The Off Topic Topic

[The Larch]

That looks lik 4th edition.  You know, in a less enlightened age, you would be beaten for a faux-pas this serious.

3rd edition was decent, 4th is just retarded. I grew up playing advanced 2nd, which to me remains the standard.

Yeah, 2nd was standard but there were things I liked about 3rd too.

I liked 3rd much much more than 2nd. IMO 2nd might have been *the* system, but it had many flaws that were overlooked precisely because of its status as the main RPG system for a very long time.

I wasn't loving some of the feats in 3rd, and the prestige class overkill that came in later on was sort of Rifts-esque.  But absolutely loved the skill system and that they made clerics playable at any level.  The simplified combat was a wash for me, as I had no problem with the old AC system and THAC0.  The multiclass thing was also handled much better than 2nd edition.

True, some of the stuff was a bit too much, and in my group we ignored anything that had to do with using miniatures for our games, for instance, but character development was much smoother with multiclassing and the improved skill system, as you mention. Also the combat system was much more intuitive (I always disliked the concept of THACO and AC as implemented in 2nd edition), which made it much easier to bring new people to the group.

[The Larch]

The multiclass thing was also handled much better than 2nd edition.

Unless you wanted a multiclass spellcaster, in which case the only solution was those hacked-in prestige classes.

Like what? It's easy to have multiclass spellcasters already, not that hard to achieve. Granted, your initial class most probably would have to be the spellcasting one, but even that way it's quite achievable.

[ulmont]

The multiclass thing was also handled much better than 2nd edition.

Unless you wanted a multiclass spellcaster, in which case the only solution was those hacked-in prestige classes.

Like what? It's easy to have multiclass spellcasters already, not that hard to achieve. Granted, your initial class most probably would have to be the spellcasting one, but even that way it's quite achievable.

Spell progression and caster levels were based solely on your spellcasting class.  So as a 10 / 10 fighter / wizard, you're going to have crappy spells with crappy saves.

[Ideologue]

And WTF - I'm sitting on the train coming to work, minding my own business, when my nose starts to bleed!

I quickly dig out a tissue, and the bleeding stops within a minute, but now I have a small but noticeable blood stain on my tie.

OK, patient zero, just blithely continue on to work where your bodily fluids can serve as a vector.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm surprised at the lack of reaction to the Smurf pic, positive or negative.

[Barrister]

I'm surprised at the lack of reaction to the Smurf pic, positive or negative.

I think we're all just quietly resigned to the fact you post retarded pictures on a regular basis now.

[HVC]

I'm surprised at the lack of reaction to the Smurf pic, positive or negative.

I think we're all just quietly resigned to the fact you post retarded pictures on a regular basis now.

you had to reply to him. Now that he knows he's being ignored he'll double his picture posting.

[The Larch]

The multiclass thing was also handled much better than 2nd edition.

Unless you wanted a multiclass spellcaster, in which case the only solution was those hacked-in prestige classes.

Like what? It's easy to have multiclass spellcasters already, not that hard to achieve. Granted, your initial class most probably would have to be the spellcasting one, but even that way it's quite achievable.

Spell progression and caster levels were based solely on your spellcasting class.  So as a 10 / 10 fighter / wizard, you're going to have crappy spells with crappy saves.

I'm ok with that. When you multiclass you always loose something in the diversification. Otherwise characters would be (even more) ridiculously powerful at high levels.

[ulmont]

Spell progression and caster levels were based solely on your spellcasting class.  So as a 10 / 10 fighter / wizard, you're going to have crappy spells with crappy saves.

I'm ok with that. When you multiclass you always loose something in the diversification. Otherwise characters would be (even more) ridiculously powerful at high levels.

A multiclass fighter-rogue, however, loses next to nothing.  While a 10 / 10 fighter / rogue is less powerful than a level 20 fighter, they are a lot closer than the 10 / 10 fighter / wizard is to the 20 wizard.

Basically, unless the 10 / 10 fighter / wizard could cast at something approximating at least a 15th level wizard, it's never worth it to try and multiclass a caster in 3E.  Which is why there are so many prestige classes trying to fix the problem.

[Malthus]

When I played paper RPGs, I was always careful to adjust the game so that the players faced approximately the same amount of challenge, regardless of level or class - otherwise they became un-fun monty-hall type exercises. Players should always have some edge-of-seat moments, and a real risk of permanent-type death. If they get the feel that you won't kill off their character no matter what they do, it gets stupid and then boring.   

Also, the play in terms of storytelling was always the focus - the exact rules played under, not so much.

[The Larch]

I'm having a Timmay moment.

[Grey Fox]

[DGuller]

 

[Ideologue]

Toma mi leche!  VENGO!

[Malthus]

  @ The Larch

So very, very wrong ...