A lot of it depends on how well you want to use archetypes. Its wonderful to use classes in fantasy games, because everyone knows what kind of characters you have in fantasy - the mighty warrior, the wise wizard, the crafty rogue, etc. Its not required, it just works well. Its also why class-systems have not been great hits outside the genre (yes, there are exception).
It is. There are some disgustingly awful shuriken fighter builds out there.
Wow. Not having played AD&D since the first edition (back when you had to distinguish AD&D from that other game that came in the box) these advances are like bizarre stacked on top of bizarre. It makes me remember how many of the rules our group ended up ignoring outright for the sake of a smooth game. (Segments? Pah!)
Anyway, one question: you all seem to be using “d20” to mean something other than a simple 20-sider. Can anyone explain?
d230 is the name for the system that 3.0 (and 3.5) use. It’s a core set of rules, based around the six ability scores, the three saving throws, the skills, and feats system, essentially. WoTC said that pretty much ANY company can make a game/campaign world for the d20 system. i assume there are licensing fees involved, but it allows several small companies that don’t have the resources/money to make their own new game to introduce their own world/game to players that will already be familiar with the rules. The current Star Wars roleplaying game used the d20 system. (As does the current Star Wars video game RPG, Knights of the Old Republic.) I must say, that the d20 system works PERFECTLY for video game RPG’s. Just paly KOTOR or Neverwinter Nights and you’ll know what I mean. In 2nd edition video games, certain thigns were always left out, and sometimes replaced by original D&D or 1st edition rules (the dozens of old Forgotten Realms games come to mind.) A quick example is skills. In d20, the skill system is implemented nicely in the video games, but in the 2nd edition games, they didn’t even bother to try and put the clunky proficiency system into them.
No license fee. There are two versions - the d20 Trademark STL requires companies to adhere to certain WotC-dictated standards (no bare breasts, etc.) - but there’s a lighter version, the OGL, that basically allows you to do whatever you want, except the core requirement - you can’t present character creation rules such that the D&D Player’s Handbook is not required, essentially.
And smiling bandit - The Shuriken got very quickly errated after 3.0 came out - not only are they not disgusting, they’re downright pathetic these days.
:smack:
eliminate the 3 in the first use of d20.
I also meant to say something regarding prestiege classes, and along those lines, templates.
It’s silly to assume that everyone who ever trained as a fighter, rogue, paladin, etc… ahs the exact same stats. Granted, the skills and feats do allow for a wide range of custimization, but it also seems that most classes have a good set that pretty much everyone in that class takes. Especially fighters and wizards, since they get bonus feats that have to be from a certain list of feats. Everyone also knows the good combinations of feats, so all your fighters, by X level, have whirlwind attack and great cleave.
I mean, think about it logically. Would a knight trained by Charlemagne have the same set of skills, combat techniques, and knowledge of weapons as a knight trained by King Arthur? No, probably not. Likewise, a Merlin type magician would probably have different skills (NOT just different spells) than a Tim type magician, or a David Blain type magician.
Granted, I do think they’re are too many of them, which is why it’s up to the DM to adjucate proply which ones should and shouldn’t be used. And personally, the ones presented in the DM’s manual are some of the worst. Two of them require a palyer to be evil, and since most campaigns are centered around good PC’s, they are off limits. The LoremasteR? Yeah, THAT’S useful…Songblade? I’m not an elf, so that’s out…what am I left with? I don’t remember, but I’m sure they’re crap.
Basicaly, it’s a good way to customize a character beyond skills and feast, and CAN be used in a good way.
The d20 system is the basis of D&D 3.X, as well as WotC’s current Star Wars game, and d20 Modern/Future - and there are d20 versions of Call of Cthulu and Legend of the 5 Rings/Rokugan. Although I think L5R’s old system is still supported, too. I don’t know about CoC.
The Open Gaming Licence allows anyone can make products compatable with the d20 system, as long as they stick within the OGL rules. (IIRC, there’s some screwy extra stuff concerning whether you can use the actual d20 logo, added a year or two ago, thanks to an iffy 3rd party book.)
Of course, a monk/druid would have a pretty restricted alignment (only lawful neutral), and you’d want an appropriate backstory, so it’d be a bit of a roleplaying challenge.
But my favorite multiclass (which I unfortunately never got a chance to try, and they “fixed” it in 3.5) is the rogue minstrel. That’s one level of bard, perhaps a level or two of sorcerer, and all the rest in rogue. In 3.0, the bard’s special abilities did not depend on his bard level, but on his rank in the Perform skill. Which is also a class skill for rogues. So with only one level of bard, you get most of the advantages of a bard and of a rogue. And it could be a lot of fun when the travelling minstrel the party picked up is all of a sudden opening locks and disarming traps.
D20 games include D&D 3, D&D 3.5, WotC’s Star Wars, d20 Modern/Future, d20 Call of Cthulhu, d20 L5R - yes, I believe both older systems are supported. I believe there’s a d20 Deadlands. There are d20 versions of White Wolf’s Aberrant line. There’s a d20 Conan RPG. There’s Silver Age Sentinels, a fine Superhero d20 RPG, and Mutants and Masterminds, likewise. And there’s the best of the third-party d20 RPGs : Spycraft. And more.
Did that, more or less. Took small amounts of Bard and Fighter levels, and spent most of my effort in Rogue. I was a swashbuckler with minor spell abilities, could use the Bardic powers at full force, and was a tumbling, lockpicking machine.
I started playing D&D with 3.0 and now my group is playing 3.5. There are some things we ignore, like the paladin’s mount has to be summoned every day? WTF? and some things we embrace, like the elimination of partial actions.
One of our group prefers the sheer complexity and impenetrability of second edition, but luckily, we veto him again and again. He likes the fact that you have to look up tables for attacks, etc.
As for laptops, they’re not really necessary for regular play, neither are miniatures. One of our players keeps a journal in his character’s voice to keep us on track and so we don’t forget some important thing that will come into play eight levels later. His character always seems to be the hero of the group in his log, though. 
If your low level fighter swings with one attack at a goblin, you roll a d20, add the result (assuming it’s not a 1 or 20) to your bonuses (magic, strength modifier, etc) and if your number is higher than the goblin’s armor bonus, you hit. Roll damage with whichever dice are called for and you’re done. It’s really rather simple.
We’re doing a rotating DM thing right now, and it’s our longest lasting campaign yet. Every week, a new person takes over the story. It’s taken us some places we’ve never been, and we’re building a world week by week. No one gets tired of DMing and not getting to play, and we’ve restricted ourselves to the rules in the core books. Anything from supplemental books has to be okayed by the group as a whole. I’m going to take a prestige class from the Complete Divine, but we vetoed a class from the Book of Vile Darkness.
The lack of an appropriate backstory is where you get into the munchkinosity :D.
But like I said, the term is more of a general insult than a precise bit of jargon.
Daniel
Actually, most of the campaigns I’ve seen have had the monk class be almost a subclass of cleric–they’re temple warriors, raised and trained to defend the church. Having a monk-druid makes a certain amount of sense.
Now, the great bit of munchkinism I’ve seen is, providing the DM allows it, taking a level of paladin so you get bonuses on saves & immunity to fear, plus all the weapon & armor proficiencies, then switch to whatever class you want (still have to be LG, though, anywhere but NeverWinter Nights… for some reason you get to keep your Paladin abilities of you change class and then your alignment changes).
As I recall, the paladin class used to require a pretty high charisma score. Has that changed?
Ability score requirements for classes? Gone! Bam!
Though a Wizard with an Intelligence of less than 10 can’t cast spells, he could still be a Wizard…
Yep. They got rid of all the ability score requirements for the basic classes, and instead made it so most class abilities are dependent on attributes. A paladin could have a charisma of 3, but his saving throw bonuses, healing, smite evil, and turn undead abilities will all suffer drastically. Likewise, there’s absolutely nothing in the rules preventing you from having a wizard with an Int of less than 10, provided you don’t mind not being able to cast any spells (to cast a wizard spell, you need to have an Int equal to the spell level plus ten. Clerics, rangers, and paladins use their Wis scores for spellcasting, and bards and sorcerers use their Charisma.)
Oh, yeah, they also have sorcerers now, as a distinct magic using class seperate from wizards. They don’t need to memorize spells ahead of time, and can cast more spells per day, but they take longer to get higher-level spells, and can’t use metamagic feats as easily.
Interesting. What about ability score requirements for races?
None. They also introduced a system whereby you can play a member of a more powerful race, provided you start as a lower level character; so, for example, you could play an ogre fighter. You’d be (making the numbers up, here, so nobody yell at me) a 1st level fighter with an Ogre’s stats, alongside all the normal races, who are all 5th or 6th level characters.
Gone! Bam!
Hey, don’t knock the arcane trickster. My gnome could do a 10d6 shocking grasp touch attack.
And I’ve always like the duelist, though it isn’t one of the more munchy ones.
Just for the record, those rules had been there since 1st Edition. (In fact, 1st Edition was worse: only non-player characters were allowed to be dwarven clerics, for example.)