Janus wrote:D20 D and D would be ok if there was more to it. you can only go so far in any class and then there is not that much variety.
Well, I'd say there's much more intra-class variety in D20 than there is in Palladium (well, RIfts at least, not familair with PFRPG) by a long shot. True, there are fewer classes in canon D&D, but with all the other supplements, prestige classes, and third party products there are probably nearly as many, if not more, than in Rifts.
Janus wrote:D20 D and D would be ok if there was more to it. you can only go so far in any class and then there is not that much variety.
Well, I'd say there's much more intra-class variety in D20 than there is in Palladium (well, RIfts at least, not familair with PFRPG) by a long shot. True, there are fewer classes in canon D&D, but with all the other supplements, prestige classes, and third party products there are probably nearly as many, if not more, than in Rifts.
PigLick
I do not about any of the other classes in the other D20 books, but i do know that the prestige classes are not that much of a bonus. They have such high restrictions that you have to plan your character from the beginning to become that class. That is not very much fun. i feel that it is too much of a limitation in the game mechanics. Aslo the regular classes are much better in most areas than the prestige classes. They have killed everything I remember about the old system that I thought was good. Remember when a cavalier was just a regular class.
There is always a 5%chance of anything happening...even a monkey can crawl out of your butt.
Flamethrowers, that's what we need. The army has them, why can't we have them too?
I am the King of Thoughtless Wishing.
I nominate you for Fan Defensive Lineman of the year. - Geronimo 2.0
Janus wrote:D20 D and D would be ok if there was more to it. you can only go so far in any class and then there is not that much variety.
Well, I'd say there's much more intra-class variety in D20 than there is in Palladium (well, RIfts at least, not familair with PFRPG) by a long shot. True, there are fewer classes in canon D&D, but with all the other supplements, prestige classes, and third party products there are probably nearly as many, if not more, than in Rifts.
PigLick
I do not about any of the other classes in the other D20 books, but i do know that the prestige classes are not that much of a bonus. They have such high restrictions that you have to plan your character from the beginning to become that class. That is not very much fun. i feel that it is too much of a limitation in the game mechanics. Aslo the regular classes are much better in most areas than the prestige classes. They have killed everything I remember about the old system that I thought was good. Remember when a cavalier was just a regular class.
Buddy, I remember when ASSASSIN was a regular class lol, and you could be a Neutral allignment rather than simply an Evil one, if you chose... at least they made half-orcs a "starting" race again.
Eyes without life, maggot-ridden corpses, mountains of skulls... these are a few of my favourite things.
I am the first angel, loved once above all others...
Light a man a fire, and he's warm for a day; light a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Turning the other cheek just gets you slapped harder.
The Smiling Bandit (Strikes Again!! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!)
Janus wrote:I do not about any of the other classes in the other D20 books, but i do know that the prestige classes are not that much of a bonus. They have such high restrictions that you have to plan your character from the beginning to become that class. That is not very much fun. i feel that it is too much of a limitation in the game mechanics. Aslo the regular classes are much better in most areas than the prestige classes. They have killed everything I remember about the old system that I thought was good. Remember when a cavalier was just a regular class.
Just because the clasess are written that way doesn't mean they have to be. They're written that way because D&D tries to maintain some semblance of balance. If you want to have huge variety in power levls a la Rifts, the D20 system can handle that as well. There's nothing inherent in the mechanics that make it impossible or even difficult.
I do remember when cavalier was just a "regular" class, that was in the original 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana. I also remeber that in 1st Ed. there were classes that were essentially prestige classes. Bard, I believe assassin, possibly even ranger? The details are fuzzy, but they were definitely not just normal classes that could be chosen to start with.
To play D20 Dand D right you have to paly them that way if your by the book GM says you do. Mine does. I am not sure if they are going for balance or a semblance thereof or just down playing our intelligence. They leave no real room for interpretation. They have everything figured out to the last detail very annoying please.
There is always a 5%chance of anything happening...even a monkey can crawl out of your butt.
Flamethrowers, that's what we need. The army has them, why can't we have them too?
I am the King of Thoughtless Wishing.
I nominate you for Fan Defensive Lineman of the year. - Geronimo 2.0
Janus wrote:To play D20 Dand D right you have to paly them that way if your by the book GM says you do. Mine does. I am not sure if they are going for balance or a semblance thereof or just down playing our intelligence. They leave no real room for interpretation. They have everything figured out to the last detail very annoying please.
Again though, how is that any different from the current Rifts system? I mean, I suppose the terribly written ambiguous and conflicting rules makes for more wiggle room, but other than that, there's virtually no difference in how a class is to be played according to the mechanics. I'd still say that even with a strict, by-the-books GM you have much more freedom and flexibility within any given class in D&D/D20 than you do in Rifts/Palladium.
Janus wrote:To play D20 Dand D right you have to paly them that way if your by the book GM says you do. Mine does. I am not sure if they are going for balance or a semblance thereof or just down playing our intelligence. They leave no real room for interpretation. They have everything figured out to the last detail very annoying please.
Again though, how is that any different from the current Rifts system? I mean, I suppose the terribly written ambiguous and conflicting rules makes for more wiggle room, but other than that, there's virtually no difference in how a class is to be played according to the mechanics. I'd still say that even with a strict, by-the-books GM you have much more freedom and flexibility within any given class in D&D/D20 than you do in Rifts/Palladium.
PigLick
Well, having played both I have to say that I feel more trapped and limited in playing in D20 rules set than in PAlladium. And it is not so much that Rifts has some rules conflicts so much as it does not have every single thin spelled out like I was a retarded orangutang. D20 is verey formulaic. It is if a + b then c unless x then refer to table 125 part a to get d. I mean come on look at fighting blindly if you do not thave the feat then you have to roll a 50% just to maybe hit something but with the feat you do not suffer the negatives and may get a better shot at hitting. The system is just a little claustophobic. Rifts does not have that sort of formula and relies more on the GM being competant enough to make the campaign setting balanced. In D20 anyone who has read the rules can say ok a + b then c oops here is where we have to add t ok now we get y. And then there is the experience, in Palladium it is not a set amount but in DnD it is which creates a problem as in order to get more exp you have to fight bigger and badder monsters. Not that this is a bad thing, but limits what you can do in an adventure.
There is always a 5%chance of anything happening...even a monkey can crawl out of your butt.
Flamethrowers, that's what we need. The army has them, why can't we have them too?
I am the King of Thoughtless Wishing.
I nominate you for Fan Defensive Lineman of the year. - Geronimo 2.0
Janus wrote:To play D20 Dand D right you have to paly them that way if your by the book GM says you do. Mine does. I am not sure if they are going for balance or a semblance thereof or just down playing our intelligence. They leave no real room for interpretation. They have everything figured out to the last detail very annoying please.
Again though, how is that any different from the current Rifts system? I mean, I suppose the terribly written ambiguous and conflicting rules makes for more wiggle room, but other than that, there's virtually no difference in how a class is to be played according to the mechanics. I'd still say that even with a strict, by-the-books GM you have much more freedom and flexibility within any given class in D&D/D20 than you do in Rifts/Palladium.
PigLick
Well, having played both I have to say that I feel more trapped and limited in playing in D20 rules set than in PAlladium. And it is not so much that Rifts has some rules conflicts so much as it does not have every single thin spelled out like I was a retarded orangutang. D20 is verey formulaic. It is if a + b then c unless x then refer to table 125 part a to get d. I mean come on look at fighting blindly if you do not thave the feat then you have to roll a 50% just to maybe hit something but with the feat you do not suffer the negatives and may get a better shot at hitting. The system is just a little claustophobic. Rifts does not have that sort of formula and relies more on the GM being competant enough to make the campaign setting balanced. In D20 anyone who has read the rules can say ok a + b then c oops here is where we have to add t ok now we get y. And then there is the experience, in Palladium it is not a set amount but in DnD it is which creates a problem as in order to get more exp you have to fight bigger and badder monsters. Not that this is a bad thing, but limits what you can do in an adventure.
I also like the fact that in Rifts, even if you have a skill at 98%, there's still that room for failure... in D&D, you can simply "take 10" or "take 20", so you can't fail at some things no matter what. That and the weopon/ armour/ equipment tables always have really strange weights on things, even as far back as 1st edition... I was hoping with 3rd they'd have writers who'd held a real weopon at some point in their lives, worn armour, carried stuff... alot of their weights are double or triple what they should be.
Oh, well... even that beats Madness: The Gibbering.
Eyes without life, maggot-ridden corpses, mountains of skulls... these are a few of my favourite things.
I am the first angel, loved once above all others...
Light a man a fire, and he's warm for a day; light a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Turning the other cheek just gets you slapped harder.
The Smiling Bandit (Strikes Again!! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!)
Janus wrote:Well, having played both I have to say that I feel more trapped and limited in playing in D20 rules set than in PAlladium. And it is not so much that Rifts has some rules conflicts so much as it does not have every single thin spelled out like I was a retarded orangutang. D20 is verey formulaic. It is if a + b then c unless x then refer to table 125 part a to get d. I mean come on look at fighting blindly if you do not thave the feat then you have to roll a 50% just to maybe hit something but with the feat you do not suffer the negatives and may get a better shot at hitting. The system is just a little claustophobic. Rifts does not have that sort of formula and relies more on the GM being competant enough to make the campaign setting balanced. In D20 anyone who has read the rules can say ok a + b then c oops here is where we have to add t ok now we get y. And then there is the experience, in Palladium it is not a set amount but in DnD it is which creates a problem as in order to get more exp you have to fight bigger and badder monsters. Not that this is a bad thing, but limits what you can do in an adventure.
Well, I guess it's just a difference of style. I actually prefer to have a coherent and fairly comprehensive set of mechanics on which to base things. Any system is equally open to house rules and GMs fiat, but it's nice to actually have a fairly solid foundation on which to make those decisions.
As far as experience goes, I don't see why having to actually face more difficult challenges as you yourself gain in power in order to maintain a steady rate of advancement seems like a bad thing or limits what you can do in any way. I've actually never even seen a d20 DMs guide, so I honestly don't really know much about how their experience system works out. Again though, that's something that's easily changed and isn't really core to the game mecahnics itself.
Well everything has as you know a challenge rating, this is in place because without it DMs would not kow what to throw at the players. Based on the characters level a monsters CR to experience raises or lowers. Without looking say a lvel 5 goes against a Cr 1 monster he gets only a partial amount of that exp. Also the CRs are there to allow DMs to determine if the challenge was good enough by giving a flat out CR x should take up 15% of a parties resources. this has led to some fun encounters with my DM after the party took out a minotaur too quickly in his opinion. However the minotaur took on threee lvl5's two with high strentgh scores and one with 2 guns it took a huge hit from me a javelin two pistol shots befoe it died it dropped me to a third of my hits. We did not use enough resources so he felt that it was not challenging enough. Well it took 3 out 4 players to take it down, 1/3 of my HPs two healing potions. i would say he was on the money he just did not kill any of us. The next time we fought against 5 drow one of them a cleric with a fire wand. Three members made it out alive one did not. All of a sudden something is not right with the system and he cannot figure out what. It is just a strage way of doing things. NOpe give me flexability of strict guidelines any day.
There is always a 5%chance of anything happening...even a monkey can crawl out of your butt.
Flamethrowers, that's what we need. The army has them, why can't we have them too?
I am the King of Thoughtless Wishing.
I nominate you for Fan Defensive Lineman of the year. - Geronimo 2.0
Vrykolas2k wrote:I also like the fact that in Rifts, even if you have a skill at 98%, there's still that room for failure... in D&D, you can simply "take 10" or "take 20", so you can't fail at some things no matter what. That and the weopon/ armour/ equipment tables always have really strange weights on things, even as far back as 1st edition... I was hoping with 3rd they'd have writers who'd held a real weopon at some point in their lives, worn armour, carried stuff... alot of their weights are double or triple what they should be. Oh, well... even that beats Madness: The Gibbering.
The situations in which you can take 10 and take 20 are limited though, so you're still not guaranteed success. I like those mechanics, and I think they make enough sense, as long as the GM does not allow them to be abused. If there's any question, just make the player roll. Any roll of a 1 is an automatic failure so, much as in Palladium there is always a chance of failure, it's just a bit larger in D20.
As far as stats for weaspons and armor and such, well...let's just both games have plenty of that to go around. Again though, that is something which has basically nothing to do with the actual mechanics.
Janus wrote:Well everything has as you know a challenge rating, this is in place because without it DMs would not kow what to throw at the players. Based on the characters level a monsters CR to experience raises or lowers. Without looking say a lvel 5 goes against a Cr 1 monster he gets only a partial amount of that exp. Also the CRs are there to allow DMs to determine if the challenge was good enough by giving a flat out CR x should take up 15% of a parties resources. this has led to some fun encounters with my DM after the party took out a minotaur too quickly in his opinion. However the minotaur took on threee lvl5's two with high strentgh scores and one with 2 guns it took a huge hit from me a javelin two pistol shots befoe it died it dropped me to a third of my hits. We did not use enough resources so he felt that it was not challenging enough. Well it took 3 out 4 players to take it down, 1/3 of my HPs two healing potions. i would say he was on the money he just did not kill any of us. The next time we fought against 5 drow one of them a cleric with a fire wand. Three members made it out alive one did not. All of a sudden something is not right with the system and he cannot figure out what. It is just a strage way of doing things. NOpe give me flexability of strict guidelines any day.
That sounds more like a problem with the GMs interpretation and application of the rules than the rules themselves. The same could have been done in Rifts.
Vrykolas2k wrote:I also like the fact that in Rifts, even if you have a skill at 98%, there's still that room for failure... in D&D, you can simply "take 10" or "take 20", so you can't fail at some things no matter what. That and the weopon/ armour/ equipment tables always have really strange weights on things, even as far back as 1st edition... I was hoping with 3rd they'd have writers who'd held a real weopon at some point in their lives, worn armour, carried stuff... alot of their weights are double or triple what they should be. Oh, well... even that beats Madness: The Gibbering.
The situations in which you can take 10 and take 20 are limited though, so you're still not guaranteed success. I like those mechanics, and I think they make enough sense, as long as the GM does not allow them to be abused. If there's any question, just make the player roll. Any roll of a 1 is an automatic failure so, much as in Palladium there is always a chance of failure, it's just a bit larger in D20.
As far as stats for weaspons and armor and such, well...let's just both games have plenty of that to go around. Again though, that is something which has basically nothing to do with the actual mechanics.
PigLick
Ah, but it does effect mechanics... in D&D, my strength would be in the 16-17 range... now, with the weights they have on the equipment et cetera, a character wouldn't be able to walk around with as much as I actually can.
Eyes without life, maggot-ridden corpses, mountains of skulls... these are a few of my favourite things.
I am the first angel, loved once above all others...
Light a man a fire, and he's warm for a day; light a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Turning the other cheek just gets you slapped harder.
The Smiling Bandit (Strikes Again!! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!)
Vrykolas2k wrote:Ah, but it does effect mechanics... in D&D, my strength would be in the 16-17 range... now, with the weights they have on the equipment et cetera, a character wouldn't be able to walk around with as much as I actually can.
No, that's not what I meant. The weight of items isn't part of the mechanics of the system. It's a stat that fits into the mechanics, but not part of the mechanics themselves.
If you were complaining that the way being encumbered affects your character, that's a complaint about the mechanic itself. Just the fact that they have stuff listed as being to heavy is not.
Well the system itself still has major faults. It has tried to correct them and with the inclusion of more skills and feats to choose from has done a pretty decent job of fixing some of the problems I originally had. However, I still have problems with my strentgh being the determining factor in whether or not i hit my opponent rather than dexterity. The other stats made sense just not that. Also I hate that I cannot dodge or parry in the game at all.
However my real big problem with the game as it stands is lack of personal input from the GM. Like I said everything is spelled out cut and dry. I am not the only person in our part ywho feels this way I am just the only one who posts here. if it threw out half of the rules and kept the most basic then that would be grand. or at least get a GM who can think for himself rather than be a slave to the D20 codex. Too many D20 players are like that and I am afraid the game makes it easy to do. Just read the rules and bam instant rules lawyer.
Palladium has its share of rules as well do not get me wrong, but not everything is completely spelled out. Except for the alignments, but then I always liked palladium's system for that better anyway.
There is always a 5%chance of anything happening...even a monkey can crawl out of your butt.
Flamethrowers, that's what we need. The army has them, why can't we have them too?
I am the King of Thoughtless Wishing.
I nominate you for Fan Defensive Lineman of the year. - Geronimo 2.0
I actually prefer things spelled out. It reduces the decsion making time on subjects which require gm approval. Plus it reduces problems that can arise from having players who can abuse the system. Long ago I actually had a player basically contesting a ruling because one of the rules was a little vague and not defined. Make a long story short he tried to pull a fast one got caught and was ejected from the game.
That happens in every game of course but less so than 3rd edition D&D because it covers almost every situation. Which imo is good because if I don't like something I can choose not to use it. I like playing Palladium though there are many rules that are vague on some subjects and keeping change from book to book.
