The art disgusts me...to the max. Its just bad...bad. But still, I like it...I don't know whether or not to say its an improvement...But playable, yes.

It's good enough for the kids. Remember who they're aiming at, here. TSR's idiocy forced them to lose about five years worth of potential players in the mid-90s, so now WOTC (who used their own name because they have a stock price to boost) have to start fresh with the new batch of kids and try, once again, to get it right.

You're right about the art. Tony Diterlizzi (who I had the good fortune to go to high school with) had a huge impact on fantasy art. Looking at this book, not all of that impact was positive. It's not terrible, it just lacks his subtlety and humor (See 2nd ed Monstrous Manual, Kobold entry).

A lot fewer people own macs than you think. I think the split is more like 90/10. Their best bet would have been to use html/jscript as a frontend and let you use Netscape/IE/whatever to "surf" the generator, making it platform independent. It's not like what they're doing is so complex they had to write it in fscking C++. It is my understanding, however, that a Mac port is imminent.

The token/map stuff is a good way to get the rules across in an exact and quantifiable fashion. I'll be running a game up here in Boston, soon, and I'm not sure if I'll be using a map or not, but I find it easier to get the rules down (and therefore tweaked) when they're so concrete about the flanking stuff. Incidentally, they've changed it and the addenda are posted on Eric Noah's page.

No assassin in this book, they didn't need the bad press right off the bat. Assassin's in the DMG(?) and the bad press comes with the Monster Manual with the demons and devils templates.

Spells- Considering the guy who wrote this book also wrote Ars Magica, you'd think they would've been able to have an even more integrated system for the priests (both cleric and druid). It's like they refused to take that last step and integrate them all.

Update: like four minutes after I posted that, the 30th level postal wizard delivered my DMG. Assassin's in there.

Haven't you heard the phrase, "age of majority", as opposed to "age of minority", where we get the legelese term, "minor", from?

My current group has been playing D&D regularly for the past several years. Every time we found a rule that was vague or out of balance, we rewrote it. Our list of "house rules" for 2nd edition was getting longer than the list of "real" rules. When I picked up third edition, I wondered if someone had been spying on us. They fixed or changed everything we thought was broken. It is taking us some time to get used to the new rules, but the entire group agrees that it was 100% worth it. The only thing I don't like is the way the spells are listed in the book. What idiot decided cleric and mage spells should be mixed together?

I love the new system. The art sucks, the bard looks like a sissy, and the character sheet is confusing. I still don't know whether or not my ranger is using the right numbers for melee or not. But i don't care. I don't play a bard, i don't look in the book that ofton, and i used Character Generator 1.2 to make my characters.

I have loads of fun when i get to come back every 3 or so weeks and play with friends. That is what counts :)

I have been DMing 2nd edition for years, and I am still a young one, at that. I grew up watching my older brother and his friends play in High School (2nd Edition) and I fell in love with the game. I have to admit, I was apprehensive at first about the new edition, partly because I know every rule in every book for 2nd edition, and partly because I was wary of the influence of WOTC on a great game like AD&D. I may not remember the old days of Red Boxes, etc. but I believe that the true beauty in these games is the framework within the rules that spawns fun and excitement in the players. I believe that the edition of the Prestige Class, the feat and skill distinction, and the general overhaul that TSR/WOTC has given the old 2nd edition stuff will lead ultimately to more fun game sessions and more interested role-players. It is foolish to believe that change will not take place in the community that plays D&D, since that is always inevitable. I only hope that 3rd edition does not invite min/maxing as much as 2nd edition did, and I hope that the game continues to provide exilleration and exitement for a whole new generation. That is all we can hope for.

I have DM'd for a few years or so and stopped playing (not by choice) about 3 years ago. Like everyone else here I think I have played and DM'd DD (book and box)and 2nd and finally after my sojourn into the wilderness have rejoined a gaming club. Played my first game of 3rd Edt. last sunday. My thoughts for what their worth after 5 hours play, and 2 hours reading -

The books "cute" - but hey anybody notice "kids" got cute somehow in the nineties... and hey if I use it as much as the old ones I'm sure the pages will smudge and fall-out just like all the others...

I agree for a 2nd edtioner its a bit to pick up.

Took a lot longer than I remember to "roll" a chr$ and in the end I ignored half of it to join the game. So much for feats...but the fundementals are still the same .... in five hours I still 'got' away with a few tricks ducked the odd unjustly swipe, and showed the other players a trick or two...bottom line if you can convince the DM (and sometimes players) that you just happening to be carring a small weapons factory in your duffle bag...which for a wizard who hadn't seen the rule book as yet I thought was pretty good.

I really like the spells in alphabetical order. Especially good if you remember an old spell and need a quick check to see if it changed.

Having read the PH yeah I still think that the CHR$ gen is more difficult but as said elsewhere, covers a lot of stuff we used to do in-house - I am an old player and a conversion chapter (explanation) would have gone down well (or is that a supplement!)- My biggest problem appears to be I didn't approach the book as a new 'game' rather as a varation on an old theme and I keep looking in the wrong places. The information I want is there I just couldn't find it (quickly).

AN INDEX!!!! I have to look in the table of contents to find the index..WHY? Orange background with small print..... Why not put as the last listing you know, where you normally put an index..looking for something - open back of book...monster? HUH? (NB: DM stuff definelty a no-no).

Bard - looks like Sting on a good night. Ever seen Labrynth with David Bowie? As a long standing Bard, "Hey he fared better than that sodding ranger NOW there is a sissie!"

Oh and last but not least - whoever likes the CHR (d/l v1.2) a) has not tried to run it on a P166 notebook, and b) has anyone been able to print a chr sheet? I get Titles without data or data without titles...anyone else?

But hey I was avid before and I'm avid now...a books a book, a rule cannot be broken BUT is definitely meant to be bent, twisted and looked at through rose coloured glasses.

Happy gaming it would just have been nice to find stuff quickly rather than rely on bluff but hey I found BLUFF and took it.

Now they're inflicting this god-awful system on Star Wars as well as Call of Cthulhu and Elric (through a licensing agreement with Chaosium). d20 was the worst thing to happen to these three games. WEG's d6 system was so easy and the rules so uncomplicated that "Star Wars" could be played from memory. Not so with the new system. And did the Chaosium games really need conversion in the first place?

Jee weez, what a bunch of dinosaures some of you guys are!

Get with the changes!

I remember the boxes, in fact I still have the blue one. Some of the art wasn't that great by the way. Remember the inside art for the first edition books, now that was ordinary don't you think?

I think the rules are realy nice. They give you more flexibility than the 1st edition with less min maxing than the players' options (those books meant alot of work for DM's to keep the power players in check). Maps and counters are great if you like your combats to be more than a line of orcs in a 10 by 20 room.

The bard was nice I thought (bards are artists, of course they won't look as tough as fighters). Fighters are the most powerfull class, extra feats!!! I play a ranger and boy am I thinking about getting a few fighter levels to boost my combat abilities.

The spell list is great! ALPHABETICAL ORDER, it is quite simple (well for most people oustside the USA). And by the way you still have cleric only spells they are called domain spells. The semi casters' spell lists are great too (especially the paladin's).

As for the comment about imagination, come on, who still reads the "What is a role playing game" section? Of course you'll find it stupid, you've read it in what? 200 books by now! The 3rd edition is great, much better than the first edition and better (for the better part) than the 2nd edition. Of course it is Diablo-esque but hey! Who wants an RPG game as complicated as Rolemaster or RIFT???

It's almost impossible for newbies to learn everything in a normal way with this book...

I agree with all of the 3e positive gamers out here. The game really is great, and I believe that Aeon and the others are just having a problem coping with the changes and the such. Sure, the game has problems to a point. But so did the 1st and 2nd edition. To tell you the truth, nothing can be found as perfect in today's society, because no matter how much you improve, it just makes the audience look closer for things that need to be changed. For Aeon who thought it was dumb that the book explained it was a game, no crap it's a game, but they have to put it there to avoid legal conflicts.

ok, 1st thing 1st, the art ANT THAT BAD. so get over it. what did you buy the book just to look at the pictures, or can you read like the rest of us. 2nd i have to agree that the chrayctor sheets are confusing. HOWEVER iv you can type all theas complaints, why not just use excell or wheatever macs use to make your own. belice me, they come out easy and my players alwies perfer them over any version of published sheets. over all i am inpressed with the work that was put in to the making of the 3rd edition, however scinve i am still trying to understand the full impact of all the changes, i currently perfer 2nd edition over the 3rd. anyone with a basic crossover sheet of 2nd edition AD&D to 3rd pleas send me a copy so i can eather revise my opinions or back them up.

Look. I played AD&D for several years now. I admit I was curious about 3rd edition. I was even able to get the Players Handbook for free. I was very disappointed. I think this product reflex the mindset of younger kids much better. The game requires less thought and minimal creativity and munchkinizes characters. Also the fact that wizards bought Star Wars and eliminated the d6 system is a travesty. A star wars character once generated in five minutes now takes hours. Plus they eliminated key jedi skills. Wizards has constantly dissapointed me as a consumer.

Sirchristian,

use your right as a consumer, don't buy WoC's material, just like I do with Games Workshop. But come on, the D6 system was never THAT great. It's just a system and a game is so much more than this, no?

Spazz, RE-Bards

Might be so, but check out who in a group can dig up the most info or calm down the angry mob? I mean a good party needs a suave character with people skills, unless you solve every problem with the point of a sword or a wand. Oh and enventually Spazz, you'll uderestimate a bard and bye bye almighty character :)

I think you're confusing two posts here. The dinosaur part was about coping with change and bashing 3E for the sole reason that it was different. The manhood issue part... well even if you are a woman, you seem to have issues as to what a constitutes a "real man". That in itself is (to my thinking) having manhood issues, or issues with what manhood should be.

I think that if you read comments like Spazz's: "one more thing the bard is and always has been a Fxcking SISSY!!" Well it seems that some people have manhood issues or virility issues or whatever you call it when you can't tolerate the existence of males that don't act like a bunch thugs and beer guzlers.

As to the bashing of 3rd Ed.'s representation of bards... they just give one of many possible representations of a bard. I personnaly think he looks the part. But there are many more looks for a bard: the courtier, the skald, the tribesman drummer, the storyteller, whatever.

I've played D&D since 1976. Believe me, 3rd Ed is MUCH better than 1st ed. for learning from scratch. Hmmm...my 1st Lvl character got hit by a wight, what does that do? Dunno...lose a Con Pt. for a day? As an experienced wargamer I appreciate their finally getting rid of some of the garbage basic to the design and replacing it with much better and more elegant systems like the the attributes, the DC system and positive AC. Basically 3rd ed is far better than its predecessors and most of the grumbling is from those who in 3-4 years will look back on 2nd ed as kid stuff that while fun, was also confused and in need of the improvement it got.

Maxdoom,

Falling damage is the same as before. Except, check out the massive damage effect (50 points of damage at once can kill you from the shock) Check out the alphabetical index it should be written there which page to look for. Also, I recall reading somewhere in the DMG that the DM can declare certain hasards lethal (ie you die if you fall from to high or into a volcano)

Cthulhu Matata!

Gosh, you've played a whole 13 years, ehh youngster.

Plain fact of the matter is that 3Ed is great if you like roll-playing but hate role-playing.
My own group is split evenly down the middle. Those who like throwing dice - sadly including our interim DM - think it reaches the dizzy heights of mediocrity. The rest of us (roleplayers) think it sucks.

The DM's point of view (he's a Brit intelligence office who helped play-testing) is that the Yank market is being forced into a kind of table top battle game. And moving away from role-playing as far as possible.

The proof - why else have a skill- roll for everything? Why have a bluff role if the game is about role-playing? OK, you have to have roles for intangibles - the group generally guess you're hiding in shadows each time your feet stick out from under the curtains. But anything which can be role-played should be! Or did I completely miss the point of the game for the last 3 decades?

But let's take the game as it is and suppose that roll vs role isn't important.
So, do the rules work? Are they fair and consistent. The blindingly obvious answer is no. But IMHO, that was deliberate.
Let's see why.
There is a very obvious heirarchy of player power in races i.e. halflings and humans at the top, elves, gnomes and dwarves on the next tier, half-orcs on tier three and bottom of the pile poor old half-elves. (Why would you bother withone of those?) Halflings being the most ridiculously priviliged. Almost every weakness has a counterbalancing (or over balancing) plus for it.

Then let's look at character classes. Again a definite heirarchy: Thieves and Fighters as Skill and Feat Masters respectively on tier one (oh look, how convenient for hobbits and humans), clerics, wizards and sorcerors on tier 2, barbarians on tier three and then on tier four druids and rangers. Let's not forget tier 5. Once again monks get shafted big time. (What is it about monks in D&D - they ALWAYS get the sh*t end of the stick.)

Now the rules, we make them unnecessarily complicated and introduce Attacks of Opportunity. (By the way, I can speak knowledgeably about that: I have a 3rd Dan BlackBelt in one martial art and a Green Belt in Jiu-Jitsu. Attacks of opportunity don't exist in real life. Having fought multiple opponents often, you are too busy dealing to go "Oh, look I'll have a swack at the guy not bothering me as he runs past". Forget it. When you do that, your other opponents paste you good.)

So why design the game so poorly?
Again obvious. If you don't, how do you sell all the supplements which supply abilities/feats to make your lesser characters (anyone not a halfling thief or human fighter) actually playable.

Biggest drawback to 3Ed: combat takes too long. We have a group of 6 plus DM. Combat sessions take approx. 1 real hour per round of game combat. Mainly due to resolving all the attacks of opportunity. Since most combats are about 6-8 rounds, its about all my group get to do in a lot of sessions.
In 1st Edition, similar combats run at about 20 mins per round max.
Biggest Plus: Clerics with properly chosen domains can be wonderful game busters at appropriate times.

Quit my whining...no way! 1st Edition rocked because it had the final line in the DMG about not being hemmed in by rules lawyers and cutting the game to your own jib. 3Ed sucks because of the company marketing pressure to make sure gamers follow rules. Because that way you sell more 'official' product.

You're right, we will say "remember 3rd edition...glad it's gone, aren't you? At least 15th can't be any worse."

As for me, I'm off to find someone with a HackMaster campaign.

Remember, you do have a choice!

An old Brit has deigned to belch forth a bunch of nonsense. You're entitled to your opinions, so I won't bother changing them. However, what the hell is your group doing wrong to make combats last so long? Seriously. What are you people screwing up? Combats, no matter the system, can really drag and take up a lot of time. However, I've yet to see a 3E combat take up that much time on a consistent basis. Just so you don't get your old guy knickers in a twist, I've been playing for over 20 years. I started out with a box set that included dice chits. 1E was fun, but it was broken. 2E sucked rotten eggs. 3E is a ton of fun.

Figure out what your group is doing wrong and then try playing. Then come back and make comments.

Dear Sam and Quollen,

Wonderful counter rant. However, you should try reading my own diatribe closely first, then answer some of the comments and questions that are in it. Rather than your own.

By the way, do either of you work for either Microsoft or WOTC? Genuine question, but your rants paint an image as such company men that it leaves me wondering?

Nice to see you got in a few age-ist and anti-Brit comments too before the didactic bit kicked in.

A few pointers and further questions:
1) Yes, I did read the book. Nothing a bit of thought couldn't fix. I guess you two will be spending your money on 4Ed at that point... I can hear the verbal defence even now. No-one will be more pleased than me if they fix 3Ed - as long as they skid back towards role-playing.

2. The only people to mention 2Ed were you two. For your information, tried it, realised it wasn't too clever, gathered the correct elements back into our own game (1Ed) and got on with it as a hybrid.

3) Don't particularly want 3Ed to be like Hackmaster. I said, I would like to find a Hackmaster game to have a go at - the reviews on it about it being a good role-play are generally positive.
What I want is for 3Ed to be more than just another marketing exercise for the big boys.

4.) Glad to see you agree that there is a heirarchy of levels - theonly thing you seem to disagree about is when the relative power levels change over.
Also, not particularly interested in choosing the most powerful class.
My point is this (but once again you failed to understand): there should be nothing to put off any gamer new or old from choosing either classes or races. If there is, it's just bad practice.
Heirarchies of classes or races don't matter if all your players are either power gamers or are all role-players.
The worst arrangement is if you have a mix where powergamers consistently maximise PC's versus the loopholes and the roleplayers try to get on with it. Inevitably, the weaker PC's stand a better chance of being zorched at lower levels. Often with the result of games running into the buffers for DM and players alike.

5.) I see you stayed strangley quiet about heirarchies being good for selling add-ons to fix classes ( ...hmmmm, do you work for WOTC...?)

6.) I can't remember stating that my group didn't like 3Ed. What they like is Dungeons and Dragons, be it old or new. We're just not daft enough to swallow sh*t.

7) Nice to see you made a solid defence about lots of skill rolls, rather than promoted the case for role-playing.
I guess that says it all.

8.) Genuinely interested to find out what we might be doing wrong on combats. Both the group I play with and what I saw at the big games conventions over here in the UK - which are normally run by staffers - support combat being slow and cumbersome.
Maybe you can suggest what we might be doing badly or wrong? As I said before it's the multiple Att. of Opp's which seem to drag on and on.....

Anyway, if you can be bothered to actually read the substantive part of this, I'd be interested in your responses. But please don't answer your own questions as tho' I asked them.

..On the point of finding a different game...sadly the best game I ever found was the little known Bushido. For whatever reason, it was discontinued. Perhaps the authors just decided to go off and develop other stuff instead. (Anybody know?) Everybody I know who played it thoroughly enjoyed it and really rated combat, magic system and role-play elements. Now, I would definitely wander off in that direction if only there was a GM running it.....
By the way, if any WOTC staffers read this, go and try it out and see if you think its worth incorporating.

Cheers,
GreyShirakwa

GreyShirakwa said:

The proof - why else have a skill- roll for everything? Why have a bluff role if the game is about role-playing? OK, you have to have roles for intangibles - the group generally guess you're hiding in shadows each time your feet stick out from under the curtains. But anything which can be role-played should be! Or did I completely miss the point of the game for the last 3 decades?

Nephandus:
This has always been a sticky wicket. In previous editions, I call attention to the Charisma score though - which was supposed to determine your opponent's reaction to you. There's a whole lot of charts in there about it. Powergamers used to exploit the DM's eagerness to RP by leaving a measly score in Charisma, while RPing very charismatic characters. DM's who rewarded RP performances with in-game successes would leave other players behind - those who allotted points to Charisma but who were perhaps less outgoing or convincing players themselves.

The current system still isn't really fixed - but in all cases, the idea of success or failure matrices was to help the DM by making the PC's success or failure less arbitrary, less subject to the DM's whim (and therefore less personal). Bluffing a guard should be as important, in game terms and mechanics, as killing him, because it determines a success or failure of an action. The determination of the success or failure in no way prevents the player from "trying" though. It just means that characters who have not paid the price and allotted the points for taking the "velvet glove" approach should not be as successfull as those who have built and envisioned their character to excel in these areas. In short, it means that an equal number of options are available in to each player. In the style you propose, low charisma fighters could get away with bluffing AS WELL as fighting, providing the player's performance was up to snuff. In effect, this allows more choices and opportunities to play for the fighter than for the player who chose to focus on Charisma at the expense of Strength.

GreyShirakwa said:
Biggest drawback to 3Ed: combat takes too long. [...]Mainly due to resolving all the attacks of opportunity.

Nephandus:
Attacks of opportunity are part of combat, as are the game moves that provoke them. Usually, the better strategy is to move in such a way that AoE are prevented on both sides.

Hardcore players of the old games are used to exploiting the implausibility oversights in the old combat system. Rather than "role-playing" that it is implausible to cast a spell while in melee, or to use a bow in melee, or to run past an armed opponent unfettered, they would exploit these rules oversights and do them anyway. These players are punished more in the new system, until they learn to adapt their tactics to fit a more credible tactical scenario.

Our own group had constant AoE until they adapted their strategy to fit the circumstance. After that, combat flew right along with few AoE except for one player who was too steeped in the old rules to make the jump. He hadn't really bothered to try the new way, and wouldn't make the effort, despite all the fun the rest of us were having with it.

Combat moved very quickly for us. I recall the playtesters saying the same thing.

Anti-Brit? Agist? Me?

Well maybe somewhat agist, but my counter rant was free of agist comments, at least I think so…

Company man me? Nope. I'm not fond of WoC per say (though I like some of their products) and I thouroughly hate Microsoft and the way they keep puting out bigger programs that don't really work better than their earlier versions (well at least this has been the trend since 1999). Though I admit to having an X-Box… doh.

Now, in answer to some of YOUR comments on the actual topic of this rant.

re: 1) Please tell me how 3E is off roleplay compared to other systems. Examples please because although I tried explaining my opinion on the mechanics vs roleplay of bluff/diplomacy/intimidate in D&D. You understood that I prefer die rolls to roleplay while I'm saying both have a place.
Yes some dice rolling is necessary. Some people are just awful liars and speakers. What they stutter or have a whiny voice? What if they aren't "quick with the jibe"? What if you played at my gaming table in French and had to search for the right words?
Does it mean these people always have to play socially inept character?
I don't have the bards' player sing or dance or recite poetry to raise morale. I don't have the priest's invoke their god's power to turn the undead. Do you?

2) You're absolutely right, you spoke only of 1st ed.

My bad.

We seem to have done the same thing with 2E which was take what we liked and adapt the rest.

3) Any consumer product is (for the company) a marketing exercice. Yes I too am dissapointed when instead of making a sourcebook cheaper WOC just adds thirty pages of crappy adventure hooks or repeats information already found in other books.

As a side note, I have to tip my hat to the folks at Hackmaster for their customer service, they rock!

4) Oh dear! "there should be nothing to put off any gamer new or old from choosing either classes or races"

So everything should be as appealing as the next one? How do you define what has appeal? My girlfriend will never be caught dead playing a Dwarf or half orc because she finds them disgusting. One of my friends hates playing religious type characters. Another hates rangers while it's one of my favourite classes. How the hell can you make a system that has nothing that will put anybody off?

"Heirarchies of classes or races don't matter." If they don't for you then why complain about it?

Anyhow there will always be hierarchies as long as there are differences. But these hierarchies will differ according to each player's opinion as to what constitute a good character.

"Inevitably, the weaker PC's stand a better chance of being zorched at lower levels"

Well if you forget to take into account the player's skill and strategy, yes the "weaker" PC will die faster.

Also, some characters were meant to be fragile and not too combat oriented: bards, scholarly mages, pacifist clerics, socially oriented rogues (compaired to those who are nothing other than accrobatic and sneaky fighters).

But you seem to say that all classes should have the same toughness (which is different from playability and survival chance).

5) I stayed quiet because I don't share your opinion but didn't feel the need to discuss it.

6) "I can't remember stating that my group didn't like 3Ed. What they like is Dungeons and Dragons, be it old or new. We're just not daft enough to swallow sh*t."

Oh! Well then, thanks a bundle for clearing that up, I stand corrected. It's just that when you wrote:

"3Ed sucks because of the company marketing pressure to make sure gamers follow rules. Because that way you sell more 'official' product."

And then:

"You're right, we will say "remember 3rd edition...glad it's gone, aren't you? At least 15th can't be any worse."

Well I guess I just jumped to the wrong conclusion, sorry.

7) see answer to 1)

8) Conventions games? Now I get it. I've been to 4 cons only and I got fed up with the teadious, rule lawyers and number crunchers that looked up everything and stuck to the rulebooks like it was glue.

Maybe there is a problem with 3E combat…
But just to check. What other systems have you played?
How long did the combats last in: World of Darkness? GURPS? Alternity? Call of Cthulhu (Chaosium's)? Shadowrun? Battletech? 7 Sea? MERP? Paranoïa? Rolemaster?

If you play BloodBowl, do you have to use a turn-clock otherwise your games last 5 to 6 hours?

Bushido… wow that is vintage. Read it but never played it (I'm not a big fan of Eastern Fantasy RPG, even if I like Manga). Maybe I don't play with the right people but everygame I played seemed like a bunch of white folks acting out a bunch of clichés about oriental cultures.

PS you say I didn't attentively read your rant. You seem to have done the same with mine.

Cthulhu Matata.

Dear Guys
All those who wrote above. Thanks for the carefully thought out replies (..wait a minute, we're supposed to all be ranting...) especially Nephandus.

I actually find myself being swayed by some of the arguments and points you put forward.
Still not sure why combats took take so long - accept it could be GM operations.
Although same GM did Shadowrun etc for us and they never took this long.
I will go away and think about some of this and respond - probably with some Q's later.

Cheers,
GeyShirakwa

On combat time and experience with the system.

Ever play GURPS GreyShirakwa?

The first combats with this game can take a long long long long long time no? Ever noticed how they went by faster as you learned the system?

Same with 3E.

The biggest arguments we had when we started were about AoO (especially since the GM sometimes didn't get English 100% right).

I'm thinking of customizing that part of the rules myself (maybe forbid AoO for characters already in melee unless target of AoO was already in melee with the character. Drawing and holstering a weapon should definitely cause AoO.)

I'm no black belt but I've seen my fair share of brawls and sometimes the new rules don't make sense to me either, but a lot less often than they used to in 1st Ed and Pre-Combat and Tactics 2nd Ed.

Only one thing I miss from 1st and 2nd Ed: Speed factor (just according to weapon size) and weapon reach vs AoO (It still bugs me that you don't get an AoO againts a knife wielding halfling when you're holding a longer weapon).

Cthulhu matata

Also, the expanded rules on critical hits more than make up for differences in the ease with which a weapon can be wielded. It is easier to get a critical hit with a nice light rapier than with a big heavy mace. The trade-off is that light weapons often deal less damage. Checks and balances.

Sam,

Are you all using the rules right? A character can leave melee without incurring an AoO. For example, Gorge is fighting Fallon, on Gorge's turn, he may choose to back up his movement rate rather than attack. As long as he passes through no threatened areas, then no AoO. Unless Fallon has a reach weapon, and if he has not already made an AoO that round (combat reflexes give you extra AoO), then Gorge is golden.

Now, as for passing through a threatened area, you have to look at the face/reach of the creature in the threatened square. If the reach is 2 feet, then no AoO would take place etc. You really need to just practice some combat one night. I found it beneficial to have one night that was just combat and that helped players get adjusted to the rules.

Dave

Dave, it isn't about "passing through" threatened areas. AoO are provoked when someone leaves a threatened area. This includes backing up from the threatened area in which you are currently engaged.

"Passing through" invites the AoO, not when you enter the threatened area, but when you leave that first, and subsequent threatened squares. It doesn't matter whether you enter another threatened square or if you enter a non-threatened square.

Dave Allen said:
-Backing up does not incur an AoO if you are moving from a threatened area to a non-threatened area.

Nephandus:
Dave, you are flat wrong and you need to check your basic rulebook before you reply again. These things are pretty clearly laid out. In case they aren't, then please go to this site that has official clarifications and diagrams on this very point.

http://www.d20reviews.com/Eric/aoo/index.htm#Correction

On p. 122 of the PHB, the following sentences need a word replaced:

"If all you do is move (not run) during your turn, the space that you start out in is not considered threatened, and therefore enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that space. If you move into another threatened space, enemies do get attacks of opportunity for your leaving the first second threatened space."

Sean Reynolds' explanation: In other words, leaving that first threatened space is safe *if all you do is move*, but it doesn't make any later threatened spaces that round safe that weren't safe already.

From that site:
"If you move *within or out* of a threatened area, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity."

Again, there is no longer a concept of "facing" in D&D, so no allowance is made for "backing out" of a threatened square. You either leave it, or remain within it. If you leave it, you will likely incur and AoO. Examples are on the page clearly showing AoO being incurred from PC's moving from a threatened to a non-threatened square.

Except!
""...if your entire move for the round is 5 feet (a 5-foot step), enemies do not get attacks of opportunity for your moving." You could take an action as well in this case, providing you don't move more than 5 feet.

Also, to make it crystal clear, you get to inflict 1 AoO *per round,* unless you have combat reflexes, in which case you can inflict more than 1 AoO per round.

Besides, all I never said that you'd do anything but move. But you can clearly move from a threatened to non-threatened area without taking an AoO.

Dave

Hi, Guys. Thought I’d pitch my £0.02 in again. I’ve been following the whole thread whilst I had a think. Forgive the length…

Response To Nephandus Aug 8th.: On Role Play
I agree there’s nothing in any of the various D&D Editions to say how to role-play better. My point is that the way a game is physically structured can make it easier or harder to role-play. I also agree that house-rules or interminable arguments don’t constitute role-play.
In principle, my argument is that every time the in-play dialogue stops to pick up dice your suspension of disbelief goes down the toilet. By the sheer fact that 3Ed encourages dozens of skill checks and considerations of interaction with feats, it forces that pause, roll, (optional prayer) and re-think again and again.
[I’m fairly sure there was an article some years ago in either White Dwarf or Imagine called ‘The Play’s The Thing’ pretty much arguing the same. That’s my basic view.]
The beauty of previous editions was that players did just converse/describe actions , or during combat state what they would want to do. The DM then did the DM thing and arbitrated what was reasonable and what actually needed a roll – if anything.

I don’t agree that 3Ed makes more abilities available – just that it codifies more tightly your absolute skill at any time. In fact, you could argue that by reverting to 1Ed, where all your really had was levels and ability points (save the thief), everything was potentially available at any time subject to reasonableness.

As an experiment the other week, we played the finale of a 12 year campaign currently set in Forgotten Realms under total 1Ed conditions. Combats were about 5 times faster, and even our least expressive member spent more time role-playing than rolling d20’s. …. I know, I know…. What are we doing wrong in 3Ed……wish I knew!

In total agreement on your points about Charisma. 3Ed does do that better by and large.
But then again, blame all the DM’s (me included) who didn’t figure it into those grand speeches by characters for ‘reaction-encounter roles’ in previous editions. More on this later.

Nephandus Heirarchies of Classes
I once again agree that previous editions got it wrong too. Yes there were heirarchies of classes. Why do monks always come out badly. Why were druids so good in 1Ed? Why on earth was there ever a cavalier class in Arcana built that way….. and so on.

However, I disagree that 3Ed got it any better. All that’s happened is that some of the heirarchies have been turned upside down. I firmly believe that thieves are completely unbalanced. (Part of the evidence is my 11 year old son who – by playing a 3Ed thief – has brought a whole new meaning to power gaming that the rest of the group thought did not exist.) But this isn’t the only unbalanced class.
I cite as other evidence articles by WOTC on ‘min-maxing’ or those characters in Sage Advice maximised (power-gamed?) for specialist roles.
We may have to agree to disagree on this.
My main gripe is ’10 years, a third edition… and we still see the author’s preferences for classes and races shining through’.

[Aside with tongue in cheek: At finale of above campaign, party take out Lord Manshoon by crashing a spell-jammer with a supply of plutonium aboard into him. Result – 53 kiloton explosion. Zhentil Keep levelled. One of my players quips “Of course if this were 3Ed we could assume any survivors were thieves with improved evasion who saved for nothing…..”]

Nephandus : Add – Ons
Good for you on banning the add-ons. I confess to rushing out for Masters of the Wild. I love playing half-orcs and barbarians (and female human paladins too… Freudian?). However, whilst I would love to just take barbarian classes all the way through, I found that by about 4th level it was too difficult to carry my part of the comabt duties compared to what the group expected of an equal level fighter. Aaargh. Forced by WOTC to buy product!

Nephandus: Charisma and rolls
I agree, once again a sticky area. Of course, as I pointed out above, there was nothing in any previous edition to prevent DM’s applying appropriate reaction encounter modifiers. But for me, where it scored previously, there was a limit. I.e. a roll of 100% plus any Charisma mods for a score of 18. So, once the DM considered everything else, you still had to role-play it to garner as much else as you could.
In 3Ed, your bluff roll, sense motive roll, intimidate roll, diplomacy roll etc is unlimited. OK, you can only roll a 20. But then you add on what? In last years Brit Gen-Con, I was given a thief with all skill points maxed out. Now I actually role-played a particular encounter, then was asked to roll. Maxed out for a score of 35. Now, whilst it is opposed, how many orc guards can beat that kind of score. Now assuming I really bombed acting –wise, that only modifes by ‘the DM’s favourite, + or – 2’. My point is that it should be the interplay, not the role which is the largest factor in this kind of encounter.
One of my players caught me with a beaut in a 2Ed module when his fighter character whipped out a prepared scroll with a forged signature (beautifully prepared in WORD) giving the party free passage on the king’s high road. Smack!Biff!Pow! Take that DM. I did. No roles involved, a lovely bush-whacking bluff well-executed.

Perhaps the best thing would be to stop calling the score charisma and call it ‘physical attractiveness’ with separate entries for attraction to males and females.

One of the other comments stated that not using a role was unfair to shy players. My reply is that a good DM would allow for player shyness, and see how good a speech it was from that person. Then adjust accordingly. Just allowing a shy player to only roll dice isn’t helping anyone.

Nephandus: Balancing Overbalancing Plusses.
My apologies, I didn’t express myself clearly. What I was trying to say was that for hobbits, every negative was more than countered by some other advantage. And that I didn’t feel any other race got the benefit of that kind of active favouritism.

Nephandus: Attacks of Opportunity
I’ll deal with this in some length in a follow up posting. What I don’t accept is that because I can suspend belief about dragons or magic, that it justifies absolutely anything being introduced into a game.
For me the base questions are:
Do Aof O enhance the game, streamline or otherwise make play more enjoyable
Are they consistent in internal game logic and is there any relationship to what players do know?

Bye For Now

Response To Dave Allen:

I do reject the finding it difficult to change allegation. It's a bit too easy to level at old farts like myself. But it's not actually merited.
Maybe I've given too negative a picture of my own and my groups's experience with 3Ed. You are right to point out the disappearance of certain things like the hated THAC0.
The main gripe is: '10 years of 2Ed... and this is what you came up with? Why wasn't it better?'
I level my original accusation at WOTC: If they deliberately produced a game with imbalances, they get to sell all the add-on products.

I fully accept that WOTC are in business to make money. But there was a step change during the 2Ed period.
In 1Ed days, house-rules and cut your cloth as you wish was the name of the game. And then during 2Ed there was an article - (can't remember if it was Imagine Magazine, Dungeon or whatever.. but I'm sure it was a staffer) stating that if your game didn't use pukka 2Ed rules and products, then it wasn't 'official'. Boy, talk about overblown... but from that moment came the mess of kits and books of complete this and that with all their hang ups.
The second accusation I would make is that for the bits where they did get it right, it just feels like a rehash of a lot of other game systems e.g. Runequest.
Really, I was expecting better. And if it was better, we wouldn't need the constant updates to the rule FAQ on the WOTC site.

If anything, I would say the system hasn't changed enough yet. It still is not the finished article. Just on its way. The main question is has the game actually improved or not.
Since the gamer community seems quite split on this, the one thing we can probably say is that 4Ed is probably being planned even now.

Response To Combat Time:
Given the number of supplies suggesting our GM needs to run combats faster, I am now convinced. (It isn't lack of IQ on his part - a 1st in maths at Oxford Univ. , attests to that. It may be his considered professional bearing as part of big government.....)
Still think Aof Opp doesn't help though.

Regards,
Greyshirakwa.

Attacks Of Opportunity

Wow! I just read the thread you guys ran on when you get attacks of opportunity. At least some of you must be doing some of it badly wrong. Now I’m starting to think my GM was running it right which is why everything took so long.
Hah! We’ve packed him off to the states for a 3 year tour with British Intelligence. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The only thing I would like to volunteer to previous thread is something he told us. He met the actual guy who included the rule where if all you do is take your move away, there is no AofO.
He was told that
a) this did break all the normal rules about provoking an AofO,
b) this was deliberately included to allow characters close to death a way of getting out of combat without taking another hit.

Response to Nephandus On SunTzu
Fine any martial artist would attack when the best opportunity presents itself. The main question is is if your army is engaged with one army and a third army rides past your rear, would you really turn round to attack them.
If you did, would you expect to do it at your full combative capability?
Or would it be some sort of fast wild swing? (i.e. at significant negatives)

New Rant On AofO
I contend the rule is broken/useless because it breaks internal game logic.
Here’s why:
I have to have +6/+1 or better to get my first extra attack.
If someone provokes an AofO, I mysteriously get the ability to strike someone running past, presenting a fraction of a second to strike at full hit bonus.
If I take combat reflexes, this multiplies up making it less and less likely.

Rant Mode Fully Engaged….
Now, because 3Ed rather ridiculously removed the notion of being behind someone, I can even strike someone I normally wouldn’t see – even if I am facing 3 other opponents.

Here’s a ridiculous situation about rear-facing and AofO I used to my advantage because our GM went rules lawyer on me:
Temple of Elemental Evil: My barbarian desparately runs away from a chasing opponent. He has a horse lance. He’s also chasing a fleeing cleric who has a fast demon leg.
The chasing creature runs up behind my barbarian’s horse as he rides away. Fine, I have a reach weapon (albeit, you do have to normally face forward to use a lance) so I get an AofO. The rules say that’s ok. It’s physically, realistically and even fantastically ridiculous. But them’s the rules.

Let’s deal with reach. I do agree that having a reach weapon does give you one AofO at the start.
The main point to this is that 3Ed reach as given doesn’t represent anything like what happens in a fight. What it actually gives you in the real world is the opportunity to keep them away whilst inflicting lots of little knocks. Basically, a bit like jabbing in boxing. It’s annoying, it hurts a bit, but apart from keeping you back, there’s no major damage. If your opponent chooses to take 1 hit, you’ve had it once he’s close.
The second thing, is that because combat is constructed so that every thing happens on your init, the guy with the short reach never gets the benefit. ‘Cos once he’s taken one hit and he’s inside, he should then tear you up.
In 3Ed, the guy with the long reach simply takes a 5’ step back on every round, putting you at reach distance again and making you take another AofO on the way in next time. Alternatively, the guy with the reach weapon could move his whole move away and wait for you to step up to bat again for another AofO.
In real fights, once the little guy is inside, he sticks to you like glue. And that applies whether he has open hands or a short weapon like a knife. If necessary, he turns it into a wrestling match, and if he’s already close, you definitely don’t get the advantage if you started with a pole weapon. And certainly no AofO when he changes the method of combat.

The next thing is weapon speed. Yes. It sucked in previous editions. But a nice simple way to deal with it is if you have a small weapon and the other guy has a long weapon and you have dared the AofO to get close, let the guy with the dagger etc have an extra hit each round whilst he’s close.

Next thing from real life. Behind you does exist. My instructors include a 7th degree Dan grade in Korean martial arts, a 3rd Degree BB in Jiu Jiutsu and a 3rd Degree BB in judo. The one thing they all definitely agree on is : if your opponent gets behind you, it is all over. Finis. Kaput. Done.
Missing out the concept of behind and swapping it for flanked was a pure mistake. It gets difficult to explain lots of situations when you combine AofO with ‘there’s no behind.’

In fact, one of the situations most martial arts make their BB’s practice is to fight 2 on 1. There’s a simple technique. Keep them lined up so one is always in the way of the other combatant. It is very hard and exceptionally tiring. But some fighters can do it. ( I only once saw this done perfectly in 17 years of Tang Soo Do. It was in a BB grading by a 1st Dan. Boy, was that impressive. And funny.)
In 3Ed, there’s no way of avoiding being flanked as long as everyone chooses to keep taking 5’ steps. And whoops, once you are denied your dex bonus, there goes that top-of heirarchy rogue with his sneak attacks again.

OK. Those are my real vs RPG combat gripes.

And the worst thing is they often don’t punish what they were intended to punish.
Example. Fighter on low HP chooses to take cure potion out of backpack. OK. 3Ed says clear AofO. But it doesn’t actually stop you completing the action. In real life, combatant dances backwards attempting to unload potion. This doesn’t give the other guy an extra attack, it gives him his normal attack much easier.
In game to real world terms, it would be more realistic to give the attacker the benefit of a true strike for that hit. Then rule if the hit succeeds, the defenders action was not completed.

This could also allow you to stop people going down a corridor more easily.
To be honest, nothing would represent this correctly in game terms. But currently, as long as I don’t mind taking the hit – or I let someone try to run past first to attract the AofO , you can’t stop it anyway. But then again, in real life 1 guy defending 10’ of corridor vs 2 opponents trying to get past is unlikely to succeed too. So no loss there.

Bit of a ramble mixing game-logic and real-life in this rant, but I can only suspend disbelief so much. Dragons…fine. Attacks of Opp…bah!

Hah! I waste ‘em with my bolt of hellacious logic!

Greyshirakwa said:
Personally, whenever a paladin or cleric prays for a big one – Raise Dead, Resurrect or a big protection spell, I always ask to hear the prayer. It doesn’t have to be complicated. But I do want the PC to make it seem heartfelt. Depending on the prayer, they may get a better/worse result than normally indicated.

Nephandus:
I won't attach game results to how well players act. Not everyone takes these things that seriously, and some players can resent needing to 'perform' in real life to achieve game effects. That said, for clerics, I DO make religion an important and vital part of the game, where all characters are aware of the gods and their followers in a sense that goes beyond the healing spells. We develop rituals and mild restrictions for each cleric, holy days, shrines, and other ways to bring religion into the fabric of the world. Clerics should represent something.

Greyshirakwa :
Now, because 3Ed rather ridiculously removed the notion of being behind someone, I can even strike someone I normally wouldn’t see – even if I am facing 3 other opponents.

Nephandus:
Incorrect. It has removed the concept of 'facing' from combat - which suggested that a combatant faced a single direction during an entire round of several seconds, not looking or moving anywhere but in that one direction. This is what was ridiculous.

The current system accounts for the idea of "divided" attention, which is a distraction. In aikido, I do not simply forget about the 3rd attacker because I don't see him. In the 6 seconds in that round, I divide my attention 3 ways. All 3 of my attackers get a bonus in attacking me because my attention is divided by attacks coming from opposite directions (picture Darth Maul snapping his head left and right as he deals with the two Jedi).

The notion of being behind someone still exists, just not when combat is engaged and the parties have revealed themselves. For instance, if a critter stealthily crept up behind a party and they didn't notice it, it might get a SURPRISE action, based on the ill-prepared party.

On smaller weapons:
If you check closer, you'll see that smaller weapons often enjoy a better chance of striking a critical hit - which fairly approximates the idea that some weapons are easier to wield than others (due to size, shape, weight, speed). So differences in weapons are accounted for, without overloading the already heavily modified initiatives even further.

Initiative is one of those rolls you always use. It was always a pain to have to write intiative mods for each weapon - and we constantly had to look them up in combat. The new way still accounts for weapon differences (better IMO), but keeps the pace of combat fast.

Dear Nephandus,

I just read your reply on AofO. I am slowly being won over to your view of 'how' AofO works (or should work) I also have slightly more faith in it than before given some of the other link ups with size/crits etc.

What I remain unconvinced of is that it is the actual answer to what combat ought to be since there is always some element of trying to relate RPG to reality.

If we posit removing attacks of opportunity the game goes a lot more simple because we no longer need :
feats related to AofO, 5'steps, book-keeping to do with reach weapons, arguments about there being a 'rear-face'.

I completely take your point about the game of 3Ed not having a rear face in combat due to moving about. I just think it is a bad mistake to construct it this way.
Turn this on its head: if you have more than 1 opponent, you arguably always have someone behind you at some point. Certainly, once there are 3 of them, that will be the situation.

A lot of disbelief and arguments could be lifted if a rule about 3+ opponents round you meant 2 with a +2 flank advantage and 1 or more with a +4 rear advantage were put in place.

I also (sadly) find myself asking for more of a break for those halfling thieves who sneak up behind someone. Or indeed anyone who sneaks up behind a guard. There needs to be a rear facing to allow the person taking the risk of croodling up behind (normally away from the party) a better chance of success. Just denial of dex doesn't make it.

(In Bushido, there were rear -attacks. You got +10 to attack if you managed that. Again, relating to things I have practiced, that seems about right.)

Regards,
Greyshirakwa

GreyShirakwa said:
What I remain unconvinced of is that it is the actual answer to what combat ought to be since there is always some element of trying to relate RPG to reality.

Nephandus says:
Well, yes and know. There is a definite ‘game’ part to the role-playing game. And to dig really deep into the fundamentals, most people play to have fun and enjoy a good time. If there is ever a choice between approximating reality and having fun, I tend to give on reality to go with the fun.

GreyShirakwa said:
If we posit removing attacks of opportunity the game goes a lot more simple because we no longer need :
· feats related to AofO,
· 5'steps,
· book-keeping to do with reach weapons,
· arguments about there being a 'rear-face'.

Nephandus says:
Yes, but “simpler” is not necessarily fun. For example, the game would be much simpler without spells and all the problems related to them, like arguments about how they work, book-keeping for ranges etc. The same logic could be applied to anything in the game. That said, is it really “more complicated” now? Every one of those rules was something that had to be ruled, “on the fly” according to the DM’s whimsy before – essentially making the DM finish the rules for his own game, but denying the players the ability to be confident of their tactical strengths.

GreyShirakwa said:
A lot of disbelief and arguments could be lifted if a rule about 3+ opponents round you meant 2 with a +2 flank advantage and 1 or more with a +4 rear advantage were put in place.

Nephandus says:
Each attacker surrounding a flanked unit has already been given an advantage, whether or not they are the ones who just moved to flank you. They all have the same advantage in attacking you. You still can’t attack more than once per round, so your normal attack against 1 of them (when all of them have bonuses against you) is punitive enough for getting yourself in a pickle. You can only be distracted so much. The difference between fighting 2 enemies and 3 is less than the difference between fighting 1 and 2 (an increase of 33% as opposed to 50%). It gets cumbersome to start counting out enemies, plus their tentacles, taking into account size and reach, just to get a to hit number. I’m sure they tried, but it’s pretty obvious that attack rolls will get cumbersome. People hate doing math on a to hit. Ever see that happen with the old THACO? The player confidently throws a 14, then 20 minutes later people are still trying to figure out if he hit or not, and someone is telling jokes while another starts cooking something in the kitchen? Combat, should be quick and punchy, with immediate results.

GreyShirakwa said:
I also (sadly) find myself asking for more of a break for those halfling thieves who sneak up behind someone. Or indeed anyone who sneaks up behind a guard. There needs to be a rear facing to allow the person taking the risk of croodling up behind (normally away from the party) a better chance of success. Just denial of dex doesn't make it.

Nephandus:
There already is a huge break for these scenarios – it’s called “surprise” One standard action for free, before you roll initiative, and the target is flat-footed, so it counts as a sneak attack (against a target denied any dex bonus to AC). That’s a potent and fair combo for letting someone sneak up on you like that. Then you roll initiative and begin again. A fast rogue with the advantage of surprise can nail his target with 2 sneak attacks (with possible critical hits from their easy-to-wield weapons) before an opponent can hit back. That is a very powerful strike.

Also, on AoO, with reach opponents walking backwards: Don’t forget that you can make a 5’adjustment step at any time during the round, to get closer to your opponent (your opponent can’t do this without allowing you an AoO because he would then have moved 10’ instead of 5’ in the round. Of course, this means you must walk through his reach area, but if he has already had his AoO against you that round, he can’t touch you.
So stick to him like glue once you are inside his reach.

Grey,

I understand your confusion, disappointment about the lack of facing. One thing that has helped me is to actively ignore any miniature instincts when running combat. If you're about to move across the combat area, and you stop because 'that wouldn't work in a mini-based game'. Slap yourself and do it. It's probably ok in 3E.

A couple of quotes, and responses:
"And the worst thing is [Attacks of Opportunity] often don’t punish what they were intended to punish.

Example. Fighter on low HP chooses to take cure potion out of backpack. OK. 3Ed says clear AofO. But it doesn’t actually stop you completing the action. In real life, combatant dances backwards attempting to unload potion. This doesn’t give the other guy an extra attack, it gives him his normal attack much easier.
In game to real world terms, it would be more realistic to give the attacker the benefit of a true strike for that hit. Then rule if the hit succeeds, the defenders action was not completed."

While your phraseology is somewhat stilted, I think I get what you are getting at. There are several things to remember about Attacks of Opportunity - chief among them the fact that you can do anything with an AoO that you could do with a "normal" attack. If you see the fighter next to you whip out a healing potion, don't spend your AoO trying to whack the fighter - spend it trying to disarm him (of the potion) or sunder (i.e., break) the vial the potion is carried in. IOW, when you start to down a potion, I won't try to whack you - I'll try to whack the potion instead. If I succeed, you now have no potion (I either knocked it away or broke the vial) - thus, as you were demanding, I have, in effect, interrupted and effectively prevented your action.

Further, by the rules as written, the "smart" fighter will withdraw momentarily (a 5' step back) and then dig out and quaff the potion... hence, no AoO.

More quotes:

"Then rule if the hit succeeds, the defenders action was not completed.
This could also allow you to stop people going down a corridor more easily."

Again, I refer you to the example above. One option with an Attack of Opportunity is to make a Trip attack. Again, when the guy runs by you, don't try to just "whack him as he goes by" - instead, make a Trip attack and take his legs out. If you succeed, guess what? His movement is stopped where you trip him, thus allowing you to hold a corridor.

"To be honest, nothing would represent this correctly in game terms."

Including the example I've just given? The complaints posed suggest not that Attacks of Opportunity are problematic, but rather that you simply do not understand how they work and how to use them to your advantage.

More:

"Let’s deal with reach. I do agree that having a reach weapon does give you one AofO at the start.
The main point to this is that 3Ed reach as given doesn’t represent anything like what happens in a fight. What it actually gives you in the real world is the opportunity to keep them away whilst inflicting lots of little knocks. Basically, a bit like jabbing in boxing. It’s annoying, it hurts a bit, but apart from keeping you back, there’s no major damage. If your opponent chooses to take 1 hit, you’ve had it once he’s close.
The second thing, is that because combat is constructed so that every thing happens on your init, the guy with the short reach never gets the benefit. ‘Cos once he’s taken one hit and he’s inside, he should then tear you up.
In 3Ed, the guy with the long reach simply takes a 5’ step back on every round, putting you at reach distance again and making you take another AofO on the way in next time. Alternatively, the guy with the reach weapon could move his whole move away and wait for you to step up to bat again for another AofO.
In real fights, once the little guy is inside, he sticks to you like glue. And that applies whether he has open hands or a short weapon like a knife. If necessary, he turns it into a wrestling match, and if he’s already close, you definitely don’t get the advantage if you started with a pole weapon. And certainly no AofO when he changes the method of combat."

Sorry, you're flat out wrong on this. The first time the short-reach guy closes, he does indeed provoke a single Attack of Opportunity... which a savvy combatant might use to try a disarm or trip on him (as above). Assuming the guy with no reach "takes the hit" and gets inside, there are no more "free" Attacks of Opportunity on him. Why not?

Answer: When you close, the guy with the reach weapon has two choices - drop the reach weapon and try and whack you with something else (he usually can't try to attack you with the reach weapon when you're adjacent) or retreat enough to bring his reach weapon to bear again. If he drops the reach weapon, that's "changing the mode of combat" - and unless he has the Quick Draw Feat, he's going to waste a shot at attacking you while he pulls out another weapon. IOW, you actually get REWARDED for closing by getting one shot in before he can counterstrike.

Assuming he hangs onto his reach weapon, he has three options available to him.

Option 1: Take a 5' step back and attack. Because all he his movement for the round is a 5' step, that move does not provoke an AoO from you (with your short reach). He gets an attack on you as normal. HOWEVER, this doesn't really free him from your onslaught - you solve this by taking a 5' step of your own to close the distance (remember, you are drawing no AoO even if you're in his reach area if all you take is a 5' step) and you whack him again. Really no different from two folks without reach weapons duking it out - except if it keeps up long enough, he'll eventually run out of room to back up. So your complaint isn't valid in this case, as he's not getting an AoO every round, only the first time you get through and no AoOs thereafter... IOW, the little guy is sticking to him, exactly as you desired. Except for the initial AoO, he gets one normal attack on his turn and you get one normal attack on your turn (no further AoOs). This is 1:1 - exactly as you wanted.

2.) He can take a 10' step back *without* attacking you. Remember, if you start in a threatened area (he starts in yours) and do nothing but move (which is why I mentioned *without* attacking) AND the move does not take you through any threatened areas (not counting the "starting square") the move does not provoke an AoO. So he backs up and waits for you to close again. When you close, he gets another AoO - but since he didn't get a "normal" attack on you, you're still trading blows on a 1:1 basis. IOW, he gets no "normal" attacks, but only gets AoOs when you move in for your attacks. Again, your complaint doesn't hold water, as he doesn't get an attack AND an AoO. Each of you gets 0 attacks on his turn, and he gets an AoO on your turn (when you're getting a normal attack). You both get the same number of attacks. What's the problem?

3.) He can attack you, then take a 10' move back to get you "out of range" and try to tag you as you come in. But what happens? When he takes his 10' move, you DO get an AoO on him (because he's doing more than just moving). So he gets an attack on his turn and you get an AoO on his turn. Then when you close, he gets an AoO on your turn and you get an attack on your turn. Total? Each of you gets 2 attacks. Again, you're getting just as many attacks as he is, so I fail to see where he has an advantage.

Again, your complaints do NOT demonstrate that the rules don't work. They DO demonstrate that you are not applying the rules properly. If you apply the rules AS WRITTEN you get exactly the results you want. What then is your complaint about the rules?

It all comes down to RTFM.

Your desire for facing is an interesting one, but facing creates SO many more problems than it solves. A model of combat wherein the characters are constantly spinning, whirling, and moving - the "head on a swivel" more closely approximates reality than the old method.

Just because I face East on my turn and you're fast enough to run around me and get on my West side on your turn (though you yourself admit movement is simultaneous), should you get an attack at a bonus? Take it to its extreme - I whirl around to face West on my turn. Then you, being fast like you are, run around me again and whack me from the East (behind), scoring more damage. Just because you're fast, I'm COMPLETELY screwed... despite the fact that in "real life" I wouldn't just stand there while you ran laps, I'd keep turning with you.

In mass combat, facing (of units) is important. In skirmish battles - which is usually what D&D is - I think "no facing" and "flanking" is a better option. YMMV.

--The Sigil

When I first started playing D&D I was about... 10, which was four years ago. I remember The first ever campaign I played was when I was sitting there during a Boy Scout Camping trip. A couple of the older guys took out these black books with warriors, wizards and monsters on them. I came to know them as books to Dungeons and Dragons. The DM of the game was kind enough to let me play (he was about 17 or so) and showed me how to make a character. It was 2nd Edition, mind you. I still remember being fascinated by listening to the cheers and groans as the other players' characters killed and died by Lizardmen.

After that DM left the Boy Scout program the whole D&D thing started to disapear, I had a couple of immature friends that were willing to play but just screwed around. It didn't help either that I was really serious about it too. So without a good group of role-players D&D was forgotten.

That's when a couple of friends and I took up D&D and had an on-going D&D adventure. We started the campaign with 2nd Edition and shortly transferred into 3rd edition when it came out. After about 6 or so months of the 3rd edition (which I personally liked a lot) we decided to go back to 2nd edition just for kicks.

That's when I realized how different the two versions were. To be honest I think the 2nd edition is much more complicated and I like the 3rd edition better. That, however, is my opinion.

I suggest you try that, go into 3rd edition for a bit then try to go back to 2nd edition and see how they compare. Then you'll know what one you like better.

Thanks.

I'm a bit hesitant about posting this, as I expect to be thwacked by the 15+ years of experience crew, seeing as I have only been playing DnD for a year, but here goes:

The rules are only as good as the players that use them. The rules are not the only part of the game. If you want to go back and forth about how the 3E rules suck and don't encourage roleplaying, fine, but ya know what? It isn't the job of the rules to encourage roleplaying! The rules are a mere framework for players to use, abuse, and explore. If you want a kick-down-door campaign, that's what you'll get. If you want a heavy-roleplaying storytelling campaign, that's what you'll get. Also, the game isn't supposed to be a dead-on real world combat sim. The point of the game is to be playable, not insanely accurate. Seems to me that you guys are missing the point of the rules: they're a TOOL. Or multiple tools. If you want to build a birdhouse, do you get mad at your toolbox for not being a birdhouse by itself? No. You BUILD the birdhouse, using the tools.

Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'll see it differently when I'm a 30+ gamer who's been playing for 20 years, but that's the way I see the issue.

I have played First Edition AD&D for 18 years now and I must say I still feel it is the most superior system. It had the longest lifespan of any edition (1977-1989)and it has certainly stood the test of time. I think things really began to fail when TSR sacked Gygax in 1987. TSR was becoming more corporate by the minute and disliked Gygax's ideas for Second Edition. He felt that it should be reduced into fewer books and simplified. The big wigs at TSR grew alarmed at this "value for money" concept and ejected poor Gary out on his ass. Then came Second Edition. I actually went out and bought the new Player's Handbook in 1989 and was disgusted. Where was the cavalier? Where was the half-orc? Why did they change so many little things that didn't need changing like money values? Who knows. Then came the onslaught of little books and expansion kits. TSR was in full marketing overdrive. The promise of fewer books went out the door and players were left with groaning bookcases of pointless manuals.
It is interesting to note that First Edition books were still being printed and available as late as 1994 (fully five years after Second Edition had been released!). This speaks volumes (no pun intended). I have noticed with some smug satisfaction that this did not occur when Third Edition was introduced.
To be fair, Second Edition had its merits, however few. Some of the character kits were interesting. The few things I liked about it I easily incorporated into my First Edition Campaign.
And now for Third Edition. I knew something was in the air around the late 1990s when Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR. TSR had reached new heights of greed and had finally fumbled. It took WOTC to bail them out. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to know what they were doing either. They spent their time rehashing and repackaging older products and in the end were reduced to releasing First Edition products to cater to the nostalgia-minded comsumer.
Then mighty Hasbro appeared. In an embarrassingly short amount of play-testing time Third Edition was released. I had been fooled by many into thinking that it was going to reintroduce some of the old ideas from First Edition. I read through the books, played my first game, and was truly horrified. This is not Advanced Dungeons & Dragons or even Dungeons & Dragons (yes, the beloved old 2-Tier system). I don't hate the d20 system but I really think this product should have been released under a different name. It seems as if they took a few elements of AD&D (First & Second) and D&D and threw the rest in the garbage. Mangling a combat system that had remained largely intact for a quarter of a century is tantamount to altering the rules of chess. The layout is irritating and distracting and worst of all, it reads like a children's book. Perhaps literacy has sank to new depths. It seemed to me to be a game that was designed for chiefly male, adolescent power-gamers who didn't care for story lines and role-playing. In addition, the price of these books is atrocious. I feel bad for the kids just getting into the game who have to fork out $125.00 (CDN) plus taxes for the 3 core books. This is what happens when big business takes over. 3.5 is overwhelming proof of that. I supposed 4E will come out in 2006!
In all, I have to say that Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition by Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. is not Advanced Dungeons & Dragons by TSR, Inc. It is a 21st-Century "roll-playing" game that bears only a superficial resemblance to its namesake. I will never buy the new books as I feel "if something isn't broken it shouldn't be fixed." First Edition had its charming quirks and rules idiosyncracies but they were easily reworked in a short amount of time, not requiring a revised re-release ever few years to gouge comsumers.

Long live the legacy of E. Gary Gygax!

This is what happens when big business takes over. 3.5 is overwhelming proof of that. I supposed 4E will come out in 2006!

Long live Castles and Crusades