John Kim wrote:
>
>
> In D&D3, a lot of the capabilities are feats or class-based
> special abilities which have their own rules. The basic RQ mechanics
> are slightly more involved, but once you learn them the whole system
> follows. D&D3 has a lot more special-case rules.
>
I have to disagree. The difference is front-loading versus in-play.
That is, I might have a Masterwork Dagger, Weapon Focus, and improved
critical with dagger -- all of which modify my base attack and damage.
But the total bonuses remain the same, round after round. The only
number which changes is my opponent's AC.
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-
> >
> > Character creation and advancement can be as simple or complicated
> > as you want to make it (a character that remains single classed and
> > focussed on a few skills advances in a VERY simple fashion).
>
> Even at its simplest, advancement in D&D3 is still more
> complicated than it is in RQ. Ability bonus every 4 levels, Feat
> every 3 levels, look up on the chart for your special abilities,
> spend N+Int bonus skill points -- but not above the maximum of
> 3+Level or (3+Level)/2 depending on whether it is a class skill or
> not. Then add in synergy bonuses if you pass a threshold. etc.
>
As opposed to "What the hell do I need to roll under in order to mark
this skill as one which might advance?" in Runequest?
The most common complaint about D&D, even in 3e, is that advancement is
TOO SIMPLISTIC -- go up a level, everything goes up. It's kind of hard
hearing it's more complex than the far more finely-grained RQ/BRP
system.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
