Customization in D&D: Not what you think?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Ever since first edition, D&D has taken pride in having introduced the concept of character niches (The classic skillmonkey, tank, healbot, and arcanist) to tabletop RPG'ing, among many other things. What this thread seeks to demonstrate is that, actually, said niches are fallacious: most characters are actually far more generic than it's believed. The second thing this thead wishes to demonstrate is that the sum of unique parts does not equal an unique product. This thread does NOT aim to show how one class can do someone else's job: That has been shown as true many times before.

So, where to start? Well, why not start with analyzing this official statement?

In 3.5 edition, you will be able to find a feat to suit any character concept or action you might have in mind.

Extracted from the PHB.

Of course, this is a blatant lie. A Fighter still can't do an impressive charge, taking down enemies, left, right, and center. But I'll deal with that later.

So, let's take a look at the Fighter. This mighty warrior is supposed to be able to accomodate a crafty combatant, a finesse warrior who prefers to end fights before they start with single, decisive strikes. This is not such a unique concept so as to be unsupportable by the rules: Indeed, the fighter who prefers finesse rather than brute strength, the melee equivalent of a sharpshooter or sniper, is a common character concept.

But what happens when we try to bring this into play? It comes crashing down. No feat allows me to forego multiple strikes for a single, more powerful blow. No feat gives me the chance to spend some time studying my opponent, analyzing and dissecting him, so that I may defeat him with a single blow. One could make a case for Improved critical, but that depends on luck of the dice, not skill. It doesn't allow me to do a critical any time I like if I spend time studying the victim of my strike, or make them more powerful. It just makes it more likely, but since my character is already supposed to be a precision fighter and not a guy that got lucky with a random shot, this doesn't work out. Indeed, it's not before the EPIC levels, when a character is supposed to more or less stand on equal footing with gods that I can pick up overwhelming and devastating critical, which are more like the concept, but still depending on luck and coming at a point where the character should be able to carelessly do a simple attack and, without any previous study of the opponent, breach his defenses and kill him dead, NOT randomly do a finessed strike if he's lucky.

So, what does this tell us? The pretended ability to give you something specialized enough to fit any (Or at least most) character concepts is a blatant lie. In truth, a fighter's sole real damaging option is to full attack until the cows go home, or perform a bunch of ineffectual, rather brutish maneuvers (Bull rush, overrun, trip). Yes, I can DESCRIBE it so that my fighter is not actually doing a lot of attacks, but rather a single, devastating strike, but in truth, the game is not letting me play my concept, and I'm forced to be delusional about what he's doing to make it work.


Now, let's take a look at what other systems could do. I'll pick the definitive, ultimate example in genericness: GURPS. Yes, THAT system. GURPS also says I can do anything I want, but clearly states that that's because the system has been tailored to be able to fit even the wildest, craziest dreams of a concept, not because the system is going to give me the mechanics to play them (Or make them). GURPS, indeed only provides me with a few generic equations, and then leaves me to my devices (Yes, saying "a few" is a gross oversimplification, I know that. No need to point that out.). A few generic equations cannot POSSIBLY provide me with something specialized and complex, if a system that boasted of how it would allow me to fill niches failed miserably, right?

Wrong. It is, in fact, easy to crunch out a skill/ability/power/whathaveyou that, at the cost of a few turns, will let me inflict increased damage with a single attack.

Of course, someone will be now quick to point out that this is what it's called homebrewing, and that if I made the crunch, the comparison is voided.


But there's a crucial element being forgotten there: GURPS encourages me to do so, and gives me the tools for the job. Meanwhile, D&D doesn't even give me guidelines. What should the requirements for the feats I'd need be? What should be the benefit? There are no indications for that. Quite simply, I'm left to stumble and fail at creating the feats I need (Or succeed, if I'm of the rare breed of skilled hoembrewers), until some game designer takes pity on me, and has the brilliant idea to create the feats I need for the concept. Failing an official creation, I'm left to take shots in the dark.

Now we've reached a paradox: How can some generic equations provide a unique, individual product tailormade for me, and some unique skills and abilities give me a single generic method of attacking, forcing me to make up a description and pretend that's what happens?

Because, the truth is, sans spellcasting, D&D is actually a very stiff, generic system, only prepared to support a few alternative, while GURPS is a variable, flexible system that decided to use genericness to allow me to craft uniqueness.

As I said, however, there is an exception to this: Spellcasters. Via making us swallow some handwavium and nonsensoleum, Gygax Et al convinced us that, because it was magic, it should be able to do ANYTHING. Thus, we have an extremely broad spectrum of choices for spells, while everyone else has just method A, B, or C, and that's it.

Note: It might seem that I have a GURPS bias if you read the text below. I do not. I just picked it because it stands out as a polar opposite to the D&D philosophy. Arguably, it succeeded at it's idea, while D&D failed, but that doesn't concern us.

Still unconvinced? Read this examples for further proof.

Concept: In one of R. A. Salvatore's non-Drizzt based book series, The Crimson Shadow, two of the heroes find themselves fighting in a massive cathedral against a horde of mooks in the beginning of the second book. The hero and his sidekick perform this maneuver: Spreading his legs, the hero allows the sidekick to tumble past them, catching a mook offguard, allowing him to plunge his rapier deep into the mook's stomach. I wanna replicate that in D&D and GURPS.

D&D: Play a rogue, take Spring attack and adaptable flanker, tumble through the square the hero occupies describing the attack. To do this, since the sidekick is a halfling, and likely not a Strongheart, he must be level 18, one of the most powerful rogues out there at that, and have invested almost all of his feats into feat chains to perform this one stunt and get sneak attack damage out of it.

GURPS: Design a maneuver costing X number of points. If you succeed on Y dice roll, and your friend succeeds on a minor Z die roll to react quickly like the hero did, you inflict extra damage to your foe and catch him or her offguard. Don't need to have too high a level for this one.


Concept: A staple of fantasy here. In a war or battle against loads of mooks, the hero cuts his way through the army like a scythe, annihilating foes that try to stop him.

D&D: Take the Cleave line of feats until Superior Cleave, kill the first enemy, do cleaving until you roll a one, and pray you don't do it. This is reading superior cleave as granting you the five foot step ALONG with the attack. If not, you can't do it, period.

GURPS: Be a high level character, create S/A/P/W that makes it so that, if you hit and kill the first mook, you may deal damage equivalent to that of that attack to other mooks you can hit, and you can move until you have moved three times the amount you normally could or something like that, hitting every mook along the way. Repeat until the effect of cutting your way through the army is achieved.

Having thought that, I arrived at an interesting conclusion. There has been, and will be, a lot of argument about ToB and fourth edition. Many debates center around what is called fluff or flavor. But perhaps the reason the argument of not liking the flavor is used is actually because flavor is not an issue, but because those two subjects did a 180º degrees turn on the classic philosophy of D&D (The one that brought us the full attack rules), providing instead an overwhelming variety of things to do? 4th edition powers are rather generic in concept, but in the same way as Imagination is a Generic idea. Imagination is practically limitless. The potential for crafting new powers to suit your demands might be like that if it is well designed, as are the ToB maneuvers and the spells of spellcasters (Which DO have guidelines, albeit pretty crappy ones). Perhaps that's the true reason of the dislike for those two things?

[Kalirren]

OP: I don't think that versatility and adaptability of the system language is really the issue here. From what I've seen, a lot of people who are opposed to the idea of 4e and ToB also support more versatile system language. The trend I -do- see is that they feel that the effects that ToB disrupt the aesthetic coherence of the setting - one person I know thinks it's a really bastardized mystification of wuxia, and another one objects to the idea of encounter-dependent recharging of magical effects.

That is to say, I think that anti-ToB'ers and anti-4e'ers feel that despite the lack of solid mechanics within D&D core that define the properties of magic and the way its forces actually interact with the mundane world, the existing arcanomechanic still function in a certain semi-predictable manner that gives a sense of intuitive and aesthetic familiarity to them. To them, ToB and 4e fall outside these lines of familiarity. They have associated the settings of D&D, including Eberron, Faerun, Greyhawk, even Oriental-Adventures type worlds, with this particular aesthetic. The same people who dislike ToB and its quasi-magical effects are the ones who believe that the Extraordinary abilities and the versatility of the fighter should be buffed and will agree that the full-attack-centered combat system in D&D needs to be revamped (but are often a little chicken to replace the system with another one in its entirety.)

[Indon]

I posted this in another thread, but it's actually more appropriate here. I'll go spoiler it in the original thread after posting.

I think the difference between long-term character options (or build options) and short-term character options (or tactical options) is extremely important.

The presence of short-term character options help to make a game interesting, but must be carefully managed - too few and you have characters who are bored because they can only do one thing in most situations, while too many and you have characters who are bored because they always have the right option available to solve a problem decisively.

However, the presence of long-term character options help to develop a character's sense of identity and can provide an easy starting point for role-playing.

They really are quite different in terms of impact on the game.

But that's not all.

In terms of D&D vs. a generic system (I've never played GURPS, so I'll assume for the sake of argument that it's similar to the point-based, generic aspects of White Wolf products), I'm sorry, but D&D has vastly greater possibility for mechanical build options. Why? Because while you can certainly use your imagination and create new powers in GURPS, you can do the same thing in D&D.

I'll give an example. So in GURPS you can make a power for a high-power character that lets you cleave through armies. And you certainly can't do that in 3'rd edition D&D... unless you make a high-level feat... that has you cleave through armies.

Only in D&D, you don't even have to do it that way. You could do the same thing in 10 mechanically distinct ways. You could make the aforementioned feat. Or you could make it a maneuver. Or you could make it a spell. Or you could make it a homebrewed class ability. Or you could borrow from one of the even more exotic mechanics sets and tweak it until it works ("I cleave through the opposing army with my Greataxe!" "But... that's a Warlock Invocation.")

D&D is not limited to a narrow, generic system. While this makes homebrewing more awkward, certainly, and a more daunting and certainly difficult proposition, it is ultimately far more versatile than a less mechanically versatile system.

[Azerian Kelimon]

I'd like to clarify something: GURPS is certainly not too similar to WW products. Indeed, while those are more or less built and ready from scratch, and, like D&D, give you templated options made by game designers, GURPS makes YOU the game designer, more or less. They come up with a generic and "simple" system that works for just about any game concept you have, and tell you "Okay, the mechanic building tools are yours, now go and make your mechanics". Of course, they also have Pwn setting books, but that's fluff and is not what I'm speaking of.

In D&D, you don't have those guidelines, and the guidelines set are really crappy (Item of True strike at will for the cost of a first level spell anybody? At will of cure light wounds and never having to worry about healing again? what about Rary's Mnemonic enhancer and Mordenkainens thingy?). Imagine the requirements of a feat that would allow you to cleave through enemies if you hit a single foe while moving up to three times your move. The system is not suited for that, you're expected to use the mechanics given in supplements.

[Indon]

So you're saying the difference is that GURPS is easier to houserule. I'd already noted that D&D is more difficult to houserule (I'd make the feat require Whirlwind Attack, Great or maybe Superior Cleave, and Run, more than likely - or just make it epic) - the point is that the system is too versatile to produce easy houseruling. Because you can create something in so many different ways, is D&D's advantage.

For instance, I noted what that feat's requirements would be. As a Maneuver, it would probably be a 9'th level maneuver in a discipline in which momentum would be good to include. I'd probably make a series of increasingly more powerful maneuvers that did the same thing in better ways until it reached that level, in fact.

Obviously, it'd be easy as a spell.

Or, as a class, I could modify the features of a Dervish to be apporpriate, perhaps mixing it in with features of the War Hulk.

Yeah, without a doubt GURPS is easy to homebrew. Heck, white wolf products are pretty easy to homebrew in. But I'm not seeing how a generic system can beat a diverse, well, set of systems like D&D in potential.

[Draz74]

So basically ... GURPS isn't a system, it's instructions on how to create a system.

Not that that's inherently a good or bad thing. In fact, this thread kind of makes me want to look into GURPS more than I ever have before.

But it also quickly demonstrates one particular way that D&D is better: D&D requires less work, at a minimum, to make things go.

[Pyroconstruct]

Sounds like you want to play HERO, which pretty much works as you describe - come up with an ability you want [in the broadest sense of the word "ability,"] the system gives you tools to describe it mechanically, then tells you how much this ability costs to have as a character. If you dislike the inflexibility found in "plug and play" mechanics RPGs such as D&D or White Wolf, HERO is the opposite end of the spectrum, a "toolkit" style system.

EDIT: It should be noted that, as the poster above me said, the drawback of a toolkit RPG is that the minimum amount of work is higher. However, the maximum amount of work is much lower, though, because you never really have to "homebrew" stuff, although in a sense the whole thing is a guideline for how to homebrew everything, then examples.

[Azerian Kelimon]

If you want to know how, look at the concept of the finesse fighter I explained in the OP. In D&D, the system simply is not supportive of single attacks that are more effective than a full attack. You're expected to take full attacks if you're someone who fights with weapons.

In GURPS, meanwhile, if I want to do single superpowerful attacks, I can. If I want to do multiple consecutive and less likely to hit attacks, I can too. If I want to create a character who wins by missing attacks, I can too. That's how the generic system can be better than a niche system, even on niching. GURPS tried to be like imagination: With endless possibilities. Of course, it didn't succeed, but it got damn close. D&D, meanwhile, doesn't even give you guidelines on how you should build things. Rather, it favors an approach that could, metaphorically speaking, be summed up by this: "Beg, bitch! You're at my mercy now!". Either you have to make shots in the dark, or wait 'til WotC or a third party makes it.

[Cainen]

So basically ... GURPS isn't a system, it's instructions on how to create a system.

Not that that's inherently a good or bad thing. In fact, this thread kind of makes me want to look into GURPS more than I ever have before.

But it also quickly demonstrates one particular way that D&D is better: D&D requires less work, at a minimum, to make things go.

That's dependant on what you're trying to do. It took forever and a half for me to implement half of the rules I did for several d20-based games, whereas GURPS didn't even need them. Since the system isn't class/level/feat-based, if you have the ability to grab something you almost always can; I can create a far more thorough character and stat his personality from his advantages/disadvantages. Doing the same in D&D is a mishmash of traits, flaws, feats(which 99% of the time can be spent on something more optimized), and class levels almost all of the time.

[DementedFellow]

So basically ... GURPS isn't a system, it's instructions on how to create a system.

Not that that's inherently a good or bad thing. In fact, this thread kind of makes me want to look into GURPS more than I ever have before.

But it also quickly demonstrates one particular way that D&D is better: D&D requires less work, at a minimum, to make things go.

I don't know if I would agree with that. GURPS is somewhat newbie friendly. You can make a character in a fraction of the time with it, while, DnD can cause people to agonize over which PrC or feat to take. A precursory glance at the build help questions on this board alone will show many instances of people saying, "Halp!"

They both have their advantages. GURPS is easier to tweak because you don't need supplement after supplement to have a simple campaign.

If, on the other hand, I was going for that coveted verisimilitude with an over-arching campaign that created a whole world to explore, I would go with DnD.

That's how I relegate them, anyway.

[Azerian Kelimon]

That's more or less how it works for me too. Number crunching for obscure things such as vehicles in GURPS can be fearsome, but the basic stuff is more or less easy.

[Indon]

In D&D, the system simply is not supportive of single attacks that are more effective than a full attack. You're expected to take full attacks if you're someone who fights with weapons.

I would recommend the maneuver system for this. Caster ripoff? Yes, kinda. Supports powerful single weapon-based attacks? That too.

You don't need to buy the Tome of Battle to learn basically how maneuvers work, and knowing how they work, you can make them for yourself if you like.

Either you have to make shots in the dark, or wait 'til WotC or a third party makes it.

You often don't have to make 'shots in the dark'. There are a number of implied homebrewing baselines in D&D - for example, flaws generally take the benefit of a feat, negate it, and increase it by 50%. For things like spells, you can compare spells of a similar level for the kinds of things a spell could be expected to do.

Homebrewing well in D&D may be a more time-consuming affair, with almost as many parts art as science, but that doesn't make it worse, unless convenience is a high priority for you.

[Yahzi]

arcanomechanic

Now that's a cool word!

Actually, I have problems with D&D magic not making any sense, too. Why can you cure Deafness and Blindness at 5th (which surely require regeneration of something) but not regenerate missing fingers until 11th lvl?

Why are some spells uber-cool, and others so lame no one ever bothers to scribe them, let alone use them (Message, I'm looking at you!)

Although actually we used a Message spell once. It was great. We secretly warned a vampire that an unpopular PC was sneaking up on him in the shape of an ant. Apparently you can still lose levels as an ant.

DnD can cause people to agonize over which PrC or feat to take.

I think, in no small part, because once you choose it, you can't change it. You pretty much have to know at level 1 what you're going to be at level 20.

How much more like a computer game can you get? And even WoW lets you respec now.

[KIDS]

The common answer to your descriptions is usually "just roleplay it". While it has some merit, I find quite a lot of your remarks describing the situation well. For me ToB and such things proved a reasonable middle ground that I enjoy.

[Azerian Kelimon]

I would recommend the maneuver system for this. Caster ripoff? Yes, kinda. Supports powerful single weapon-based attacks? That too.

You don't need to buy the Tome of Battle to learn basically how maneuvers work, and knowing how they work, you can make them for yourself if you like.



You often don't have to make 'shots in the dark'. There are a number of implied homebrewing baselines in D&D - for example, flaws generally take the benefit of a feat, negate it, and increase it by 50%. For things like spells, you can compare spells of a similar level for the kinds of things a spell could be expected to do.

Homebrewing well in D&D may be a more time-consuming affair, with almost as many parts art as science, but that doesn't make it worse, unless convenience is a high priority for you.

ToB is not a good thign to argue with at this thread. I explicitly mentioned how it and 4th edition seem to have done a 180º on the common D&D philosophy that pervaded for three and a half editions.

[Indon]

ToB is not a good thign to argue with at this thread. I explicitly mentioned how it and 4th edition seem to have done a 180º on the common D&D philosophy that pervaded for three and a half editions.

I used ToB as an example of one of the many, many systems that can coexist within the loose 3.x framework.

Had you, say, asked about characters who could be powerful with less reliance on magic items, I might have brought up Incarnum instead. Or discussed class features or feats which have wealth-like progression (like the Soulwhatever classes and Vow of Poverty) and might be tweaked over to fit your needs.

Or say you didn't like Vancian casting and wanted a caster who didn't just 'run out' of magic. I'd be able to describe a laundry list of general ideas, many running on what are effectively wildly different D20 subsystems.

Your point is ultimately that 4'th edition is not sacrificing character customization by removing all of the myriad subsystems and streamlining everything into a handful of universal character mechanics. And I disagree with that point.

[Enguhl]

So you are complaining that D&D characters aren't as powerful as GURPS?
I don't see how D&D isn't customizable..

[Cainen]

So you are complaining that D&D characters aren't as powerful as GURPS?
I don't see how D&D isn't customizable..

No, that was not the point. He was giving examples of similar abilities in both, and how much easier it was to make an equivalent ability for GURPS than it is in D&D.

Most D&D characters are far more powerful than most GURPS characters.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Your point is ultimately that 4'th edition is not sacrificing character customization by removing all of the myriad subsystems and streamlining everything into a handful of universal character mechanics. And I disagree with that point.

The reason 3.5 has so many more options isn't any inherent part of its design. It's because there's so many damn sourcebooks.

Give 4th edition enough time and it too will have the power of tenfold sourcebook.

However, if you're only satisfied if you can create your own abilities, I'm already convinced 4th edition is superior. In 3.5, if you want to invent and introduce a mechanic, you have to decide if it should be a feat, a maneuver, an invocation, a spell (arcane or divine), a skill trick, or maybe even a psionic power. Say (after examining every divine spellcaster available to players) you choose divine spells. If that was the wrong choice then you just broke your game because you made divine spellcasters too powerful. Alternatively you made your spell too weak, in which case nobody uses it and your work was for nothing. To make it work, you have to compare it to every other example in the category you chose, and then see how it compares to skills, spells, maneuvers, and everything else on the laundry-list. Again, make a mistake and your game is broken, and you have to start over.

In 4e, just pick a class and a level, see how much damage abilities of those levels do, and then add on a neat effect. If it's too weak, maybe let it do a little more damage. If it's too strong, give it a minor tweak and try again. It's so simple that you'll probably get it right on your first time.

[Deepblue706]

vive le GURPS.

[Nebo_]

I stopped reading about here because if the rest of the text wall has as little thought as this, then it isn't worth my time.

But what happens when we try to bring this into play? It comes crashing down. No feat allows me to forego multiple strikes for a single, more powerful blow. No feat gives me the chance to spend some time studying my opponent, analyzing and dissecting him, so that I may defeat him with a single blow.

Overpowering Strike (I think that's what it's called) lets you sacrifice your iterative attacks to make a single strike at double damage. As for the second one... Death attack.

[SofS]

The funny thing here in regard to GURPS is that Azerian Kelimon isn't even talking about the (arguably) easiest methods for achieving what you want to do with an ability, which is to find the book rules and go by them. Building your own abilities from scratch is often the "hard" way to get something, and mild experience makes it laughably easy. I'm not trying to argue anything by this statement other than my belief that GURPS is quite easy to customize.

It's not really house-ruling, either. The system assumes that you do not use all of the rules in the book (as they rather contradict each other). The customization is part of it. It's not really an out-of-the-box system (though it's hilarious to see people try to play it that way anyway. It's like a cartoon exploding).

Anyway. The main point here is rather interesting. While I would agree with the idea that the current edition of D&D makes it very difficult to do what one wants unless one wants exactly what the designers were predicting, this hasn't always been the case with other editions. The rules in older D&D look really strange nowadays, but I've come to realize that this is partially because there was a lot of space intentionally left in the ruleset. In old D&D, if I understand correctly, you wouldn't actually build a character for the purpose of having an ability like the one where you pass through your comrade's space and stab a dude. Instead, you'd say that that was what you were doing and the DM would decide what the chances of success were and how it affected things.

I've noticed that many current players really hate the idea of leaving practically everything up to the DM like that. It's certainly not something that would please the CharOp people, as you can't really effectively optimize someone else's judgement/whim. I think it is taking things a bit farther than I'd like, but there's merit to the idea (note how D&D has been trying to figure out how to effectively do fun stunts in combat ever since they made things more mechanically discrete). Putting rules on imagination is always a game of give-and-take anyway.

Spoiler

Show

P.S. I don't like to keep going on about the same thing, but it might be helpful if people who don't know GURPS but want to talk about it understood the basic idea. Essentially, GURPS is a system where most mechanical aspects of a character have a point value. You resolve tasks by rolling against an attribute of some kind or a skill (which is measured by how much higher or lower than the attribute it is). These rolls are usually modified by circumstance and intended effect (most escalations of an ability's power happen through penalizing skill). There are a few exceptions, but this is pretty much how things work through every aspect of the system. There are no classes or levels and book-guided GM limitation is the only cap on how you spend your points. Hope this helps.

[Cainen]

IOverpowering Strike (I think that's what it's called) lets you sacrifice your iterative attacks to make a single strike at double damage. As for the second one... Death attack.

You just completely missed his point. Whether it exists or not is worthless; it is the ease of customizability of GURPS' system as compared to 3.X's, where there's not only a lot more to take into account to make it feel like the other part of the game, but I've found that its players are considerably more whiny about house rulings.

I ported a buffed 2E weapon proficiency system to 3.5. It took hours to make sure there weren't any abusable loopholes(these are particularly annoying, since NO player should ever abuse these unless they're just performing thought exercises), that the system was explained clearly, and that it was functional and preserved caster vs. melee balance for just that little bit longer.

GURPS had it out of the box, and its system by default allows porting of things like that with no trouble. Not only did it not need it, but it would've been so much easier because I wouldn't have had to balance against costs without checking several references, I wouldn't have had to wonder about how badly it'd affect game balance, and it would've only taken a couple of minutes to refine the idea and put it on paper at most.

[Rutee]

Overpowering Strike (I think that's what it's called) lets you sacrifice your iterative attacks to make a single strike at double damage. As for the second one... Death attack.

Nebo, he has a point when you consider that some people don't have encyclopedic knowledge of DnD and its books. And that's not even discussing access. DnD simply isn't /that/ customizable just because I can buy book X that gives me obscure Feat Y. GURPS is customizable because I can /easily/ build any ability I want.

OTOH, this does seem like it'd be better served by, well, finding a way to make 3.0 work more like other, more customizable systems, rather then just discussing the weakness of DnD's version of it.

[Cainen]

OTOH, this does seem like it'd be better served by, well, finding a way to make 3.0 work more like other, more customizable systems, rather then just discussing the weakness of DnD's version of it.

Do you know how many systems would have to go to make it even remotely as flexible as any other generic system? Class/level is not as flexible as D&D fans tend to think it is, especially since progression is based on level, and that's only the start.

Also, there's a typo in one of the URLs in your signature.

[Cuddly]

Nebo, he has a point when you consider that some people don't have encyclopedic knowledge of DnD and its books. And that's not even discussing access. DnD simply isn't /that/ customizable just because I can buy book X that gives me obscure Feat Y. GURPS is customizable because I can /easily/ build any ability I want.

OTOH, this does seem like it'd be better served by, well, finding a way to make 3.0 work more like other, more customizable systems, rather then just discussing the weakness of DnD's version of it.

How else are they going to get you to buy a 30 dollar book, if core has it all?

[Cainen]

How else are they going to get you to buy a 30 dollar book, if core has it all?

Exceptional fluff, ala GURPS.

[SofS]

Nebo, he has a point when you consider that some people don't have encyclopedic knowledge of DnD and its books. And that's not even discussing access. DnD simply isn't /that/ customizable just because I can buy book X that gives me obscure Feat Y. GURPS is customizable because I can /easily/ build any ability I want.

OTOH, this does seem like it'd be better served by, well, finding a way to make 3.0 work more like other, more customizable systems, rather then just discussing the weakness of DnD's version of it.

I think the important part is to have consistency about character resources and how they affect play. Take the general idea of doing more damage on a hit in melee. In 3.5, there is precedence for gaining this extra damage through attack cost (Power Attack), AC cost (that Shock Trooper ability, Rage, other feats), feat opportunity cost (Power Attack again, Weapon Specialization, etc.), action cost (Overpowering Strike, Karmic Strike), and wealth cost (weapon enchantments). Spells are similar, usually requiring feats and spell levels to power up (and sometimes time, in the case of sorcerers) in addition to the ubiquitous power-through-weath approach. A character has a bunch of resources, some related to level and some not, and they're all offered as currency to fuel abilities in a seemingly haphazard fashion.

I think a more elegant and customizable 3.5 would be one where these relationships were clarified and expanded. I can imagine a 3.x-based system where a character had an array of basic actions and could improve on them by spending related resources in a fairly logical fashion. I've been working on using base attack bonus as the resource for difficult moves in combat for an upcoming game, but it's a bit like a bucket under a drip. I still think the idea is more sound than the haphazard application of feats (which can allow you to do anything from "nothing" to "three or four things" depending on what year it is) or using spells for everything (archery rangers really needed all of those new spells).

[warmachine]

I regard this entire thread as pointless. Of course D&D doesn't let you customize beyond the feats and spells listed in books: it makes no attempt to aid design of anything else. This is obvious from its design. What the OP is asking is clearly beyond D&D's design limitation. If you want to do that, D&D is the wrong system. Aren't we just stating the bleeding obvious?

I like D&D overall as it does what tries to do well: out-of-the box, high magic, action-oriented, fantasy RPG. Spellcasters own the place at very high levels but I never play that level anyway. Rather, my criticism of D&D is the expansions they issue for further customization. Abusive, bizarre combinations from different books can be forgiven somewhat but some things are just unbalanced by themselves. Why didn't the designer of Radiant Servant of Pelor see the brokenness just by looking at it, let alone the editors? My DM simply bans half the feats out there (including a few core) just for game balance.

This is the failure of D&D: the expansions are supposed to be play-off-the-shelf but they're too untrustworthy to do that. I want to knock up a flambouyant, metamagic, 'Master of the Fireball' sorcercer around Arcane Thesis and metamagic feats but I don't want to have it banned because I'm p0wning the encounters. The point of an off-the-shelf product is that the time spent conceiving it and making it balanced has been done for me and the DM. Yet the DM and I have to spend time checking for brokenness. This is the kind of stupid **** you expect from Mongoose Publishing.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Nebo, like others said, you missed my point. What I meant was that the system doesn't support my concept, forcing ME to do the work without any idea of how to do it. Like you said, there's overpowering strike. But overpowering strike is much weaker than a full attack. That does not fit my concept, that a single precise attack can be as mighty as many wild hits (In other words, that the british way of shooting can be as good as the american one, AKA shoot a bajillion bullets and hope you hit).

And mentioning Death attack is an autolose. So, now, if I want my concept to be mechanically represented, I have to be an assasin or an exalted jerkass via fist of raziel? Great, I got ONE bit of ym concept, at the cost of losing far more customizability in many other aspects. I din't win anything, I actually lost part of my freedom.

Warmachine, indeed. D&D doesn't do that, we all know it. The reason I posted this is because I found it interesting that D&D prides itself as a niche based system, when in truth it tends to yield genericness and an inability to represent uniqueness.