Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hlethvagi 07-22-07, 01:33 AM	Wow! I was recently looking through my old 2.0 D&D books, and now I'm thinking I should degrade my current game from 3.5 back to 2.0. Everything in 2.0 is simple and easy to understand. You also don't have too great a choice to make as to what character to play. Roll you dice and see what you can be. Not roll your dice and pick through the myriad books of races and classes. Nope, just roll some dice and see what you can be for the rest of your adventuring career. No builds! I also really like the MM with the pull out pages. What an amazing innovation. It's a shame they quit doing those that way. The MM IV was terrible and I'm not looking forward to V. With the 2.0 version just buy the packs of monsters you want, not only what they'll give you. The DMG is the only one I could care less about. The new books are much more informative and I like the new art style a little better. I also really loved the boxed mega adventures. The new edition doesn't support those kinds of things, and I think that sux. The new Undermountain book is cool for what it is, but the original boxes blow it out of the water in scope and scale. Boxes like Night Below, and Return to the Tomb of Horrors were truly awesome to behold. The sheer amount of information with handouts maps and the adventure books themselves cannot be matched today, and I think that blows. Anyway, I don't know what my players will think about the proposed regression, but I hope they are receptive. Just my thoughts. Hlethvagi
shadzar 07-22-07, 01:42 AM	since you mention MM with pull out pages i will assume you mean AD&D 2nd edtion and the Monstrous Manual Compendiums. i love the MMC, but it seems many people dont for some reason. i always found it easier to carry only what monsters you needed rather than lug around many books. the DMG is "less informative" because it is more open for the DM to make decisions, rather than the new books having the DM as just a random number generator. good luck converting your players.
Millenia 07-22-07, 02:02 AM	Everything in 2.0 is simple and easy to understand. I disagree there. I can't even figure out THAC0.
Hlethvagi 07-22-07, 02:05 AM	Can't figure out THAC0? Roll a d20 subtract result from THAC0 equals the AC hit. Simple Hlethvagi
Zousha_Omenohu 07-22-07, 02:05 AM	I agree. I've only known 3rd Edition and beyond, and when I tried out Baldur's Gate II, which uses 2nd edition rules, I could barely understand anything. I don't plan on playing the game for a while for this very reason. Hell, I don't even know what THAC0 means!
AAB 07-22-07, 02:07 AM	I agree. I've only known 3rd Edition and beyond, and when I tried out Baldur's Gate II, which uses 2nd edition rules, I could barely understand anything. I don't plan on playing the game for a while for this very reason. Hell, I don't even know what THAC0 means! To Hit Armor Class 0 (zero), I believe.
Stormonu 07-22-07, 02:19 AM	Anyway, I don't know what my players will think about the proposed regression, but I hope they are receptive. Personally, I'd run the other way. 2E was good for when it was out, but I can't fanthom going back to it - and there is no way in hades I'll ever play 1E again. Basic D&D I've considered pulling out and playing just for the hell of it, though - but not on a regular basis. I don't agree 2E was simpler. There were more gray areas not covered by the rules, but it wasn't simpler. It relied more on the DM being able to run the game by his gut than the rules. And the atrocity that was the proficiency system....ugh. As to the removable-page MM's; get all 13 - or even just the original 3 and see if you can alphabetize them. You can't, because some of the creatures on the back side of a page will be out of order if you do. They were supposed to fix that way back when, but they never did. And if you can't alphabetize the whole thing, I'd rather just have them in bound books so the pages don't eventually tear.
metatheurgist 07-22-07, 02:41 AM	since you mention MM with pull out pages i will assume you mean AD&D 2nd edtion and the Monstrous Manual Compendiums. i love the MMC, but it seems many people dont for some reason. i always found it easier to carry only what monsters you needed rather than lug around many books. The pull out pages is a good idea, unfortunately they stuffed it up. They had pages like: one side, Unicorn, next side Vampire. If they created a new creature that fit between the 2 monsters, then your neat alphabetisation just got screwed. As much as I like 2.0, 3.5 is a huge improvement. Options are a good thing. In 2.0 a fighter was a guy in platemail with a longsword. There was no reason to be anything else. In 3.5 you're actually rewarded for thinking up different concepts of fighter.
Elana 07-22-07, 04:49 AM	... Everything in 2.0 is simple and easy to understand. You also don't have too great a choice to make as to what character to play. Roll you dice and see what you can be. Not roll your dice and pick through the myriad books of races and classes.... Right. Instead of goint through a myriad of books to select a class, you went through a myriad of books to select the kit you wanted to use. I could come with the exact oposite argument to say that 3.5 is much simpler. I just only use 3.5 core and compare it to AD&D 2nd Ed with all splatbooks ever released.
shadzar 07-22-07, 07:39 AM	i never recall hearing the MMC was supposed to be fully alphabatized? granted it ilicits the possibility with certain aspect like being able to remove pages, but they did print and release the appendices based on campaing settings. and exactly what prvented people from photocopy the pages that are out of order and put them in order. the greatest thing is being able to pull monsters and only carry what you need. to prevent them form tearing you could get hole reinforcers, or sheet protectors. or heaven forbid laminate the ones you would use most. the only difference in the new MM volumes is the pages can't be removed so you have to carry the whole book. and if i recall the MMCs gave seperators with each appendix. that way you could quickly find the section the monster belongs alphabetically in by finding the proper seperator page when you needed to return one back to the binders. speaking of the missing ecology wheeever i read that recently about the new MMs and the way monsters aren't one per page on them. it makes me think how 3,x editions don't really care about the little things like details about creatures and places, but more about statistics and dice rolling. next... that myriad of books to select kits were optional and not always allowed. i am not sure with 3.x and their prestige classes and all where this info can be found, but 2e didn't require getting that much into it. the player could, with the DM; develop the character he wanted rather than let the book tell them both how the character should be played. In 2.0 a fighter was a guy in platemail with a longsword. There was no reason to be anything else. WHAT? you must be kiding me! the only reason to be just a fighter in platemail with a longsword is because you want the best AC, and the d12 for damage. while instead you could choose many other things and learn to roleplay instead of rollplaying. this is why i so miss my first gaming group. we played without character sheets and the DM took care of all the stats and modifiers. that way we were able to play how we wanted and no one even thought about metagaming. people are so intent on winning like in Magic:the Addiction that they forget D&D isn't about winning, but playing for fun instead.
ArcTan 07-22-07, 07:49 AM	Personally, I'd run the other way. 2E was good for when it was out, but I can't fanthom going back to it - and there is no way in hades I'll ever play 1E again. Basic D&D I've considered pulling out and playing just for the hell of it, though - but not on a regular basis. I don't agree 2E was simpler. There were more gray areas not covered by the rules, but it wasn't simpler. It relied more on the DM being able to run the game by his gut than the rules. And the atrocity that was the proficiency system....ugh. People often seem to confuse "fewer rules" than "simpler rules". That's often because they "trust their gut" when it comes to interpreting huge, vast swathes of gray areas and imponderables in the rules. The thing is that the people who say this often seem to be far more confident in their guts than I am in my own, and *definitely* than I am in theirs (since the genius rulings they come up with to fill gaps in things like the 2e ruleset seem to me to be more often than not arbitrary, stupid and unfair -- this was why D&D was a hellish experience for me in high school).
mshea 07-22-07, 08:39 AM	I find 3.5 to have a much simpler set of base rules but they did make a few things more complicated than they had to. Switching from 2.0 to 3.5 was a lot easier for me than originally learning 2.0. The base mechanic of rolling 1d20, adding modifiers, and matching against a DC is so easy and so versatile. There was nothing like that in 2nd.
aotrscommander 07-22-07, 08:48 AM	WHAT? you must be kiding me! the only reason to be just a fighter in platemail with a longsword is because you want the best AC, and the d12 for damage. while instead you could choose many other things and learn to roleplay instead of rollplaying. this is why i so miss my first gaming group. we played without character sheets and the DM took care of all the stats and modifiers. that way we were able to play how we wanted and no one even thought about metagaming. people are so intent on winning like in Magic:the Addiction that they forget D&D isn't about winning, but playing for fun instead. In core AD&D there were no options for having a different fighting style. Good luck, for example, trying to play an unarmed fighter. Because equipment was the only balancing factor (apart maybe from ability scores and their effect was vastly less than now) if you wanted to play a leather-clad fighter guy with a rapier (for example) you were pretty much shafted (unless you played a thief). The nonweapon proficiencies differentiated you from the guy next to you; but nonweapon proficencies were almost a purely flavour aside. In actual combat, with your option limited to making attacks, choosing a weird weapon/armour combination for your class put you at a disadvantage. While weapon choice varies, I have not ever seen a AD&D fighter in play or in module, not wearing the heaviest armour he could afford. You are also perilously close to invoking a certain off-used phrase relating to weather erroneousness; making effective characters and being able to roleplay are two entirely different and unrelated attributes. Making characters that are mechanically poor is not related to roleplaying ability or vise versa. People often seem to confuse "fewer rules" than "simpler rules". That's often because they "trust their gut" when it comes to interpreting huge, vast swathes of gray areas and imponderables in the rules. Exactly. For example, while often in wargames the better sets of rules are simpler (because they use systems whereby you can create a complex result from simple rules) a quick glance at many 'simple' rulesets reveals them in fact, to be crap. Really good rules strike a balance between complexity and simplicity. Personally, I think 3.5 does that nicely for the level of abstraction I want in an RPG. (Rolemaster, my number two system is more complicated by has the primary advantage of critical hits!!) AD&D did not. I did use it on occasion as it had fewer rules than Rolemaster and quicker (but soo not better) to run/play1 The thing is that the people who say this often seem to be far more confident in their guts than I am in my own, and *definitely* than I am in theirs (since the genius rulings they come up with to fill gaps in things like the 2e ruleset seem to me to be more often than not arbitrary, stupid and unfair -- this was why D&D was a hellish experience for me in high school). I agree. I absolutely hate having to be arbitary. What I like most about D&D is that it covers a lot of things that before, I more-or-less had to play by ear (trip, grappling, what happens when you're in melee with a guy with a bow etc). Because it has a nice, extensive list of DCs for the skills, it gives me a far better idea of what to suggest fo a DC fro something odd than say, the Terrain Trade Authority RPG's Omni system (which while D20, merely has four categories of difficulty without much explanation which a Complex task actually is). 1Interesting side point; people say Rolemaster is more complex to play. It isn't. It's more complex to run, (maybe to generate characters) since the DM, instead of having a set DC, looks everything up on one of Rolemaster's innumerable tables. But, because instead of rolling a D20 and adding your skill (in single to low double digits), you roll a D100 and add your skill (in double to triple digits) it unsettles folk - because the numbers are bigger! Heck, you even make a roll from damage (Dx in D&D, D100 for the crits in Rolemaster.) You could move D20 to D100 by muliplying all the bonuses by 5 with no other changes and people would say you'd made it more complex. Go figure.
Anaxander 07-22-07, 09:11 AM	that myriad of books to select kits were optional and not always allowed. i am not sure with 3.x and their prestige classes and all where this info can be found, but 2e didn't require getting that much into it. the player could, with the DM; develop the character he wanted rather than let the book tell them both how the character should be played. To play D&D 3.5 a player only needs one book: the PHB. To play D&D 3.5 a DM only needs three books: the PHB, the DMG and the MM. The rest is optional. Rules of 3.5? Roll a d20. Add relevant modifiers. Higher is always better. Really, how can this be NOT simple. In which way does 3rd edition restrict your roleplaying? By giving you more mechanical options to flesh out your character? I think a lot of people yearn for 'the feel' of former editions not because these editions were better than the current rule system, but because these editions introduced them to D&D and still have that nostalgic aura of the first campaigns, the first characters, etc.
Rustmonster 07-22-07, 09:41 AM	Everything in 2.0 is simple and easy to understand. You also don't have too great a choice to make as to what character to play. Roll you dice and see what you can be. Not roll your dice and pick through the myriad books of races and classes. Nope, just roll some dice and see what you can be for the rest of your adventuring career. No builds! Wow, that sounds alot like roleplaying. Player: "I want to be a powerful wizard!" DM: "Oh, I'm sorry, you rolled up a dwarf."
Milennia 07-22-07, 09:43 AM	I disagree there. I can't even figure out THAC0. Hey, someone stole my name! Or I stole yours... But on topic, there are some things that were better in 2nd ed. Everything could be customized for example, where you were stuck with standards in 3rd. I also remember 2nd ed being played by a different audience. It did not attract many powergamers, probably because the game did not lend itself to that style of play. Or maybe I just had luck :P
shadzar 07-22-07, 09:45 AM	The base mechanic of rolling 1d20, adding modifiers, and matching against a DC is so easy and so versatile. There was nothing like that in 2nd. actually evertything was like that in 2nd. you roll a dice and compare it to see if you pass or fail on the roll. its just the way the math is done that people see as better with only adding number and not having to subtract at all... In which way does 3rd edition restrict your roleplaying? with having to sotp and calculate 4000 things in order to do anything. because of said above rollign versus specific DCs. the players want to meta game more since they have more numbers to crunch. as i will say about the aobve, both editions would be little to no difference if the DM controlled a lot more information than the books allowed. the players don't really need all the info that forces them into the mindset of meta gaming. why take the longsword? because it does the most damage. why take magic missile? because it always hits. these aren't roleplaying, they are rollplaying. preparing for things in advanced based on better chances to a die roll. also i don't think like WotC or many others. allowing more people to understand the rules seems to allow a lot of bad people into games that bring down the fun for other players. not because they aren't smart enough to subtract negative numebrs (THAC0 method), but they do things like cut up and act silly rather than play the game. and this isn't meaning younger players, but also includes oled players that haven't learned to grow up yet. but that is a whole other barrel of pickled fish. it doesn't really have to do with a "feel" of older edition, as in part the nature of knowing it better after 20+ years of use, and the expenditure to purchase the newer editions, but also the control DMs had. many people who even prefer 3.x editions i have heard from seem to think that they possess a problem with players thinking the books have the final say in the game. and this is how the books present it also. making it harder for DMs to rule certain ways on certain things in their worlds, vs the printed material. it existed in all editions, by seems more prevelant(sp) or talked about with 3.x. also that thing can be seen on these forums in great numebrs where player/DM disputes come about because the players think the books are end all be all rules, rather than what my signature has them say. to quote myself from a few years ago...."3.x editions seem to breed rules-lawyers rather than RPG players." and that makes it difficult for players and DMs alike when arguements break out over the rules. :(
BlackHalfDragon 07-22-07, 09:46 AM	i had the 2nd ed PHB and DMG, i used stats from baldurs gate or else made up my own ACs and stuff. it work quite well. That said i prefer in a way the "everything is covered" approach of 3.x and they got rid of the rediculous proficiencies... hmm should i take "engineer" or "glaive gusarime ?" (also a joke about 50 long hanled pole axey pointy stabby things that basically all do the same thing !!!)
shadzar 07-22-07, 09:53 AM	i had the 2nd ed PHB and DMG, i used stats from baldurs gate or else made up my own ACs and stuff. it work quite well. That said i prefer in a way the "everything is covered" approach of 3.x and they got rid of the rediculous proficiencies... hmm should i take "engineer" or "glaive gusarime ?" (also a joke about 50 long hanled pole axey pointy stabby things that basically all do the same thing !!!) the proficiences were easy to handle. just ignore the numebrs and use backgrounds to figure out what a character would have. and anything a character wants to do is based on a d20 roll if they have a reason why they would know how to do it. ie you don't take fire-building, but are a ranger. hmm why would a ranger take firebuilding? cause he cooked the food he caught so it makes since he could build a small fire. TADA. roll a dice and get a 50% chance (10 and under, or 11 and over) on a d20 to see if you succeed. same for the skills like armorer, etc. the only thing that made sense to have a number attached to and allotments for was weapon proficiencies. likewise the feats and skill in 3.x are as bad an idea. why can only barbarians rage? is it an inherited trait? if so then how can so many races be barbarians.... if it is a learned skill, then why cant other fighters learn it? this could go for all editions. common sense removed for "game balance" and pre-defined rules. :(
ArcTan 07-22-07, 10:04 AM	also i don't think like WotC or many others. allowing more people to understand the rules seems to allow a lot of bad people into games that bring down the fun for other players. not because they aren't smart enough to subtract negative numebrs (THAC0 method), but they do things like cut up and act silly rather than play the game. and this isn't meaning younger players, but also includes oled players that haven't learned to grow up yet. You know, I've heard a lot of half-baked defenses of the byzantine and impossible-to-keep-track-of-so-everything-was-a-house-rule structure of D&D 2e in my time. But this one -- basically, "The rules have to be hard to understand so you have to be dependent on the DM so DMs can form this elite caste that can prevent anyone from learning to play D&D who doesn't deserve to 'cause they're not cool enough"... this comes close to one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.
ArcTan 07-22-07, 10:09 AM	I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I remain aghast that all the rules-hating make-it-up-as-we-go players and DMs still think that it was worth their money and time to pay TSR for the privilege of buying rulebooks (often *very expensive* rulebooks) and then ignoring them and making up their own rules. I don't mind making up stories as I go along. I think it's a lot of fun. I also don't see why I have to give forty bucks to a company to give me permission to do so. If I give money to a game designer it's because I *want* him to give me rules that work that I can use. This alternative attitude is just bizarre and insane. "I like our old car better. Half the time it didn't work, so instead we walked and got decent exercise. Now *that* was a car worth spending money on, not like these new cars that work all the time so you have to drive them instead of walking."
Kursk 07-22-07, 10:46 AM	the DMG is "less informative" because it is more open for the DM to make decisions, rather than the new books having the DM as just a random number generator. 1st & 2nd Ed was like that. It was harder to DM back then. You had to be very creative and think on your feat. Most 3.X DMs I see now could never pull it off. So better to stick to 3.5 so a broader spectrum of people can play.
shadzar 07-22-07, 11:13 AM	But this one -- basically, "The rules have to be hard to understand so you have to be dependent on the DM so DMs can form this elite caste that can prevent anyone from learning to play D&D who doesn't deserve to 'cause they're not cool enough"... this comes close to one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. no the point was rather everyone shouldn't be playing the game. so making easier for people with no imagination to understand only hinders the game. those people who didn't understand the older rules for lack on wanting or caring aobut learning them because "they were too hard" and the same can be said for 3.x. those people that want to play, but not learn how to play. now it is easier for all to learn how to play, so you end up with more problematic players in games. not that it should only be for people with 4.0 GPAs. 1st & 2nd Ed was like that. It was harder to DM back then. You had to be very creative and think on your feet. Most 3.X DMs I see now could never pull it off. So better to stick to 3.5 so a broader spectrum of people can play. but a DM must be able to think on his/her feet. you can't plan for everything a player will do. still more does not mean better gameplay. it jsut means you have more of all types of players. both good, yes, and bad players have become more numerous. and this is not helpful for DMs or players when the "bad" ones show up, or the vast new playstyles clash and impede the gameplay. why not simplify the rules of chess so children can play it... oh wait they do play it and it isn't an easy game to learn, and hess less actual rules than D&D.
ArcTan 07-22-07, 11:26 AM	no the point was rather everyone shouldn't be playing the game. so making easier for people with no imagination to understand only hinders the game. those people who didn't understand the older rules for lack on wanting or caring aobut learning them because "they were too hard" and the same can be said for 3.x. those people that want to play, but not learn how to play. now it is easier for all to learn how to play, so you end up with more problematic players in games. not that it should only be for people with 4.0 GPAs. Being able or willing to work around a crappy ruleset has nothing to do with having a good imagination. It isn't even really the same thing as being good at making houserules on the fly. Frequently the most firm, strident DM gets respect for being a "good" DM even if being firm and strident and making rulings *quickly* means making *bad* rulings that aren't fair. That's why it's *good* for a ruleset to depend on stuff worked out slowly through playtesting by professional game designers rather than things made up on the spot by your friend Bernie whom you all elected DM because he has a basement you can play in and he hates paying for pizza. But making up houserules on the fly and doing so well is still not the same as having a "good imagination". What the steep learning curve actually does is push out anyone who has a "good imagination" or other positive qualities (fun to be around, quick-witted and funny, has money for pizza, etc.) who's simply not good at dealing with huge and incomprehensible rulesets. I don't think 3e has solved the learning-curve problem. I think it's made it *better*, though, by ensuring it's at least one learning curve and not a separate learning curve for each individual Bernie-in-the-basement. I don't really want to argue this based on specific cases, because you really seem to be going entirely off of your own anecdotal experience here. (The people I've played 3.5 D&D with are vastly more intellectual than the creepy smelly otaku who made up my high school D&D group. Including their vaunted "good DM", who satisfied every nasty stereotype about D&D DMs that's ever existed.) but a DM must be able to think on his/her feet. you can't plan for everything a player will do. still more does not mean better gameplay. it jsut means you have more of all types of players. both good, yes, and bad players have become more numerous. and this is not helpful for DMs or players when the "bad" ones show up, or the vast new playstyles clash and impede the gameplay. ...And out comes the whole "The hobby was better when it was small!" crap. It's not the game company's job to do the work of socially sorting your peer group for you. If you can't handle that yourself without using a friggin' *game system* as your cultural shibboleth, whatever. This is the kind of crap that gives D&D players a bad name. why not simplify the rules of chess so children can play it... oh wait they do play it and it isn't an easy game to learn, and hess less actual rules than D&D. If there were things that were fun about chess that didn't have to do with the strategy of playing chess, then there'd be more of an argument for simplifying the strategy.
Kursk 07-22-07, 11:32 AM	(The people I've played 3.5 D&D with are vastly more intellectual than the creepy smelly otaku who made up my high school D&D group. Including their vaunted "good DM", who satisfied every nasty stereotype about D&D DMs that's ever existed.) 30 some years ago most of the people playing in my area were professionals in the scientific realm, science majors or people in the top of their high school class. When were you in high school?
shadzar 07-22-07, 11:40 AM	...And out comes the whole "The hobby was better when it was small!" crap. i'm all for expanding the player base, so long as those players don't ruin the game for others. as i said bad players come in all editions, but they seem to be more easily to find since the days of 3.x. maybe because the powergming/metagaming/rules lawyering attitudes that new player learning on their own have come out of the woodwork. or just the fact that so many more people play that its hard to teach all the new players at the same time. i don't mind new players or editions, so long as they both add to the game with LESS adding of bad players. :P
CCS 07-22-07, 02:20 PM	While you're pondering running a straight 2e game, consider this; With a bit of work, no more than you'd already invest by running a 3.5 game, you can use the pieces you like best out of every edition to craft a truely superior game. So you CAN have a 2e game with favorite features from 3x * I agree with the complaints about the loose-leaf Monterous Compendium format. Fortunately it's not that hard to fix with current copy/scan tech (wasn't hard then either btw). 3 steps; 1) just "copy the back side of the page, 2) insert all pages in 3 hole binder sleeves (you don't really think I'd have trusted those sheets NOT to rip did you?) 3) insert a solid coloured sheet into each sleeve to cover up the "back" Now you can order your binders how ever you choose.... :)
Alex_P 07-22-07, 02:29 PM	AD&D, particularly the more readily available 2e version, isn't very "simple." It's less "crunchy" in some ways and a lot of the bits are less mechanically-interdependent than in 3e, but it's still got a lot of stuff to read and keep track of. (Maybe it's easier to just BS decisions on the spot when you lose track of a rule, but you might as well just play a dictatorially-GMed freeform game if that's all you're doing anyway.) If you want simple, pick up a game that fits into a 100-page book. Or, preferably, one that fits into a 100-page booklet. There are some old-timey TSR games like that. Something like the old Basic/Expert/&c. D&D or ZeFRS (http://www.midcoast.com/~ricekrwc/zefrs/) might fit the bill. They're a bit more focused, so make sure you actually like the thing they try to do. There are some new-wavey games like that, too -- quite a lot of them, actually, catering to a variety of game types and playstyles. I can see some potential reasons to run 2e, but "simplicity" definitely doesn't go on that list. (Well, okay, there's really just one reason: habit.) -- Alex
Alex_P 07-22-07, 02:41 PM	1st & 2nd Ed was like that. It was harder to DM back then. You had to be very creative and think on your feat. Most 3.X DMs I see now could never pull it off. So better to stick to 3.5 so a broader spectrum of people can play.The easiest-to-GM game I've ever seen is also one of the most "creative". It gives the GM ("producer") a very specific role and some pretty straightforward guidance, and then tells her to play it to the hilt. The GM frames scenes, creates adversity, and plays supporting characters; neither making up rules nor memorizing them figure in the job description. Making up rules all the time is just a pointless distraction that forces you to take time and energy away from doing things that are both "creative" and actually worthwhile -- playing NPCs, developing the setting, contributing to the shared storyline, guiding novice players, whatever. Lots of time spent adjudicating rules does that, too. And anything that wastes the GM's time is also wasting the whole group's time. From over here, it really looks like y'all are just arguing about which of two sucky approaches sucks less. Err, they both rather suck. (I guess 3e's process sucks just a bit less because you can, at least, distribute the process -- rely on the whole group to remember the rules -- and solve some of the rules-adjudication bottlenecking that way. Though you could also accomplish that in a democratically-adjudicated 2e game.) If you're looking for "creative" or "simple," recommend neither approach. -- Alex
Edymnion 07-22-07, 02:48 PM	I was recently looking through my old 2.0 D&D booksI'm sorry, but thats not possible, as there was never a 2.0 D&D. The whole .0/.5 bull:censored: is purely a third edition mess. It was 2e, second edition. There was no . anything. The closest you came was Skills and Powers, but that was still optional side material. There was no 1.0, 2.0, and I will throw an unholy fit if there is ever a 4.0 (because I have no intention of putting up with another .5 fiasco). 1e, 2e, 4e. 3.5 is something that should never have happened.
BlaineTog 07-22-07, 03:15 PM	while instead you could choose many other things and learn to roleplay instead of rollplaying.Where were you two years ago when that mantra went out of style for being pretentious, lame, illogical, and snobby?
ArcTan 07-22-07, 05:08 PM	I'm sorry, but thats not possible, as there was never a 2.0 D&D. The whole .0/.5 bull:censored: is purely a third edition mess. It was 2e, second edition. There was no . anything. The closest you came was Skills and Powers, but that was still optional side material. There was no 1.0, 2.0, and I will throw an unholy fit if there is ever a 4.0 (because I have no intention of putting up with another .5 fiasco). 1e, 2e, 4e. 3.5 is something that should never have happened. ITYM 3.5 is something that should have simply come out as 3e. The fact that WotC put out a fatally flawed game system isn't good. However, the fact that they were willing to step up and fix it despite the major inconvenience it would mean for them *and* their customers is a good thing, at least compared to the alternative (still having to put up with 3.0 haste).
RadicalTaoist 07-22-07, 06:52 PM	Edy's got a point. They could have released it all as errata for 3e, like they did working swift actions into the rules. i'm all for expanding the player base, so long as those players don't ruin the game for others. as i said bad players come in all editions, but they seem to be more easily to find since the days of 3.x. maybe because the powergming/metagaming/rules lawyering attitudes that new player learning on their own have come out of the woodwork. or just the fact that so many more people play that its hard to teach all the new players at the same time. i don't mind new players or editions, so long as they both add to the game with LESS adding of bad players. Dude, any ruining of the game means that there are playstyle differences. People should play with other people who have the same playstyle. People who like powergaming should play with others who feel the same. S'what I do. This is giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you understand that no individual playstyle is 'better' than anyone else's as long as everyone has fun. Because if you don't accept that simple fact, there's no reason for anyone here to take you seriously.
Edymnion 07-22-07, 07:09 PM	The fact that WotC put out a fatally flawed game system isn't good.I'm sorry, but I have to call complete and utter bull:censored: on this statement. 3.0 was not fatally flawed, and everything 3.5 changed was essentially minor tweaks. It changed a race or two, a few core classes, a few feats, damage reduction, and some spells. There is no way in hell anyone is going to convince me that 3.0 was "fatally flawed" and the MINOR changes that 3.5 made somehow made it a perfect system. 3.0 was and is still perfectly playable, just the way it is. And as RadicalTaoist, there was little if any of it that could not have been handled in errata or future books (like how they're doing stealth revamps of melee combat with Tome of Battle). Bottom line is that WotC's bottom line wasn't as shiney as it was when 3e launched, so they made a few normal fixes and then put it out as 3.5, while outright lying to our faces about what they were doing. And after that, they lied to us about "Oh, we won't reprint the splatbooks because that would just be ripping you the customers off". Then they turned around and printed the Complete line, which took the bulk of the 3.0 splatbook material, changed the catagories it was grouped by, and reprinted it anyway. 3.5 was nothing but a colossal money grab, and it worked perfectly.
Millenia 07-22-07, 07:18 PM	why can only barbarians rage? is it an inherited trait? if so then how can so many races be barbarians.... if it is a learned skill, then why cant other fighters learn it? Fighters can learn how to rage... It's called taking a level in Barbarian. It's the same way as having to be a wizard or sorcerer in order to use spells.
The_Hedgewizard 07-22-07, 07:51 PM	i'm all for expanding the player base, so long as those players don't ruin the game for others. The type of people you are complaining about most likely are entering D&D not because of the new ruleset but because of the same company who is making and promoting D&D is making and promoting Magic. In 2ed TSR was it's own company with it's own advertisements and customer base mostly but many magic players now know of WoTC and then decide to give D&D a try and bring their ultra-competitive magic attitude into it rather than coming from a role-playing background. On top of that, you have the mainstreamification of the video game industry now, and many games these days tend towards hack n' slash or shoot 'em up.. (I don't think we'll see many more Arcanum's or Baldur's Gates for instance). The ruleset likely has no effect one way or the other on the issue you have.
High Octane 07-22-07, 08:27 PM	People often confuse "Simpler" with "Covering less ground" or "Limited in options." Other than the thief skills, no non-combat skill is ever mentioned, and the thief skills worked the same whether you were sneaking by an alert 30th level ranger on the prowl for spies or sneaking by the drunken 1st level commoner walking through a loud carnival. The same if he was opening a goblin's rusty chest lock or a bank's multi-million gold vault lock. The same if he was hiding from a kobold or a great wyrm gold dragon. What kind of bonus did using a rope add to the thief's climb walls? There was none. Heck I was even confused as to whether the thief had to roll his find/remove traps skill once or twice (once to find it and once to remove it) Non-weapon proficiencies were vague and at best cosmetic. I am barely exaggerating when all they said were "My character is good at botany" with 1 rank, "My character is very good at botany" with 2 and "My character is REALLY REALLY good at botany" with 3. What did that mean? The DM made it up. Removing all the rules and saying "The DM makes it up" does not make the game simpler. It means it covers less ground.
parad0cz 07-22-07, 08:40 PM	Ok, first off you have to completly seperate system from ability to roleplay. YOu can roleplay in any system from buckets o' dice Exalted to diceless Amber to friggin Tea Party with your niece. Systems may encourage rollplaying in the sense of anything with numbers and complexity will encourage uh, gaming the system... but that is a player function, not a necessity of the system. TO quote myself in another thread: ---------------------- Oh ye gods the early editions. How to recount. Ok, so it was like trying to ride a bicycle down a steep hill that was missing parts, that you hurriedly tried to patch without blueprints. While it was on fire. Not to say it wasnt fun, but it took a bit of doing. Math, Charts, THAC0, saves... a mess. And i disagree that the classes were balenced then, if anything it was even more unbalenced as warriors had even FEWER options. Oh, and different XP charts for different classes made it weird. Dont even talk about multiclassing, and dualclassing was worse. So many things unaddressed, exposed wiring and ducts, thigs you just couldnt do with the rules that required homeruling that no one agreed on. Oh yeah, this is before widespread internet and the pool of playtesters it gave. Continual Light.... I remember Name Level, it was sort of like a protoPrC. I played the old Rules Cylopedia where the Levels went up to 36. One of the ways to become an immortal was to Hit level 36 in Fighter, Priest, Mage and Thief. The game was different then, more like your modren MMORPG, grind without rhyme. Or reason. Where char creation was hardly anything(unless your roled a character that COULDNT BE PLAYED!), you met in a bar, appeared at the dungeon, and the dungeons themselves made no sense. You eventually went toe to toe with demon princes, Great Old Ones and the gods themselves. Sure it was fun, but only because it was all we had at the time. We were grunting cavemen. But we have to be cavemen before we evolve eh? -------------- I dont really begrudge 3.5. Hell the sheer difference and options after so many years at 1ed/2nd would make it impossible to not let some things fall through the cracks. Yes, it probably could have been handled mostly errata, at least the Core Three books... but as far as im concerned the complete series is by and large supieror to the other splats. You have to understand that WotC is learning about the game just as we are, just as say WoW got many switches and whatever in thier system. No matter how much you playtest, the wide world with an exponentially player base is going to find stuff you missed. Like i said in the previous post, i've played with all the versions. D&D. AD&D. Players Option. 3e/3.5 3/.5 ed is a vast improvement mechanically. As for the stories, thats up to the DM and Players. SUre you can play the old style Gygaxian Dungeons of Death and Profit. Heck, its fun to kick it back old school once in awhile. But the new system is frankly better at even encouraging roleplaying by giving actual stuff that isnt combat. D&D grew out of wargaming. The system still refects this, and it really reflected it back in the day. It allows far more customization. Major points. For those who think the whole powergamer stuff is more prevailant today... I think you just read about it more with the prevalence of internet. Back in the day, you may have had bbs's and such, but you didnt have the wide pool we have now. Like i said above, i think it was MORE WoW like, in the sense there was less roleplaying and more hack and slash. I dunno, as a person that recalled the sheer amounts of Continual Light threads, the Expanding Fireball threads, all the obscure rule threas/house rules/house inturpetations that frankly defy the piddling ones we have even in the Char Op section, i am thankful for the new edition and would never go back. Even as much as i liked the old Name Level. Or the Players Options(which, incedently, was an incredibly minmaxable system beyond anything in D&D before or since and was the beginings of Cleric Rule). I actually look forward to a day of Point Buy D&D, one that smooths out the bumps of LA/ECL/Characters of Odd races, allows more customization, etc. Sure it will allow people with math skills to game the system... but that again is the players.
Dontgothere 07-22-07, 09:06 PM	2nd Edition was my favorite as well. It's not that the d20 system is inherently bad. Other than the fact that it focuses more on rules than on the creative aspect of the game or actual roleplaying. It's just the company behind it--WotC--and their pro-player stance makes you want to hurl.
High Octane 07-22-07, 09:20 PM	I'm sorry, but thats not possible, as there was never a 2.0 D&D. The whole .0/.5 bull:censored: is purely a third edition mess. It was 2e, second edition. There was no . anything. The closest you came was Skills and Powers, but that was still optional side material. There was no 1.0, 2.0, and I will throw an unholy fit if there is ever a 4.0 (because I have no intention of putting up with another .5 fiasco). 1e, 2e, 4e. 3.5 is something that should never have happened. But if they called it 4e, then all the threads would just instead say "5th edition is coming! Look at this website!" pointing to a geocities site made by a 12 year old kid as a joke.
Kesthol 07-22-07, 10:39 PM	In the beginning (circa 1974 CE), there was Gygax, and he was LE (as we later found out :)). And there were brave adventurers. :fight: And Gygax said: "Let there be dungeons.", and great caverns filled with monstrousities and magic and machinery to turn the bravest adventurers into wormfood came into being. And Gygax said: "Let there be dragons.", and great scaled, magical, monstrous beasts came into being for the purpose of hoarding precious metals and gems and turning the bravest adventurers into wyrmfood. And Gygax said: "Let there be random chance.", and regular polyhedra became numbered, and were called "dice". And gamers everywhere rejoiced, for this novel thing, "Dungeons & Dragons" was cool. :cool: Time passed, and experienced gamers began to clamor for more challenging challenges. And Gygax said: "Let there be an advanced gaming system, where the truly experienced players may face challenges yet unknown." And in 1977, AD&D came into being. Andi it was cool. :cool: More time passed, and Gygax grew restless; he sneezed once too often and let TSR take over his realm (it was for the best). And TSR, with its plan to live forever, declared a necessary revision was to be made in 1989, and AD&D 2nd edition came into being (this, too was for the best). For truly experienced gamers now had a new and better set of rules dictating their challenges. And it was cool. :cool: And TSR grew fond of its earnings, and realized there was more money to be made. And so TSR declared a necessary minor revision was to be made in 1995, and AD&D 2nd edition (revised) (aka "this is NOT third edition!") came into being (this, too was for the best). For it was essentially compatable with AD&D 2nd ed., and brought balance to the game, so mages could not dominate the whole world by level 14 (it was raised to level 18). And the books were black, and therefore they were cool. :cool: And TSR, through a monetary glitch, went essentially bankrupt. :weep: And Wizards of the Coast (theme song: Mighty Mouse's "Here I come to save the day...") bought out the publishing rights to D&D and AD&D. And gamers were wary, and waited for the catastrophes to beign. :waits: And Wizards of the Coast seemed to be LN (but really is CE or even Chaotic Stupid), and asked Cook, Williams, Tweet, and Co. to revise the rules set forth by Gygax (the Great), and TSR (the dead), for they were greatly desirous of new sources of revenue. And Cook, Williams, Tweet and Co. said: "Ok.", and, in the year 2000, great monstrousities came into being, which were named "third edition Dungeons & Dragons core rulebooks". And these monstrousities bred, and formed many other monstrousities, and were a plague upon the land. And people snapped them up like hotcakes, for it was new, and different, and exciting :love: (:eek:), therefore, appeared to be cool. But a maximized, empowered 'Detect Coolness' :detect: and a few months quickly revealed this system was even more broken than expected (again, :eek:). And Wizards of the Coast, Cook, Williams, Tweet, and Co. said: "OOPS!", and D&D 3e was revoked, in the year 2003. In its place was D&D 3.5 (why didn't they call it "not 4th ed.", for consistancy?? :(). And it was better, but still not yet cool again. :waits: And Wizards of the Coast hope(s/d) (pick one, depending on your faith in them) that 3.5 will be the last revision to D&D for at least a decade, while splatbooks and adventures by the hundreds were published (here we go again :rolleyes:). :twitch: ***Prophetic vision: And in 2009, Wizards announced that AD&D 3e would be released, and the true followers of Gygax revolted (after much :banghead:- and :nonono:-ing), and began to play Vampire, the Masquerade, where real roleplaying is expected. And the masses snapped up the AD&D 3e splatbooks like mad, and believed Wizards of the Coast when they said "This will be the be-all-end-all version of D&D!!". And to their horror, it really was. :mymy: For the game had been slain, having taken 9 years of senseless beatings. And yet, there was hope, as a single group of dedicated gamers still played AD&D 2nd ed. (revised)... *** ----------- I think my whole point was supposed to be this: Call it 'AD&D 2e', or 'AD&D not 3rd' (depending on the version you are referring to), NOT 'D&D 2.0'!! :mad: But that seems to be beside the point now. -----------
was_fired 07-22-07, 11:06 PM	Part of making a game is revising its rule. Often times if you have a single developer doing this the changes end up being the best. When you switch developers the new ones often time need to spend time learning from the mistakes before moving forward. If you get sick of dealing with other people's update schedules then write your own game. I did... for a while it was updating every month. Now I'm up to 4 to 6 months between updates. If you're interested in taking a look at it check out my signature. It won't be the next big thing in gaming (if it is I would be shocked) but at least it's a free PDF. If by some crazy chance anyone actually does read it (unlikely) and wants a list of monsters email me (my email is signed to the pdf) and I'll send it to you. The monsters aren't on the site because... I don't fully trust my players. :P
Tolby 07-22-07, 11:15 PM	I would never say the 2.0 is easier. In 2.0 you had to remember when rolling high was good (to hit) and rolling low was good (proficiency checks) In 3.0 its roll d20 and higher is always better.
TyWebb 07-22-07, 11:49 PM	Everything in 2.0 is simple and easy to understand. You also don't have too great a choice to make as to what character to play. Roll you dice and see what you can be. Not roll your dice and pick through the myriad books of races and classes. Nope, just roll some dice and see what you can be for the rest of your adventuring career. No builds! Boy, those were the days! Player: "Man, I'm psyched for this new campaign! I've really been wanting to play a wizard for years! In the last TWO campaigns our group has done, I played a fighter...I'M SO sick of fighters!" DM: "Cool, man! Roll up your stats!" <player rolls poorly> Player: "Ahhh, lousy :censored: sonofa :censored:...my only decent score is in Strength!" DM: "Well, the party COULD use a fighter!"
ArcTan 07-23-07, 12:59 AM	And look at all the people complaining about Tome of Battle because it's "just a sourcebook" and therefore their replacement for the Fighter is "stepping on the toes" of the crappy 3.5 PHB Fighter. You really can't win either way.
MerlintheTuna 07-23-07, 01:25 AM	It's just the company behind it--WotC--and their pro-player stance makes you want to hurl.Um... I'm not understanding what the problem with wanting your players to have a good time is. I certainly don't intend to a play a game that's the equivalent to punching myself in the nuts repeatedly, no matter how good you think your world is.
Dreamstryder 07-23-07, 01:34 AM	I remember playing Basic and 1e. Overall, there weren't as many rules, and that meant (1) there wasn't much need to look up tables, and (2) there weren't as many guidelines to help you. Characters were easy; you only had the most basic class abilities (one per class), no feats, only the thief had skills (being a class ability), and, in black-box Basic, there were only 5 levels, each with a different title. Bottom line is that I feel 3e streamlined all the irregularity in 2e, (saves, skills/prof costs, race/class combinations, XP...). Hlethvagi, you mentioned a lack of things to keep under watch, yes? If you still play 3e, try as an experiment (or maybe I will, heehee!) dropping all feats except for the fighter's bonus ones (drop profs & the need for them, too). I don't know where it'll take you, but it might involve less character-build anxiety. I can't speak for writing in 3e page numbers next to all the 2e campaign spell and encounter entries, tho, but if that's all there is to it... Anyway, I'd be interesting to know what you decided to do, how it went, etc. :) PS: If cross-class skills bug you (they bug me), either (1) make them all class skills, or (2) make them 1 pt/1 rnk, but limit their max ranks to char. level instead of lvl+3.
BlaineTog 07-23-07, 01:43 AM	The fact that WotC put out a fatally flawed game system isn't good.I agree with Eddy in disagreeing with this. 3.0 had hella rough edges, but it wasn't by any means "fatally flawed." I personally reserve that for games like Mage (which doesn't make any flipping sense), but you can't really apply it to 3.0 under any definition. There were little things here and there that needed fixing. Ok, so there were kinda a lot of them, and that much errata would have been suspicious, unwieldy, and frankly kinda a pain, but they coulda made it work, if they really wanted to. Personally, I don't think it was really all that big a deal, as much of the old splatbooks still work more or less ok with a few modifications, and there's the SRD.
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 01:55 AM	AD&D (1st or 2nd Ed.) EASIER/SIMPLER???? I gamed in the 80's, when BOTH editions first came out, and all I can say to that load of **** is: :rofl: Look, I GREW UP playing 1st & 2nd Ed., and I'm smart enough to realize that AD&D wasn't just broken, it was FUBAR! 1st off, 2nd ed had two HUGE problems in MECHANICS ALONE: reverse numbered AC's (and the resulting 1st ed charts one had to have on hand at ALL times, or 2nd ed.'s simpler but still illogical-by-way-of-reverse-AC "THAC0" crap) and WAY too many Saving Throw categories (Paralysis, Poison, Or Death Magic [????]; Wand, Staff, Or Wand [which is different from cast on the fly spells HOW???]; Petrification Or Polymorph [see previous query]; Breath Weapon [what was THAT, "Save vs Tic-Tacs???]; and finally 'Spells' [as opposed to wands, 'death magic' or polymorphing. HUH???]; instead of a simple Fortitude , Reflex [I dodge], and Will [self-explanatory].) Then there's the classes. :banghead: Let's look at a few examples through the editions: Barbarian- (1st Ed.) Me be cool! Me be Trogdor (or Thog, or Krunk, or insert-barbarian-stereotype-name-here)! Me have more hit-points than puny fighter! BUT ME HATE MAGIC! ME NO STAND MAGIC! ME KILL PARTY MAGIC-USER, KILL CLERIC, DESTROY ALL MAGIC TREASURE! (2nd Ed.) I'm just a fighter... with a kit. Oh, wait, NOW I'm somewhat useful and more like my old 1st ed. self (without that pesky magic-hatred), but now I'm relegated to STONE-AGE weapons and armor technology. :rant: (3rd Ed/ 3.5) Okay, I'm able to be more like Conan (or Fahferd) as the original authors wrote them, but I've got enough options now I don't have to be a stereotype instead of an archetype! yay! Cleric- (1st Ed) MEDIC! Oh, wait, I AM the medic... (2ND Ed.) MEDIC! Oh, wait, I AM the medic... (3rd/3.5) MEDIC! Oh, wait, I AM the medic... Druid- (1st) Trees are pretty... (2nd) Save the trees! (*growl*) (3rd/3.5) Look, this's the last time I'm telling you, get away from the frikkin' tree with that axe, or I'll Meteor Swarm AND Flame Strike you, then shape-shift into a bloody kodiak bear, forget that I'm a vegetarian, and we'll see just how fighter tastes with hot sauce! Fighter- (1st) Oil-can! Oil can! Ooh, DOUBLE weapon specialization, pretty! Thank you, Unearthed Arcana! (2nd) Oil-can! Oil can! What, no double-specialization? Well, at least I'm the only one who can specialize at all, now! (3rd/3.5) Oil can? We don't need no steenking oil can! Now excuse me while I whip out a can of "weapon specialization combined with Great Cleave" on these monsters :plotting: Magic-user/Mage/Wizard (and/or Sorcerer) (1st) At lower levels an angry house-fly could kill me, and I don't even have the strength score to carry this gods-awful heavy spellbook around, but at higher levels THE GODS ARE MY BREAKFAST CEREAL!!!! :evillaugh (2nd) What, I can't kill gods on a whim anymore, but I still have the hit-points of Pee-Wee Herman? :weep: (3rd/3.5 Wizard) *sigh* still shackled with this book... BUT AT HIGH LEVEL, EVEN DRAGONS WET THEMSELVES IN MY PRESENCE! BWA-HA-HA-HA! :evillaugh (3rd/3.5 Sorcerer) Spell book? SPELLBOOK???? :rofl: Who the heck needs a spellbook? Bard- (1st Ed) The game's very first PRESTIGE CLASS! (prerequisites: levels in Fighter, Thief, and Druid) (2nd Ed.) So I'm basically a Thief with a kit, eh? WTF??? This SUCKS! (3rd Ed.) Okay, so I'm a bit more balanced, but I still suck. (3.5) *whew* I'm FINALLY balanced with the other classes... so how come I still suck? Monk- (1st) At low levels, I've got the same abilities as a thief, and Magic-User's hit points (WHOA, A FLY! RUN!!!), but at high levels I CAN KILL [I]ODIN WITH MY BARE HANDS!!!:monk: (2ND) Wait, whadda ya mean I don't exist? Oh, I DO exist NOW, but I'm just a Cleric WITH A FRIKKIN KIT????? (3rd/3.5) "Everybody was Kung-Fu Fighting..." :D Psionics- (1st Edition) No classes, and seriously underpowered (2nd Ed.) Well, now we 'Psionicists' finally have our own class, but we're a bit overpowered now... (3rd) ??? Psionicists have now been split between the Psion class and the Psychic Warrior class... okay, I can live with that... but how in the heck did we get simultaneously under- AND over-powered???? :confused: :banghead: :confused: (3.5) Okay, Now we've added the Soulknife and Wilder classes, okay, and HEY, psionics are finally BALANCED!!!! :dancin: :ayyyy!: :w00t: ...what the? Complete Psionic???? AW CRAP! :banghead: Okay, so 3.5 isn't perfect (COMPLETE PSIONIC??? :banghead: ), but it's a definite improvement, mechanics and character class-wise over previous editions. Plus, with the D20 system, character advancement (mechanics-wise) means more than just more hit-points, and more skills, your characters statistics can actually improve without the artificial aid of magic items, wishes, and other such nonsense...
ArcTan 07-23-07, 02:13 AM	(3rd/3.5) "Everybody was Kung-Fu Fighting..." :D If this quote is meant to imply that the 3e Monk is just a guy in a campy costume dancing around trying to cash in on a fad but with no actual effectiveness in combat, then I agree. Psionics- (1st Edition) No classes, and seriously underpowered (2nd Ed.) Well, now we 'Psionicists' finally have our own class, but we're a bit overpowered now... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHMYGOD*gasp **choke* I'm sorry... I'm sorry... A--A "bit", hahahaha... *sigh* (3rd) ??? Psionicists have now been split between the Psion class and the Psychic Warrior class... okay, I can live with that... but how in the heck did we get simultaneously under- AND over-powered???? :confused: :banghead: :confused: (3.5) Okay, Now we've added the Soulknife and Wilder classes, okay, and HEY, psionics are finally BALANCED!!!! :dancin: :ayyyy!: :w00t: ...what the? Complete Psionic???? AW CRAP! :banghead: 3.5 Psionics was around for a long time before CompPsi came out. As far as the XPH goes, Psionics just *is* "balanced". (When something in D&D is actually balanced, it means the munchkins who don't understand the rules talk about it being underpowered and the whiners who don't understand the rules talk about it being overpowered.) Okay, so 3.5 isn't perfect (COMPLETE PSIONIC??? :banghead: ), but it's a definite improvement, mechanics and character class-wise over previous editions. Plus, with the D20 system, character advancement (mechanics-wise) means more than just more hit-points, and more skills, your characters statistics can actually improve without the artificial aid of magic items, wishes, and other such nonsense... Enh. Core D&D actually means that your level-by-level improvements have to take magic items into account for the game to be balanced. This is *especially* true for melee characters who are only as good as the sword they swing.
Sigurd van Norhusen 07-23-07, 02:15 AM	Have yet to play 2e, vastly prefer the 2e books (<3 fluff <3) and don't mind the mechanical shortcomings that much. I keep waiting for the day that character kits replace prestige classes.
Alex_P 07-23-07, 02:27 AM	I keep waiting for the day that character kits replace prestige classes.That's basically already happened. Note the plethora of "base classes" published in recent years. Things like warlocks and dread necromancers and duskblades already work quite a lot like kits. -- Alex
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 02:28 AM	I keep waiting for the day that character kits replace prestige classes. Sorry, I've already lived through that. To me, that's like wishing platform shoes and polyester leisure suits make a comeback...
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 02:39 AM	AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHMYGOD*gasp **choke* I'm sorry... I'm sorry... A--A "bit", hahahaha... *sigh* Understatement is fun, isn't it *wink* 3.5 Psionics was around for a long time before CompPsi came out. As far as the XPH goes, Psionics just *is* "balanced". (When something in D&D is actually balanced, it means the munchkins who don't understand the rules talk about it being underpowered and the whiners who don't understand the rules talk about it being overpowered.) I agree 100% that the EPH is balanced, absolutely, but some of the stuff in CP is seriously *WTF* and other parts seem added in just to nerf the EPH... hence the :banghead: Don't get me wrong, it had some good stuff in there, too (the Lurk, certain feats, powers, and the 'Hidden Houses' info), but other stuff... *facepalm*
Return of the Flumph 07-23-07, 02:41 AM	I like second edition. But third is better in every conceivable way. Sorry, its objectively and physically true that third edition is better than second. You can believe that second edition is better, or that Santa Claus is real, or that the world is actually a cleverly disguised death star, but that won't make it true. The d20 system is awesome.
Stormonu 07-23-07, 02:41 AM	i never recall hearing the MMC was supposed to be fully alphabatized? Yep, in the pre-release pamphlet, it specifically stated that replacement pages would be printed with additional MC's to keep creatures alphabetized. and exactly what prvented people from photocopy the pages that are out of order and put them in order. For a few pages, that wouldn't be so bad. But if you have all the MC's, if you ever want to alphabetize them all, it's a lot of photocopying. By the end of 2E's run, I'd used the office photocopy and kinko's and just on kinkos I ran up a bill over a hundred dollars copying MC pages out of the bound books - and I'd already done the MC pages at work. the greatest thing is being able to pull monsters and only carry what you need. I never did that as I feared they would end up lost. to prevent them form tearing you could get hole reinforcers, or sheet protectors. The original MC came with reinforcers. They didn't save the pages from getting destroyed. Sheet protectors, while they work, triple the thickness of the MC. or heaven forbid laminate the ones you would use most. Possibly feasible now, but they'll still get worn. the only difference in the new MM volumes is the pages can't be removed so you have to carry the whole book. You do know they stopped doing the single page MCs about 3/4 of the way through. Serveral of the MM volumes (Ravenloft I, II, Planescape I, II, III, Mystara, Dark Sun, Annual I-IV) only came out as bound books, right? and if i recall the MMCs gave seperators with each appendix. that way you could quickly find the section the monster belongs alphabetically in by finding the proper seperator page when you needed to return one back to the binders. Quickly is not the word I would use, especially if you didn't know which of X number of MC's it was in (which might occur if something was in a Dungeon mag adventure or such).
High Octane 07-23-07, 03:03 AM	Well that was....overdone. Also I think some of the descriptions were a bit off. I only played 1st, but heres how the comparison's went in my opinion: Barbarian: 1st: Me SMASH Magic users and magic items! Me have ridiculous bonuses to AC! Me am broken AND unable to work with just about any group! 3/3.5: Me RAGE, but still not break party. Me no like wizards, but me tolerate them. Bard: 1st: Okay all you have to do is gain levels in 3 different classes! Of course we wont explain the dual classing or multiclassing thing and you will be dead weight while and even after getting it! 3.0: Huzzah base class.....pretty horrible one. Like a failed enchanter married a failed rogue. 3.5: I'm a gnome now! With more skill points! At least I scale a bit. I can be good if you are a little creative...or I can break the game through diplomacy. Cleric: 1st: I could cast.....wait I need to spend all my slots on heals. Man these buffs suck! BLADES AND POINTS? NOOOOOOO!!!! 3/3.5: I can cast what I want and heal when I need! I have so many advantages yet no one wishes to play me. Oh I no longer am scared of point things! Druid: 1st: I'm a cleric with worse healing and cant wear metal! I can actually hear myself suck! 3.5: So I can be a primary caster and use spells that kick everyone's ass, use my spells to summon creatures that rock ass, use my spells to buff my PET who kicks everyone's ass, or turn into a giant bear and kick everyone's ass, all in the same battle? And I can cast WHILE being the giant bear? Nature RULES! I cant believe no one has caught on to me being overpowered! Fighter: 1st: Plate. Shield. Longsword. I attack. Repeat ad hominem. When I get all high level I will be exactly the same sans some more weapon proficiencies and hit points! 3.5: Dip me or prestige, cause baby there are only so many feats that can be useful to one guy. Monk: 1st: I get a ton of abilities that make no sense and have no use, and can have 18 strength and no benefit! I sure would like magic items, but I can only have 3! 3.5: By level 15 I'm immune to effin EVERYTHING! Never met a save I couldn't make! Look! Strength helps! Paladin: 1st: Everyone and everything must be lawful good! If you are neutral good MAYYYYYYYYBE I can work for you under extreme duress, but only for a little while! Why, that's totally playable right? Works witha ny group right? Nevermind I can't use a ranged weapon ever! I'm sure the Chaotic Evil Red dragon will come down and play fair instead of nuke us from above! 3.5: Hey I can work with most groups now! Who knew? Bows are nice, even if I cant smite with them! Ranger: 1st: I'm like a fighter, but with more hp in lower levels, a damage bonus on a slew of enemies, and tracking. Tracking is useless, but the other thiungs rule, and I get spells later! Why be a fighter? 3.0: Woo! I'm so great! Wait...what do you mean you are taking fighter every level after this first one? 3.5: Well it seems... I get a LITTLE something most every level. Not enough space on my sheet for it all.... Thief/Rogue 1st: I find traps using unclear rules and then sneak around the grand ranger captain with the same chance of success as sneaking past the town drunkard. Of course I am doomed to fail at either finding or disarming most of the traps anyway, so you wont see me arou-*boom* 3.0: So many skill points to use... so many skills available....cant decide...oooh sneak attack! And taking 10 or 20 ROCKS! 3.5: For the last time ROUGE IS A MAKEUP! It's ROGUE! Sorcerer: 1st: I don't exist! Wheeeeee! 3/3.5: I'm where the other players dump their charisma! Thats right, Im just that coooooooool. Wizards may have a bunch of advantages on me, but they look like nerds doing it! Magic User/Wizard: 1st: I'm useless until 5th level then I destroy everything! My magic missles can go on forever! 3/3.5: Not so useless at low levels but at later levels I lose my God-like powers to become merely uber-powerful.
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 03:28 AM	For the last time ROUGE IS A MAKEUP! It's ROGUE! :rofl: You have NO idea how many times I've screamed that at the screen while reading some of these posts. Then again, I've had a buddy who had the pronunciation of Rogue and Rouge switched in his head for as long as I've known him, he insists that the chick with the striped hair in the X-Men is "rouge" :rolleye2: :looloo:
shadzar 07-23-07, 03:39 AM	Where were you two years ago when that mantra went out of style for being pretentious, lame, illogical, and snobby? sorry but i have been accusing people of rollpaying for more years than WotC itself has been around. i never believe Gygax's "the game should include thespianism" idea. as the DM should be acting a bit to give his game more color and depth than say Ben Stien's monotone. as well the players should be doing more than worrying about what the dice will roll also. you may want to think that idea has "gone out of style" but it hasn't. some people actually prefer to have more to their games than metagaming a situation based on the outcome of the die rolls. ITYM 3.5 is something that should have simply come out as 3e. The fact that WotC put out a fatally flawed game system isn't good. However, the fact that they were willing to step up and fix it despite the major inconvenience it would mean for them *and* their customers is a good thing, at least compared to the alternative (still having to put up with 3.0 haste). if as said in response to this, and what you say is true, then WotC shouldn't have charged full price for the "fixed" rules. Dude, any ruining of the game means that there are playstyle differences. People should play with other people who have the same playstyle. People who like powergaming should play with others who feel the same. S'what I do. This is giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you understand that no individual playstyle is 'better' than anyone else's as long as everyone has fun. Because if you don't accept that simple fact, there's no reason for anyone here to take you seriously. by playstyle, i mean the people that would think they are there to cut up and act stupid while others are trying to play the game. i don't think hack-n-slash is the only thing that should be in the game, and don't consider people who do to be playing (A)D&D. there needs to be a balance of all aspects. any playstyle that can balance all aspects without disrupting the rest of the group is fine. powergaming is fine, metagaming and munchkin gaming is ridiculous. not that one playstyle is better, but more than some are just stupid. (powergaming to me implies going fast and hard through difficult fights. if you have another definition, then please explain yours.) Fighters can learn how to rage... It's called taking a level in Barbarian. It's the same way as having to be a wizard or sorcerer in order to use spells. and that whole thing is just something stupid. the entire prestige class aspect is something i hate about 3.x group of "7th level" characters: Fighter-7 Wizard-7 Handler-2 WTF?!?!?! the levels shouldn't require math to figure out the average levels. the numbers had no reason to change, the books could have simply increase the values based on the prestige class prerequisites. The type of people you are complaining about most likely are entering D&D not because of the new ruleset but because of the same company who is making and promoting D&D is making and promoting Magic. exaclty the problem. people wanting to metagame because of magic, or people treating D&D like it IS a video game rather than a tabletop game. but the game itself also leans towards that type of gaming because as you said, that is the companies target audience, its Magic player base. :( Non-weapon proficiencies were vague and at best cosmetic. I am barely exaggerating when all they said were "My character is good at botany" with 1 rank, "My character is very good at botany" with 2 and "My character is REALLY REALLY good at botany" with 3. What did that mean? The DM made it up. um NWPs used a die roll to determine success/failure just like 3.x does. that is what those "ranks" mean. it wasn't the job of the DM to make up what someone with 3 slots of botany could do, it was for the DM and player together to flesh it out for the character. more often the player would just try to do something with the skill, say fire-building and the DM would decide if a check was even needed and assign difficulties based on conditions. damp would gets one modifier, dry wood get another. then roll your d20. hmm. sounds just like 3.x and the DC checks. :eek: but the DM was the one making the decisions on when a check was needed, or when it would auto-fail/succeed. It's just the company behind it--WotC--and their pro-player stance makes you want to hurl. :confused: pro-player stance? do you mean that the players have more hard written rules, and have to thinkless, or depend on the DM less for decisions? Part of making a game is revising its rule. how often have the rules to Monopoly, chess, checkers, Go, shoji, etc been revised? "if it ain't broke don't fix it." this doesn't mean build a new one and throw the old one away, but fix what is broken. if AD&D was a car with a broke spark plug wire, D&D was just a new model, rather than fixing what was broke with AD&D. once you have published a product you shouldn't have to constantly fix it. Hasbro wouldn't be where it is today if the constantly made bad games that had to be updated due to poor orginal design and improper playtesting. that is why D&D will never be for all people. not all people agree on how to play, so a regulated hard ruleset won't work. some people just wont play it, and others will adapt it for their needs. If you aren't playing the rules as they are written then you aren't playing AD&D. horsepuckey. You do know they stopped doing the single page MCs about 3/4 of the way through. Serveral of the MM volumes (Ravenloft I, II, Planescape I, II, III, Mystara, Dark Sun, Annual I-IV) only came out as bound books, right? the prefect-bound books were easy to take a razor and remove the pages and hole punch them or put them in sheet protectors. as for the main 13 MCs i photocopied them all and used the originals as backups. probably cause of using computers since 1984 i new how handy it was to back everything up when it comes to printed material. when i say all i mean the ones i forsee using the most often, things in planescape i never touched so those type monsters that came from outspace just sat there in the binder. and i made and printed out an index of the monsters based on where to find them for the ones i had from other sources. you jsut had to do some organizing to work with them, but in the end the effort was worth it to me.
Zephyrus/Sonet 07-23-07, 03:58 AM	It's just the company behind it--WotC--and their pro-player stance makes you want to hurl. Wait, so they need to be anti-player? If D&D was anti-player in 2ed, then who the hell was playing? :confused: If it was just supposed to be the DM playing, then that's not D&D. That's the DM masturbating while his friends look on horrified at the spectacle unfolding before them. :eek:
ArcTan 07-23-07, 04:39 AM	Understatement is fun, isn't it *wink* I agree 100% that the EPH is balanced, absolutely, but some of the stuff in CP is seriously *WTF* and other parts seem added in just to nerf the EPH... hence the :banghead: Don't get me wrong, it had some good stuff in there, too (the Lurk, certain feats, powers, and the 'Hidden Houses' info), but other stuff... *facepalm* Most everyone ignores most of CompPsi, especially the ill-advised nerfs that make no sense. I wouldn't say that bad things about CompPsi are bad things about "3.5 Psionics" any more than I'd say that bad things about Complete Arcane or Complete Mage are bad things about "3.5 spellcasting". Bruce Cordell has the same bad habit Skip Williams did in his tenure as the Sage of just singlehandedly deciding something he didn't think made sense was different, on the spur of the moment, without thinking how that affects anything else. Sometimes this stuff is legitimately better than the way things work in core and simply serves to make Psionics cooler (like Psionics' rule about how generic Psychokinesis effects change various details based on what kind of energy damage you deal). Sometimes, however, it just serves to pointlessly nerf Psionics next to core without actually making anything better or easier to play (nerfing Astral Constructs, making magical physical effects subject to DR, etc.)
ArcTan 07-23-07, 04:50 AM	Well that was....overdone. Also I think some of the descriptions were a bit off. I only played 1st, but heres how the comparison's went in my opinion: Barbarian: 1st: Me SMASH Magic users and magic items! Me have ridiculous bonuses to AC! Me am broken AND unable to work with just about any group! 3/3.5: Me RAGE, but still not break party. Me no like wizards, but me tolerate them. I don't recall any flavor at all in 3.5 core that says Barbarians, as a class, dislike Wizards. Indeed, 3e came up with the idea of the Rage Mage. Bard: 1st: Okay all you have to do is gain levels in 3 different classes! Of course we wont explain the dual classing or multiclassing thing and you will be dead weight while and even after getting it! The Fochluchan Lyrist is a modern PrC created to bring back all the warm fuzzy feelings people had with the old-school Bard. (Specifically, feelings like "How the hell am I supposed to qualify for this?" and "Is this really worth it?" and, finally, "Oh, I forgot that existed"). Druid: 1st: I'm a cleric with worse healing and cant wear metal! I can actually hear myself suck! 3.5: So I can be a primary caster and use spells that kick everyone's ass, use my spells to summon creatures that rock ass, use my spells to buff my PET who kicks everyone's ass, or turn into a giant bear and kick everyone's ass, all in the same battle? And I can cast WHILE being the giant bear? Nature RULES! I cant believe no one has caught on to me being overpowered! As a bonus, the Eberron setting establishes that *Druids* are the class defined by hating things -- Gatekeepers hate Outsiders, Ashbound hate Wizards, and Children of Winter hate everybody. The Ashbound are the best, though, because it's *far* more fun to be a 3.5 Druid trashing the hell out of a Wizard opponent than it was to be a 1e Barbarian trashing the hell out of a Wizard opponent. Fighter: 1st: Plate. Shield. Longsword. I attack. Repeat ad hominem. When I get all high level I will be exactly the same sans some more weapon proficiencies and hit points! 3.5 Fighter: "When I get all high level I will be exactly the same sans some more feats, skills, BAB, saves and hit points!" 3.5 Commoner: "Hey, what a coincidence! So will I!" Monk: 1st: I get a ton of abilities that make no sense and have no use, and can have 18 strength and no benefit! I sure would like magic items, but I can only have 3! 3.5: By level 15 I'm immune to effin EVERYTHING! Never met a save I couldn't make! Look! Strength helps! He's never met a 15th-level caster with Spell Focus? Paladin: 1st: Everyone and everything must be lawful good! If you are neutral good MAYYYYYYYYBE I can work for you under extreme duress, but only for a little while! Why, that's totally playable right? Works witha ny group right? Nevermind I can't use a ranged weapon ever! I'm sure the Chaotic Evil Red dragon will come down and play fair instead of nuke us from above! 3.5: Hey I can work with most groups now! Who knew? Bows are nice, even if I cant smite with them! PrCs are good for solving both problems (both the ranged smite and being a team player with the morally questionable). Although "I can hang out with Evil characters without creating all kinds of in-game bickering and difficulties" is a really dumb thing to have to prestige into, if you ask me. Sorcerer: 1st: I don't exist! Wheeeeee! Sure you do. You're an ever-increasing popular houserule as people get f***ing sick and tired of keeping up with their spellbook all the time. 3/3.5: I'm where the other players dump their charisma! Thats right, Im just that coooooooool. Wizards may have a bunch of advantages on me, but they look like nerds doing it! The Sorc is the earliest example of WotC taking a houserule lots of people played with and making an official version that sucked, therefore pressuring people to stop using it. It's sadly pretty effective.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 05:04 AM	if as said in response to this, and what you say is true, then WotC shouldn't have charged full price for the "fixed" rules. Everything that was "fixed" is OGL material and available in the SRD. People who claim they were "forced" to pay for three new core books in order to play 3.5 have no leg to stand on at all. Look, sure, yes, the concept of the "half-edition" was a marketing stunt partially driven by the fact that announcing it in a big way would call attention to it, so people would *know* their old books were out of date. Making these changes "errata" would ensure that only some people would know about and download the changes, while a lot of people would simply blithely assume that nothing important had changed from their original PHB (thus creating chaos and confusion when one person's using fully-updated rules and another person isn't). by playstyle, i mean the people that would think they are there to cut up and act stupid while others are trying to play the game. So the solution to getting rid of disrespectful people who are more casual than you'd like about the game is to make the game *so hard* that it's *impossible* to play casually and you have to be a D&D nerd to get into D&D. Sorry. Not buying it. Not liking it. Not liking the attitude that lies behind it. and that whole thing is just something stupid. the entire prestige class aspect is something i hate about 3.x group of "7th level" characters: Fighter-7 Wizard-7 Handler-2 WTF?!?!?! the levels shouldn't require math to figure out the average levels. the numbers had no reason to change, the books could have simply increase the values based on the prestige class prerequisites. ...There is no "math". What are you talking about? The only math is simple addition. A Wizard 13/Archmage 1 is a 14th-level character. When you ask him "What level are you?" the answer is "Level 14". Is there anything confusing about this? how often have the rules to Monopoly, chess, checkers, Go, shoji, etc been revised? In the case of old games like chess and go? Probably dozens of times, though we don't know about most of them. Monopoly just went through its first major official revision, but it was already undergoing revision a long time before then. The vast majority of people who play Monopoly don't play with the official rules, but with a set of houserules built up around them. And, FWIW, most people don't play Monopoly as a serious game but as a pastime. Monopoly is popular *because* Monopoly is, in many ways, not a very good game (you rarely get the opportunity to make decisions, chance plays a huge role in who wins, etc.) Most houserules that are popular are popular because they make Monopoly a worse game qua game (adding to the role of chance with things like Free Parking, stalling the game by adding things like purchasable immunity, etc.) The point of Monopoly became not to win but to give the kids something to do with their hands and their attention spans while socializing with each other. If you wanted Monopoly to be a good *game* that was capable of entertaining adults who enjoy playing games aggressively and to win, you'd have to change the rules (including stripping away all of the usual houserules). Whether Parker Brothers does this or not depends on who they want to sell Monopoly to. "if it ain't broke don't fix it." this doesn't mean build a new one and throw the old one away, but fix what is broken. if AD&D was a car with a broke spark plug wire, D&D was just a new model, rather than fixing what was broke with AD&D. However, cars in general have changed immensely in design, engineering and so on since the Model T. once you have published a product you shouldn't have to constantly fix it. D&D isn't a product so much as a product *line*, and product lines and brand names that survive are the ones that *are* constantly thinking about what they could improve. Hasbro wouldn't be where it is today if the constantly made bad games that had to be updated due to poor orginal design and improper playtesting. that is why D&D will never be for all people. not all people agree on how to play, so a regulated hard ruleset won't work. some people just wont play it, and others will adapt it for their needs. the prefect-bound books were easy to take a razor and remove the pages and hole punch them or put them in sheet protectors. At the point when we're talking about using razor blades and three-hole-punches, we've left the territory of your average casual gamer and gone into Geekland.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 05:05 AM	It's just the company behind it--WotC--and their pro-player stance makes you want to hurl. People who divide the world into DMs and players and hate anyone who's "pro-player" because they're defending their turf as DMs make *me* want to hurl. Seriously. That attitude is one of the most odious things about the D&D community.
Dragonwort 07-23-07, 05:57 AM	3.5 is an improvement to our beloved system but I must agree that the 2.0 system was great for it's time. It may have had some grey areas but the DM's were old-school and action ran high. The DM ran his gam eth eway he saw fit. How can you mess with that? Oh & I thought DM's were also players.:confused: :confused: Just my opinion.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 06:54 AM	3.5 is an improvement to our beloved system but I must agree that the 2.0 system was great for it's time. It may have had some grey areas but the DM's were old-school and action ran high. The DM ran his gam eth eway he saw fit. How can you mess with that? You can point out that it isn't easy, and that if the rules *rely* on DMs to be able to make up lots and lots of things on the fly, the end result will mostly be lots of sucky games.
shadzar 07-23-07, 06:56 AM	So the solution to getting rid of disrespectful people who are more casual than you'd like about the game is to make the game *so hard* that it's *impossible* to play casually and you have to be a D&D nerd to get into D&D. no just make a game for them rather than try to incorporate their playstyles into D&D. like say the miniature game. not everyone who plays it likes playing D&D and vice versa. they could take the rules for example, for hack'n'slah neccessity and make them into a game called... Hack'n'Slash. there is a game called Munchkin that pokes fun of D&D and has all that silliness in it. both card and RPG versions exist. jsut to play D&D to say you are playing D&D isn't a valid reason to play. if you enjoy a game then why not play one that is made for what you want out of it. the silliness is present in Hackmaster also. so you don't have to play D&D to be playing a roleplaying game. there was a good reason, and good move on the part of WotC; to create a d20 modern ruleset. for those people who don't jsut want to play in a "classical medieval setting" but prefer a more modern setting. this also goes for any d20 futuristic type game. they are NOT D&D, but use similar rules. therefore why couldn't WotC do the same and make a d20 humorous game that depends on silliness, or a d20 slugfest game that is amped up for mainly fighting. D&D is a combination of all those things, for those who wish to play with the combination of gaming elements. so why shouldn't there be games for people with other interests? not only would it help D&D by removing those players form the environment, but giving those players a game devoted to what they want from it and out of their roleplaying experience? maybe this makes my stance more clear. but i shouldn't have to tell the giant known as WotC how to expand their properties to better include a more diverse number of players... ...There is no "math". What are you talking about? The only math is simple addition. A Wizard 13/Archmage 1 is a 14th-level character. When you ask him "What level are you?" the answer is "Level 14". so why not just call the Archmage level 14? Archmage 14 or better yet make this Archmage into a title! :eek: Wizard level 14 Archmage of so-and-so. why have two numbers to define the same class? its not like its multiclassing, but just advancing in the class. they took the old style kits and presented them in a worse way than they were before rather than fix the kits sytem. :mad:
Anaxander 07-23-07, 07:12 AM	no just make a game for them rather than try to incorporate their playstyles into D&D. So you think your playstyle is the only right way to play D&D? Perhaps there is no *right* why to play this game.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 07:17 AM	no just make a game for them rather than try to incorporate their playstyles into D&D. This whole post assumes that D&D did anything at all to encourage "silly" players other than make the rules easy to learn. The 3e designers actually *wrote an article* about how modern D&D contains almost no jokes at all (there's a few, but they're very subtle) because their philosophy is that official campaign materials should all play it "straight" and silliness and humor and surrealism should *only* be there if the gaming group puts it in. This is very, very, very different from the 1e rules, which were full of silly, fourth-wall-breaking immature crap. I don't understand why an old-edition-defending grognard is arguing that D&D should be more "serious". It was the older editions that were chock-full of stupid lame jokes that the 3e designers have been slowly trying to weed out. so why not just call the Archmage level 14? Archmage 14 Because he doesn't have 14 Archmage levels. He has 13 Wizard levels and 1 Archmage level. or better yet make this Archmage into a title! :eek: Wizard level 14 Archmage of so-and-so. ...Because that doesn't tell you how many Wizard levels he has and how many Archmage levels he has. It doesn't even tell you what he is besides an Archmage -- he could easily instead be a Sorcerer/Archmage. why have two numbers to define the same class? its not like its multiclassing, but just advancing in the class. No, it *is* multiclassing. We don't technically call it "multiclassing" -- we reserve that term for mixing two base classes -- but it *is* multiclassing. A prestige class is a separate class that you can choose to take levels in or not. It isn't "advancing" in the Wizard class. It's not like a Wizard automatically becomes an Archmage when he fulfills the requirements. If all the sheet said was "Archmage 17" we wouldn't know whether it was a Wizard 13/Archmage 4 or Wizard 16/Archmage 1 or Sorcerer 15/Archmage 2. There are reasons to pick any of these combinations. You are correct that saying "I am a 2nd-level Archmage" is misleading and gives you no information when you ask what a character is. That's why people don't say that. On paper, a character is always a Wizard 13/Archmage 2 or Sorcerer 15/Archmage 2 or a "17th-level Sorcerer/Archmage". You can't just be an Archmage, because Archmage is a prestige class. Do you seriously not get this? What the hell is confusing about this? Have you even *played* 3rd edition? they took the old style kits and presented them in a worse way than they were before rather than fix the kits sytem. :mad: PrCs aren't kits. They don't change one base class into another base class. They add levels of a new class on top of the levels of the old class. Kits are more similar, as Alex_P pointed out, to some of the "variant" base classes (like "Urban Ranger") or to things like racial or regional substitution levels (here are special abilities I get for being a Warforged Paladin instead of just a Paladin). The idea is still there for people who want it. Don't confuse it with PrCs, which are a different idea.
FatSamson 07-23-07, 08:52 AM	First, to address the whole "rules on the fly" thing, I'm dissapointed in any group where there is such a disconnect between what the DM and players each feel is fair that consensus can't be reached. At it's best, I feel D&D is a group storytelling venture where certain aspects of the world are adjudicated through random dice rolls. When approached this way by both the DM and players, there's no good reason that "DM's fiat" should be a problem. As for the original topic, AD&D was better than 3.x, and 3.x is better than AD&D. ???? Where I'm going with this is: 3.x was a major rule revision that (ostensibly) took into account decades of accumulated feedback and brought a different focus to the game. It was now made more "intuitive," and made it easier for MOST people to grasp the game mechanics. This appeals to a broader player/customer base, but also permits a greater number of number wizards who can tell you every feat they've got but who can't tell you if the character has a sister. In addition, 3.x suffers from a huge case of "let's make it bigger." What's the big whoop about the Tarrasque when you have giant BUGS with CRs twice as high? AD&D was less accessable because of the whole "do I want to roll low or high?" issue and others. Also, it was restrictive which was something a lot of people hated- rolling the stats to play a Paladin or some of the other classed was very difficult. It also made it that much more special when you did. Beyond that, 2nd ed had more flavor to it. For example, in the MM, the "habitat/society" and "ecology" sections were usually half of the text. I also think that "Dark Sun" and "Planescape" were INCREDIBLE campaign settings that are lacking in the current edition. :lop:While the latter seems to have been absorbed into much of the general thread, it lacks the in-depth story work that went into the original. But, my attention span wanes... Long story short, if you want rules, I concede that 3.x has the edge. If you want story inspirations, go 2nd. If you want a flawless game system, make it yer damn self because no one else has managed to do it. Finally: ArcTan, props for using "shibboleth." I've always wanted to make an aberration with the name, but none of my players would get it.
Anaxander 07-23-07, 09:09 AM	Long story short, if you want rules, I concede that 3.x has the edge. If you want story inspirations, go 2nd. If you want a flawless game system, make it yer damn self because none one else has managed to do it. But see, the d20 system is a system and independent of any fluff. Nothing keeps you or WotC from writing deep engaging backgrounds, campaign settings and stories around the system. So at heart the d20 system is by far a superior gaming system, but perhaps(?) it isn't as well embedded as 2nd.
tankschmidt 07-23-07, 09:18 AM	Hlethvagi, If you have made it this far through this thread, congratulations. Let me tell you, my friend, you picked the wrong place to post your intentions! Three pages of edition war - yikes! If you are interested in swapping advice and ideas with like-minded people who enjoy playing older editions, check out the Out of Print D&D board on this site, or hop on over to www.dragonsfoot.org. I guarantee that posting in either of those places will result in more constructive feedback for you than someone making fun of AD&D by pretending to be Cookie Monster the Barbarian. I hope you and your players enjoy switching the 2nd edition. Solid archetypes, more traditional fantasy, and faster (but less tactical) combat may not be for everyone, but they fit lots of roleplayers like a glove. Good luck!
shadzar 07-23-07, 09:59 AM	So you think your playstyle is the only right way to play D&D? Perhaps there is no *right* why to play this game. its right for me. my point is the other playstyles may be better suited for another game, or rather another game might suit the players better. why do some players cut up and disturb others, etc?
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 10:07 AM	making fun of AD&D by pretending to be Cookie Monster the Barbarian. Ahem. 1st ed did that ALL by itself, or did you never pick up the Unearthed Arcana? I hope you and your players enjoy switching the 2nd edition. Solid archetypes, more traditional fantasy, and faster (but less tactical) combat may not be for everyone, but they fit lots of roleplayers like a glove. yes, having to whip out a slide-rule to determine if you hit sure makes things faster... Look, most of the groups I've gamed with don't use the battle-grid stuff, why do that unless you really wanna play D&D Miniatures? As for 'more traditional fantasy', what? The classes in D&D 3rd/3.5 capture 'traditional' fantasy archetypes better (IMHO) than the stilted, arbitrarily rigid classes of 2nd or 1st. However, I'd also like to wish him good luck in trying to get his players to switch back to 2nd Ed. He'll need it...
shadzar 07-23-07, 10:08 AM	Because he doesn't have 14 Archmage levels. He has 13 Wizard levels and 1 Archmage level. and that is exactly what is stupid. if it will always be an archmage is archmage levels + 13 for a true level, thenwhy call archmage something other than wizard? can a thief become an archmage? so why not continue counting normally? he is a 14th level character, period. so why have multiple names for a single class just to add more stupid math into it when you complain about the way the math was in previous editions? the way the kits explained things were much beter than making a new set of class levels. at 14th level the wizard can become an archmage and get XX abilities. at so-and-so level he gets these XX abilites, etc. you didn't need a different # for the levels and could just look, oh he is 16th level wizard. instead of 3rd level archamage, + 13 wizard levels... its stupid. prestige classes are just kits earned at specific levels of the base class with more garbage tacked onto them. "effective character level" is stupid when you can just say "level".
Mortecareus 07-23-07, 10:36 AM	and that is exactly what is stupid. if it will always be an archmage is archmage levels + 13 for a true level, thenwhy call archmage something other than wizard? can a thief become an archmage? so why not continue counting normally? he is a 14th level character, period. so why have multiple names for a single class just to add more stupid math into it when you complain about the way the math was in previous editions? the way the kits explained things were much beter than making a new set of class levels. at 14th level the wizard can become an archmage and get XX abilities. at so-and-so level he gets these XX abilites, etc. you didn't need a different # for the levels and could just look, oh he is 16th level wizard. instead of 3rd level archamage, + 13 wizard levels... its stupid. prestige classes are just kits earned at specific levels of the base class with more garbage tacked onto them. "effective character level" is stupid when you can just say "level". I think you're still missing the point. You are right when you say he's a 14th level character, but the difference is what those 14 levels actually are. Wizards do not automatically become Archmages at 13th level. You could take levels in Archmage any time after 13th level. You could play a Wizard 15, Wizard 14 / Archmage 1 or Wizard 13 / Archmage 2. Each is a 15th level character. Each of these is actually different in terms of the abilities they have. Not very different, granted, but they are different. Prestige Classes, rather than being automatically 'earned at specific levels of the base class', are things you choose, or not. There are reasons for and against any of the three builds I just mentioned, based on amount of spell slots available and the Archmage special features you want to use. PRCs have requirements, and ANY character meeting them can choose to take the PRC. For example, a multiclass Rogue/Wizard can be an archmage if he meets the requirements. So yes, in a sense, a thief can be an Archmage. Effective Character level is a slightly different issue of awkward terminology, as demonstrated by Bob, the Wizard 13 / Archmage 1: Class level is the number of levels you have in a particular class. Bob's wizard class level is 13, archmage class level is 1. (Ok, poor example, given the two stack for most uses of 'class level' in the rules, but bear with me) Character level is the sum total of all his levels. This is what you mean by 'level'. Bob is a 14th level character Effective Character level includes level adjustment. let us say that Bob is in fact a half-dragon with +3 level adjustment. Bob's ECL is 17. I'm not entirely sure where Racial hit dice are included, but either character level or ECL Hope this helps, Toodles
not Yoda 07-23-07, 11:18 AM	Anything pre 3.$$$ is better. I laugh when I see "d20 is superior". Hmm... let me see. I'm first level and I want to do something. Player: DM what's the DC? DM: Uh "15". (10+1+4) Player:Great I have a 50% chance. I'm 20th level and I want to do something. Player: DM what's the DC? DM: Uh "33". (10+3+7+6+4+3+2+1-3) Hey do those really stack? Flips through DMG not there, checks the PHB 5 minutes pass a-ha there it is. Player: I have a +23 (6+5+3+2+1+1+4+2) Hey do those really stack? Player: Great I have a 50% chance. Success. Yes! Player: now for my other actions I do this. Player: what's the DC? Player2: Is it my turn yet? Doesn't sound so heroic now huh? We could take a look at 2e. 1st level DM: make a save vs poison. You get a +4 to this roll. Player: I need a 12. ouch Player: I have a 40% chance of success. 20th level DM: make a save vs poison. Player: I need a 2 or better. Player I have a 90% chance of success. In 3.$ the DM decides on the DC fairly often. When he doesn't have to decide, it generally means that unless you have min/maxed your character, you'll need to roll a 10 or better. The horrendously convoluted mess of modifiers is JUST to have a 50% chance. Yes unrivaled in convenience. And balanced too. Lets see, If I fail this save I'll be blinded for several rounds. I need to roll a.... how about that I need a ten. later in my career I need to make a save or be permanently imprisoned. Dang I need to roll a 10 still. WTF have I been leveling and spending all my loot for? In 2e You actually get better at making saves. This offsets the deadliness of higher level spells. Casters are still the moste powerful classes at high level. The power gulf is much smaller.
shadzar 07-23-07, 11:32 AM	Prestige Classes, rather than being automatically 'earned at specific levels of the base class', are things you choose, or not. There are reasons for and against any of the three builds I just mentioned, based on amount of spell slots available and the Archmage special features you want to use. PRCs have requirements, and ANY character meeting them can choose to take the PRC. For example, a multiclass Rogue/Wizard can be an archmage if he meets the requirements. So yes, in a sense, a thief can be an Archmage. well the "rouge/wizard" is a rogue/wizard, not a thief. and again the "archmage" doesn't need its own levels. ok you take this "kit" at 13th level. you only need to know how many levels have passed since you took archmage. you are level 15 wizard. 15 -13 = 2. ok you have all the benefits of 2 "ranks" in the Archmage. but the sheet always says wizard 15. so you immediately known the level of the character. still it is all stupid either way. why not just create an archmage class. have the first 13 levels use the wizard charts and then deviate. i can see the ultimate stupidity of the prestige classes now. Bob: hi am a 20th level fighter what are you? Fred: level 5 rouge, level 3 handler, level 6 wizard, level 6 archamge, level 4 fighter, level 3 [insert fighter prestige class]. Bob: oh so you have 6 classes? Fred: no just three. Bob: :thinks: :confused:
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 11:34 AM	Anything pre 3.$$$ is better. I laugh when I see "d20 is superior". Hmm... let me see. I'm first level and I want to do something. Player: DM what's the DC? DM: Uh "15". (10+1+4) Player:Great I have a 50% chance. Player: Okay, do I roll high, or low? Is this an attack roll, or a skill roll? If it's a skill roll, do I use the non-weapon proficiency rules, or the 1st ed 'Secondary Skills', which have NO rules whatsoever in their usage, and thus I have to rely in you pulling a ruling at random out of your *****? DM: uh.... later in my career I need to make a save or be permanently imprisoned. And pray tell what saving throw would THAT be? Save vs. Tic-Tacs? Save vs. Bureaucracy? Save vs. Tax Evasion????
shadzar 07-23-07, 11:42 AM	Player: Okay, do I roll high, or low? Is this an attack roll, or a skill roll? If it's a skill roll, do I use the non-weapon proficiency rules, or the 1st ed 'Secondary Skills', which have NO rules whatsoever in their usage, and thus I have to rely in you pulling a ruling at random out of your *****? DM: you roll a d20. ;) there goes that metagaming in action. worrying about what is needed like it will make any difference on what probability and fate give you on the die. the player doesn't always know why they are rolling a die, nor do they need a reason. DM: Bob, roll a d20. Bob: :eek: Why? DM: oh i am giving you a save versus the green slime that you just stepped in and you didn't even notice nor did the rest of your party. does Bob need to be told about every little thing? can Bob not think for himself to look around and check for any possible reason that he may have needed to make some sort of roll? is Bob a player in the game, or just a random dice roller so the DM can pit his own characters against the encounters he creates? you don't always need to know why you are rolling a die before you roll it. once the time has come to need to roll a save or check it is too late to go back and undo the action short of a wish spell. ;)
BlaineTog 07-23-07, 11:53 AM	sorry but i have been accusing people of rollpaying for more years than WotC itself has been around.Then you should know better. Where's Tempest when you really need him?
Anaxander 07-23-07, 11:57 AM	I'm first level and I want to do something. Player: DM what's the DC? DM: Uh "15". (10+1+4) Player:Great I have a 50% chance. I'm 20th level and I want to do something. Player: DM what's the DC? DM: Uh "33". (10+3+7+6+4+3+2+1-3) Hey do those really stack? Flips through DMG not there, checks the PHB 5 minutes pass a-ha there it is. Player: I have a +23 (6+5+3+2+1+1+4+2) Hey do those really stack? Player: Great I have a 50% chance. Success. Yes! Player: now for my other actions I do this. Player: what's the DC? Player2: Is it my turn yet? Doesn't sound so heroic now huh? 1. "Never tell me the odds", to quote Han Solo As a DM I will never tell players the DC or AC they have to hit. Where's the fun in that. 2. If you scale your d20 games like the computer game Oblivion, your game will suck. Players should get some lower and higher encounters too, which is advised in the DMG. So you have proven nothing.
not Yoda 07-23-07, 12:00 PM	Player: Okay, do I roll high, or low? Is this an attack roll, or a skill roll? If it's a skill roll, do I use the non-weapon proficiency rules, or the 1st ed 'Secondary Skills', which have NO rules whatsoever in their usage, and thus I have to rely in you pulling a ruling at random out of your *****? DM: uh.... Well you would know why you were rolling, unless the DM asked you to roll. BTW are you so good at dice-rolling that you can, perhaps, decide how they will land? Secondary skills were the kind of thing you get to take ten on. DM: Out of my ***, Coincidentally exactly where I get most DC's. Why? And pray tell what saving throw would THAT be? Save vs. Tic-Tacs? Save vs. Bureaucracy? Save vs. Tax Evasion???? Gee... it's pretty clear to me that. Since it Isn't Death, wands, paralasys, a breath weapon...perhaps Spell? Imprisonment maybe?
not Yoda 07-23-07, 12:12 PM	1. "Never tell me the odds", to quote Han Solo As a DM I will never tell players the DC or AC they have to hit. Where's the fun in that. 2. If you scale your d20 games like the computer game Oblivion, your game will suck. Players should get some lower and higher encounters too, which is advised in the DMG. So you have proven nothing. 1) you don't have to tell them. They will figure it out. If they don't already know. 2) Lower level encounters do not equate to cakewalk. Higher level encounters likewise do not equate to epic-battle. Advised in the DMG is that the vast majority of encounters should be equal to their level. Which means the rule of ten. There are exceptions and that is why it's not a law.
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 12:14 PM	Gee... it's pretty clear to me that. Since it Isn't Death, wands, paralasys, a breath weapon...perhaps Spell? Imprisonment maybe? Except there is NO "Save vs. Imprisonment", unless you call it "Bribing the Official". Unless you're talking about the spell "Imprisonment", in which case it's STILL not clear whether to use "Staves" (Since certain magic items could duplicate), "Breath Weapon" (Which IIRC a monster back in 2nd ed had as their BW), or "Spells"... A single Will save is better, since it covers ALL of those categories. And here's another question I'd like to ask all of the "Third Ed SUCKS! AD&D was better!" posters: If AD&D was so darned good, why aren't you playing it (It's called HACKMASTER now!) and supporting Kenzerco, which had the license for half the last decade? As I understand it, they're losing the license right now mostly because they couldn't pony up the re-licensing fee. Go buy their product if it's so good, and quit trying to start flame wars!
Grand Theft Otto 07-23-07, 12:37 PM	Wow! I was recently looking through my old 2.0 D&D books, and now I'm thinking I should degrade my current game from 3.5 back to 2.0. Everything in 2.0 is simple and easy to understand. I want to disarm someone. Assuming you have the complete fighter's handbook, you have printed rules that let you do that. However, the rules were ******, like pretty much all of 1st/2nd edition. "Sweet! I rolled a 20 to disarm the guy! Oh wait, thats bad for some reason now..." You also don't have too great a choice to make as to what character to play. What a perk! Down with choice! I also really like the MM with the pull out pages. What an amazing innovation. It's a shame they quit doing those that way. I take it you just opened the Monstrous Compendium? Have fun with the piece of crap in 3 months. The pull out pages were TERRIBLE. Even T$R figured that out. The MM IV was terrible and I'm not looking forward to V. With the 2.0 version just buy the packs of monsters you want, not only what they'll give you. Wow, sort of like what it is now. Except the 2nd edition monsters were more expensive per page, with black and white art. Without binding. I also really loved the boxed mega adventures. The new edition doesn't support those kinds of things, and I think that sux. The new Undermountain book is cool for what it is, but the original boxes blow it out of the water in scope and scale. Boxes like Night Below, and Return to the Tomb of Horrors were truly awesome to behold. The sheer amount of information with handouts maps and the adventure books themselves cannot be matched today, and I think that blows. Just think if you concerted those modules to an edition that was designed by someone with a clue...
unundindur 07-23-07, 12:45 PM	with having to sotp and calculate 4000 things in order to do anything. because of said above rollign versus specific DCs. You dont have to, but the GM now have mechanics to facilitate stuff if he wants to. My groups for example just skip grapling, tripping and the like because it speeds up gameplay. That is a lot like good old ADnD the players want to meta game more since they have more numbers to crunch. Again, not a problem with the rules, but with people. Just look at computer games. You are hard pressed to find a game as difficult as BG2 today. Why? Because people have grown lazy (generalizing). as i will say about the aobve, both editions would be little to no difference if the DM controlled a lot more information than the books allowed. The books allow it, its the GMs game. the players don't really need all the info that forces them into the mindset of meta gaming. Thats true. why take the longsword? because it does the most damage. why take magic missile? because it always hits. these aren't roleplaying, they are rollplaying. preparing for things in advanced based on better chances to a die roll. Ok, this is a gross missunderstanding. Here you seen to look at low intelligence characters (not players) as the norm of good roleplaying. Lets take a wizard for example, he usually have a high intelligence score so he should be quite capable of finding out that his magic missile power is more efficient, which again would make it a natural choice. The same goes for a warrior. Of course a smart warrior wants to kill his enemies fast. Although he wouldn't know it to deal 1d12 damage, he would know that it is generally more efficient, and that is the best reason in the world for him to use it. A warrior don't want to die, and they may cry too ;) also i don't think like WotC or many others. allowing more people to understand the rules seems to allow a lot of bad people into games that bring down the fun for other players. not because they aren't smart enough to subtract negative numebrs (THAC0 method), but they do things like cut up and act silly rather than play the game. and this isn't meaning younger players, but also includes oled players that haven't learned to grow up yet. but that is a whole other barrel of pickled fish. Well, it is ineed another barrel but it reminds me of when I was introduced to ADnD... I obtained a flying carpet with an integrated plain chair (so far so good) that allowed me to fly underwater (ok...) but when I did, a flyingmask akin to that of a F16 suddenly came onto my head... There have always been munchkinism...The two primary factors for the additional munchkinism today is 1. DnD have grown massively and 2. We have the internet that allow all of us munchkinmungers and haters to communicate. it doesn't really have to do with a "feel" of older edition, as in part the nature of knowing it better after 20+ years of use, and the expenditure to purchase the newer editions, but also the control DMs had. many people who even prefer 3.x editions i have heard from seem to think that they possess a problem with players thinking the books have the final say in the game. and this is how the books present it also. making it harder for DMs to rule certain ways on certain things in their worlds, vs the printed material. it existed in all editions, by seems more prevelant(sp) or talked about with 3.x. Yes, here we are onto the major point. Rule 0 have to be absolutely crystal clear, and for that to happen players have to trust their GM, which can at times be hard. also that thing can be seen on these forums in great numebrs where player/DM disputes come about because the players think the books are end all be all rules, rather than what my signature has them say. /nod to quote myself from a few years ago...."3.x editions seem to breed rules-lawyers rather than RPG players." I say its the success og DnD, and the internett (rule-lawyers have a habit for using this device in great numbers) and that makes it difficult for players and DMs alike when arguements break out over the rules. :( Again, it makes it difficult if players don't accept rule 0. Lalala :)
Grand Theft Otto 07-23-07, 12:45 PM	no the point was rather everyone shouldn't be playing the game. so making easier for people with no imagination to understand only hinders the game. those people who didn't understand the older rules for lack on wanting or caring aobut learning them because "they were too hard" and the same can be said for 3.x. those people that want to play, but not learn how to play. now it is easier for all to learn how to play, so you end up with more problematic players in games. "Lets stick the ignition in the glove compartment and the horn in the back seat! We'll intentionally design a crappy car to keep the plebians out." *golf clap for Gygax* When children design a more internally consistent and streamlined game, you know you suck as a designer.
MagicMouth 07-23-07, 01:04 PM	Ok, given the length of this post, I suspect some things herein will be covered by other board members as I type, but what the heck... Anything pre 3.$$$ is better. I laugh when I see "d20 is superior". Hmm... let me see. I'm first level and I want to do something. Player: DM what's the DC? DM: Uh "15". (10+1+4) Player:Great I have a 50% chance. I'm 20th level and I want to do something. Player: DM what's the DC? DM: Uh "33". (10+3+7+6+4+3+2+1-3) Hey do those really stack? Flips through DMG not there, checks the PHB 5 minutes pass a-ha there it is. Player: I have a +23 (6+5+3+2+1+1+4+2) Hey do those really stack? Player: Great I have a 50% chance. Success. Yes! Player: now for my other actions I do this. Player: what's the DC? Player2: Is it my turn yet? Doesn't sound so heroic now huh? Actually, we 3.X DMs don´t determine DCs that way. I don´t know how you came up with that example, really... we use a basic guideline such as this: DC 5: Really easy - "Hah, this is ridiculous :rolleyes: " DC 10: Easy - "Piece of cake. :D " DC 15: Challenging - "Hey hey, check this out. :cool: " DC 20: Hard - "Oh, I don´t know about that :eek:" DC 25: Really hard - "Uh oh... :bigeyes: " DC 30: Extremely hard - "That´s it, we´re done for. :surrender:" DC 35: Ridiculously hard - "It´s over 9000!!! :monk: " Note that this is for typical low-level characters: as they grow in experience, they can obviously handle more difficult situations with relative ease. later in my career I need to make a save or be permanently imprisoned. Dang I need to roll a 10 still. WTF have I been leveling and spending all my loot for? In 2e You actually get better at making saves. This offsets the deadliness of higher level spells. Casters are still the moste powerful classes at high level. The power gulf is much smaller. Well, you know, the base saves increase as the characters grow in level. As in, when they are more experienced, they can more easily survive things that would have killed them when they were less powerful. In other words, they do get better at making saves. But when they face more powerful foes, the save DCs will be higher: if they weren´t, things wouldn´t be very challenging and exciting, would they? *Sigh* I grow tired of these whole "2nd Ed. vs 3rd Ed." things that have been cropping up. I like 3rd edition because it offers a relatively simple basic ruleset, with a very simple base mechanic (d20+modifiers). Also, it has a larger amount of additional rules so that a great number of different situations can be easily covered. And if need be, you can immediatly look up how to handle things in your books if your memory fails you, rather than "Oh, it works like... eh, uh... erm, hmmmm this! *makes some random ruling*" Granted, some people are really good at coming up with good rulings on the fly, but not everyone has that talent. Should the latter not be allowed to DM? That sounds like elitism, which I hate. Also, a larger set of common rules makes it easier to adapt to different gaming groups, rather than having to learn new mechanics EVERY SINGLE TIME. The Core rulebooks has evertything I need to play, but it´s also fun to try out new things, eh? Or perhaps that makes me a horrible "munchkin powergamer" :rolleyes: Great. You like 2nd edition. Good for you. I think many of the mechanics therein are too convoluted, but if you like it, I won´t hold it against you. However, you can expect me to grumble when people attack a fine (no, not perfect, but fine) system, and sometimes those who play it in the process. The fact that I can create powerful characters doesn´t stop me from roleplaying them nicely as well. Also, wouldn´t you expect those with a hazardous occupation (like, I don´t know, adventurers? :P) to try to come up with the best possible ways of surviving? well the "rouge/wizard" is a rogue/wizard, not a thief. and again the "archmage" doesn't need its own levels. ok you take this "kit" at 13th level. you only need to know how many levels have passed since you took archmage. you are level 15 wizard. 15 -13 = 2. ok you have all the benefits of 2 "ranks" in the Archmage. but the sheet always says wizard 15. so you immediately known the level of the character. still it is all stupid either way. why not just create an archmage class. have the first 13 levels use the wizard charts and then deviate. i can see the ultimate stupidity of the prestige classes now. Bob: hi am a 20th level fighter what are you? Fred: level 5 rouge, level 3 handler, level 6 wizard, level 6 archamge, level 4 fighter, level 3 [insert fighter prestige class]. Bob: oh so you have 6 classes? Fred: no just three. Bob: :thinks: :confused: Please don´t call something stupid just because you don´t like how it works. This is a great and simple way of advancing characters, and it shows how much you focus in different areas of your training. For example, a Wizard13/Archmage3 has put more time in learning the deeper mysteries of magic. The Wizard15/Archmage1, on the other hand, prefers to stick to the things he know better and is more cautious in exploring the more advanced dweomers.
Frugal 07-23-07, 01:11 PM	well the "rouge/wizard" is a rogue/wizard, not a thief. and again the "archmage" doesn't need its own levels. ok you take this "kit" at 13th level. you only need to know how many levels have passed since you took archmage. you are level 15 wizard. 15 -13 = 2. ok you have all the benefits of 2 "ranks" in the Archmage. but the sheet always says wizard 15. so you immediately known the level of the character. So wait a minute, you object that it's "too hard" to add 2 numbers to figure out the character's level but then insist that we all be forced to remember what level someone took the PrC at and subtract that from the character's level to figure out what abilities he has? :confused: How is listing, "Wizard 13/Archmage 2" and figuring out that it means he's a 15th level character any more obnoxious or undesirable than writing "Wizard 15" and remembering that you have a PrC that changes your abilities so you really only have 13 levels of wizard and 2 levels of archmage, or "archmage 15" but wait, you took that at 14th level so you only have the 1st 2 abilities of archmage"? I'd say it's patently clear that you don't understand how PrC's work, or how multiclassing in 3ed works. You do realise that you could take 13 levels of Wizard, 1 level of archmage, then take another level of wizard right? Or that he might have x levels of wizard, y levels of another PrC that advances his arcane casting, and then levels of archmage. Now don't get me wrong, I think that a lot of base classes don't need to exist, and that a lot of PrC's don't need to exist but that doesn't mean that the system doesn't offer a lot of flexibility for you to make exactly the character you want instead of having everyone cookie cutter copies of each other. If figuring out total character level (ECL in 3ed speak) is that hard for you then *gasp* put the ECL next to your class levels, so write "Wizard 13/Archmage 2 (ECL 15)". Heck, some character sheets I've seen even have an ECL box for that so you can easily keep track of it for more complicated characters (like those with racial hd and/or a level adjustment).
Anaxander 07-23-07, 01:29 PM	1) you don't have to tell them. They will figure it out. If they don't already know. Sure, eventually, after the 5th round or so. 2) Lower level encounters do not equate to cakewalk. Higher level encounters likewise do not equate to epic-battle. Advised in the DMG is that the vast majority of encounters should be equal to their level. Which means the rule of ten. There are exceptions and that is why it's not a law. And this is a bad thing because?
Silverblade The Enchanter 07-23-07, 01:44 PM	Oddly enough, I too started playing the Baldur's gate series again, which uses 2nd Ed AD&D. And IT SUCKS! jeesh, I played AD&D since oh 1986 or so, and I *loved* it :) But, the stupidities in the system kept forcing you to make house rules..yes, the "High" vs "low" rolls for attacks and proficiency checks blew chunks. -My games have a lot of RP, always did, but you know what? 3rd Ed MAKES you tailor your character to your character's play style...you want to be the suave, swift talking conman, well, you need the skills...but that's cool...because an expert, rogue, swashbuckler, fighter with high Int & Cha or whatever you want will do fine, and he WILL be able to use those skills consistantly, which means his roleplaying is fine. It sucks to play Baldur's Gate II, and note your wizard's high Int doesn't make his spells harder to save against...since you're fighting high level mobs, the only thing you can do is use greater malison and pray a spell lands! Garbage! And no, I'm not a "Magic The Spud Game" player, ugh, never have been. I am a DM though, and DMs and players need each other, and neither should get out of hand. DrowBattlemind, rofl, you hit it exactly, mate! :) The only reason to play 1st or 2nd is is for NOSTALGIA. Sorry, it's like playing kid's games as an adult, sure they can be fun, but if the rules suck, you wil notice it now! I had to re-work the entire bloody 2nd ed Psionics system to get it to work, gah!! http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/adnd/htm/psionics.htm But yes, I loved the "flavour" of many of the original works ;) Dark Sun and Spelljammer RULE, original Undermountain blows away the rubbish recently released book. The original 1st boxed set of the Realms RULED, now it's Elminsterized to hell, ugh. Knwo what I loved in the 2nd ed Player's Handbook? Pic near start by Elmore with the adventurer's around the dead dragon...mmm, that summed it all up! :)
not Yoda 07-23-07, 02:06 PM	The only reason to play 1st or 2nd is is for NOSTALGIA. Sorry, it's like playing kid's games as an adult, sure they can be fun, but if the rules suck, you wil notice it now! I had to re-work the entire bloody 2nd ed Psionics system to get it to work, gah!! Actually the reason to play 2e is because 3.$ is a crappy system. Shoots and Ladders makes for better RP. You may not have noticed because of the shiny packaging, but someday you will. It happens quicker if you take a couple of days off from building characters using hundreds of splatbooks and checking your list of modifiers to see if they stack. Re-working psionics. I saw those rules as crap. So I didn't include them. Since most rules in 3.$ are crap I would have had to rewrite the system like you did with Psionics or go to a system that worked.
Roxlimn 07-23-07, 02:10 PM	I confess that I'm likewise baffled by the insistence that 2e is "simpler" than 3e. You COULD limit every choice in 3e until it was 2e all over again, but what would be the point of it? Essentially, that's what you're doing when you play 2e. You're taking 3e, squeezing every choice out of it to make it "easier to play" and then making the ruleset more complex to compensate. Why? Why is it "better" to stipulate that all Wizards had to take Archmage abilities at level 13 and then expect everyone who plays the game to remember it when they saw "Wizard 15?" While Wizard 13/Archmage 2 involves the addition of 2 numbers, I would like to think that the age recommendation for D&D makes the task rather easy for the average target player. I mean, what D&D player would find it oppressively difficult to add two numbers below 20, both of which are in plain view and require no previously known fact or rule other than basic multiclassing? The addition of PrCs makes it easier to create a wide variety of choices for players to make, without the attendant headaches. In fact, the X class1/ Y class 2 shorthand tells you everything you need to know, out of a rather wide-ranging number of possible choices. I suppose you COULD make a kit for each one, with a level 13 start being "Red Archmage" and a level 14 start being "Blue Archmage," but why go through all that effort?
MagicMouth 07-23-07, 02:12 PM	Actually the reason to play 2e is because 3.$ is a crappy system. Shoots and Ladders makes for better RP. You may not have noticed because of the shiny packaging, but someday you will. It happens quicker if you take a couple of days off from building characters using hundreds of splatbooks and checking your list of modifiers to see if they stack. :rolleyes: I just love the smell of prejudice in the morning...
Eater_Of_Souls 07-23-07, 02:13 PM	Both editions have their flaws, so lets hope that 4th editon adds up the good sides and not bad from both. Old boxed adventures beat these new books by a mile though, most 3ed books exist only to give more prestige classes, feats and spells and thats it the rest in the books might as well be air or in some cases they don't even have anything new just recycled trash from older books to boost up the sales a bit.
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 02:17 PM	DrowBattlemind, rofl, you hit it exactly, mate! :) What, this? And here's another question I'd like to ask all of the "Third Ed SUCKS! AD&D was better!" posters: If AD&D was so darned good, why aren't you playing it (It's called HACKMASTER now!) and supporting Kenzerco, which had the license for half the last decade? As I understand it, they're losing the license right now mostly because they couldn't pony up the re-licensing fee. Go buy their product if it's so good, and quit trying to start flame wars! I'm thinking of adding it to my sig.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-23-07, 02:24 PM	Actually the reason to play 2e is because 3.$ is a crappy system. Shoots and Ladders makes for better RP. You may not have noticed because of the shiny packaging, but someday you will. It happens quicker if you take a couple of days off from building characters using hundreds of splatbooks and checking your list of modifiers to see if they stack. Re-working psionics. I saw those rules as crap. So I didn't include them. Since most rules in 3.$ are crap I would have had to rewrite the system like you did with Psionics or go to a system that worked. You are so clever and witty. It just makes me want to hug you.
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 02:38 PM	Actually the reason to play 2e is because 3.$ is a crappy system. Shoots and Ladders makes for better RP. You may not have noticed because of the shiny packaging, but someday you will. Not likely, since I've been RP D&D since 1980 and AD&D since the original World of Greyhawk boxed set came out in 1983; I've kept up with the changes, house rules, and errata ever since. And sorry, 2nd Ed blows chunks. If you really and truly feel the way you say you do (and aren't just trolling), then go play hackmaster, and leave the rest of us alone, PLEASE! :rolleye2: This is a 3rd Ed board, the AD&D boards are HERE: http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54
not Yoda 07-23-07, 03:00 PM	If you really and truly feel the way you say you do (and aren't just trolling), then go play hackmaster, and leave the rest of us alone, PLEASE! :rolleye2: This is a 3rd Ed board, the AD&D boards are HERE: http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54 I don't need to play hackmaster. I have the 2e books.:D Hackmaster seemed OK but I already have that material. While there is a OoP board and I spend much of my time there. There is nothing in the name of this to indicate exclusivity of 3rd edition. Also please note the title of the thread. I suspect that you might be the troll. Since the topic of the thread is so obviously distainful to you.
Arcane Guyver 07-23-07, 03:15 PM	2nd edition is simpler? :confused: Just looking at 2e PHB Chapter 1, I see a whole seperate table for every ability score in the game, rather than just the one found in the 3e PHB. And it's been brought up already, but I must reiterate: THAC0 = simpler? I can't help but find this suggestion patently ridiculous. 2e is just as rulesy as 3e, but with a focus on unnecessary and arbitrary rules (like limiting race and class choice by ability score, having a retarded number of saving throws to keep track of, classes leveling at different speeds to make things more fun for the DM, etc.).
RadicalTaoist 07-23-07, 03:30 PM	Then you should know better. Where's Tempest when you really need him? If I'm not mistaken, at work in the lab. There's no point in relying on good master Stormwind to smite every single person that uses the Fallacy; much more sensible would be to link him to the thing and perhaps educate him on the Jell_Moo Principle while we're at it. "People who play differently from me don't deserve the gaming system I like" seems like a pretty solid violation of the Principle, especially considering that if he sticks to 2e and the people he doesn't want to play with stick to 3e then the only thing he has to share with them is the name, ferchrissakes. (Any terms not understood can be found here.) Ironically enough, this thread reminds me of something I posted in a Saga discussion...
Frugal 07-23-07, 03:33 PM	The RP argument really doesn't carry water. I find that what makes for good RP is the the players, the DM and their mindsets toward the system. If you had good RP under 2ed then the only difference is your mindset to the system so let's look at that. If you look at 3ed/3.5 and say, "it's got too many rules and it's all about optimisation and everything is explicitly defined by rules," then it doesn't matter if that's true or not, your mindset is going to make sure it's true, which will get in the way of RP. Now if you approach it as thinking, "3.5 offers all kinds of customisation and the consistent rules are easier to understand," then guess what, you'll probably focus on the customisation aspects and enjoy that you can make exactly the character you want and focus on RP. Now yes, there's definitely a difference between the more freeform "figure it out for yourself" nature of 2ed and the explicitly spelled out rules of 3ed/3.5. But, saying that takes away from RP is a fallacy. For every great DM in 2ed who could think on his feet and make good rulings about what the players came out there were also untold numbers of groups where the DM would get flustered by what the players were attempting, or who would make a ruling the players disagreed with and got bogged down with arguing about it. The same is true for 3.5, the rules are spelled out which is great if you can't make those snap decisions but if you use it to limit your options (if it's not in the rules you can't do it, no matter how sensible it seems) or get bogged down looking up rules or lawyering over the wording then yeah, it's not going to work. So what's the answer? That neither system is inherently better or worse for RP, but your own preferences or style might make one a better choice for you or your group.
WithnailScott 07-23-07, 03:33 PM	Over the past 20+ years of playing 1st through 3.5 editions, mostly as DM, these are my thoughts: 1. As a DM, 2nd Ed. was much easier to prepare for. An NPC’s stats only took up a tiny fraction of time and paper to cover and eventually I could conceive everything I needed to run even combat in my head. With 3rd Ed. I find the prep time much more extensive for NPCs. If there is to be a combat, it gets even more complicated. Having a program to crunch the numbers is very helpful though (etools for example). Still, time is a factor and my players know how to get the most out of their character’s, with feats and skills, and so I feel my NPCs are always a little bit behind in terms of combat. From a RP view point, the two are exactly the same except for: 2. Certain skills in 3rd ed. seem to counteract role-playing: Sense Motive and Bluff, particularly. These were always great role-playing moments in 2nd ed., now too often replaced with a dice roll. If a player wanted to bluff some town guard, he had to do it himself. It often lead to great character moments. There has come times, as a DM and a player, that I had a wonderfully constructed verbal bluff that seemed to be overruled by a quick dice roll. The players listening to me talk were obviously caught up in my verbosity, which was the desired effect, but a high Sense Motive tossed it all out. It seemed to shortcut what was a great role-playing moment. That said, most skills work very well in 3rd ed and it is so simple to house rule or just cut out Bluff and sense motive for role-playing situations. 3. Still, to me, 3rd ed far exceeds 2nd ed in terms of options, balance ease of play, and consistency of rules. Sure after so many years of DMing 1st and 2nd ed, the rules were as natural to work as my own hand, and I rarely had any problems with complicated situations, but I think 3rd ed is better in so many other ways. From monsters having ability stats to easy to teach new players mechanics. All the roleplaying stuff, for me and my group as never changed from one edition to the next except for the minor issues mentioned above.
Vaelan 07-23-07, 03:43 PM	Not Yoda, perhaps you should try limiting yourself to speaking of the merits of your preferred system, since you are so clearly unable to convincingly attack the systems you dislike. I would argue that you haven't and will not do so because the system is essentially meritless on the grounds that any claim of merit will be grounded in anecdote rather than the facts of the system. Care to prove me wrong?
Frugal 07-23-07, 03:48 PM	1. As a DM, 2nd Ed. was much easier to prepare for. An NPC’s stats only took up a tiny fraction of time and paper to cover and eventually I could conceive everything I needed to run even combat in my head. With 3rd Ed. I find the prep time much more extensive for NPCs. If there is to be a combat, it gets even more complicated. Having a program to crunch the numbers is very helpful though (etools for example). Still, time is a factor and my players know how to get the most out of their character’s, with feats and skills, and so I feel my NPCs are always a little bit behind in terms of combat. From a RP view point, the two are exactly the same except for: Yeah, it comes with more options/customisability. Plus side, way more versatility and unique characters. Downside, way more prep time, which the DM will feel more so than the players. 2. Certain skills in 3rd ed. seem to counteract role-playing: Sense Motive and Bluff, particularly. These were always great role-playing moments in 2nd ed., now too often replaced with a dice roll. If a player wanted to bluff some town guard, he had to do it himself. It often lead to great character moments. There has come times, as a DM and a player, that I had a wonderfully constructed verbal bluff that seemed to be overruled by a quick dice roll. The players listening to me talk were obviously caught up in my verbosity, which was the desired effect, but a high Sense Motive tossed it all out. It seemed to shortcut what was a great role-playing moment. That said, most skills work very well in 3rd ed and it is so simple to house rule or just cut out Bluff and sense motive for role-playing situations. Yes and no. I don't need to know how to swing a sword in order for my character to be able to, so why should it be any different for bluffing? Yes it sucks if the player just says, "I'll bluff the guard" and rolls the d20, but how about demanding more from your players? RP it out a bit and if he seems to be doing a particularly good job of it then assign him a circumstance bonus. The point though is that skills force you to actually have some ability in what you're doing as a character, not as a player. Ever had the character with the 8 CHA being the party "face" who makes all kinds of inspiring speeches and does all the diplomacy and bluffing? Well guess what, that player is just getting away with that 8 CHA not meaning anything and having free ranks in a ton of skills. Now have him make that same speech, assign modifiers if you feel they're appropriate and roll the dice, if he rolls low then guess what, that was what he meant to say but he stumbled over his words, or spoke to quickly in spots, or stammered, or spent the whole time staring at the bar maid's breasts, for whatever reason he failed. Skills don't have to sacrifice RP, if done well they enhance it.
Wiseblood 07-23-07, 03:49 PM	2nd edition is simpler? :confused: Just looking at 2e PHB Chapter 1, I see a whole seperate table for every ability score in the game, rather than just the one found in the 3e PHB. And it's been brought up already, but I must reiterate: THAC0 = simpler? I can't help but find this suggestion patently ridiculous. 2e is just as rulesy as 3e, but with a focus on unnecessary and arbitrary rules (like limiting race and class choice by ability score, having a retarded number of saving throws to keep track of, classes leveling at different speeds to make things more fun for the DM, etc.). Having a table for each ability score is fine by me since you should have that info written on your character sheet. THAC0 is simpler but not at it's surface. Allow me to explain. You subtract the target AC from your THAC0 number. The result of this equation is the number that you need to roll on a d20. This is harder to do than add BAB to diceroll and compare to AC. The difference lies in that in 3.X there are many more modifiers that need to be applied during combat. These are also always in flux. The second part of your post is mostly rhetoric. But I will address the saving throws. Hopefully to the satisfaction of other 2e buffs. Saving throws in 2e and 3e are to resolve the effect of things not covered by attack vs armor class. Such as area of effect from spells breath weapons and the like. Or ability to resist a special effect such as damage from poison. In each case (2e and 3e) you need this information on your character sheet. Once again tables that appear complicated are a non-issue. (they appear complicated simply because they are not easily memorized, but it is as simple as, find your class, find your corresponding level and your done with the table) In the 3.x rules there are many many things both permanent and temporary that modify your saving throws and the difficulty of said throws. This leads to more time spent in the resolution of actions. This resolution is sped up if situations are encountered repeatedly especially in the same session simply because you can "check your notes". The introduction of a new situation starts the process anew. In the case of high level play there are so many "situations" in every encounter that even one round of combat can eat up a great deal of game time.
RadicalTaoist 07-23-07, 03:51 PM	1. As a DM, 2nd Ed. was much easier to prepare for. An NPC’s stats only took up a tiny fraction of time and paper to cover and eventually I could conceive everything I needed to run even combat in my head. With 3rd Ed. I find the prep time much more extensive for NPCs. If there is to be a combat, it gets even more complicated. Having a program to crunch the numbers is very helpful though (etools for example). Still, time is a factor and my players know how to get the most out of their character’s, with feats and skills, and so I feel my NPCs are always a little bit behind in terms of combat. I don't know about 2nd ed. character creation, but 3rd ed. NPC crafting can take some time, yes. I hope future editions move in Saga's direction; there's a system with quick and easy character making. 2. Certain skills in 3rd ed. seem to counteract role-playing: Sense Motive and Bluff, particularly. These were always great role-playing moments in 2nd ed., now too often replaced with a dice roll. If a player wanted to bluff some town guard, he had to do it himself. It often lead to great character moments. There has come times, as a DM and a player, that I had a wonderfully constructed verbal bluff that seemed to be overruled by a quick dice roll. The players listening to me talk were obviously caught up in my verbosity, which was the desired effect, but a high Sense Motive tossed it all out. It seemed to shortcut what was a great role-playing moment. That said, most skills work very well in 3rd ed and it is so simple to house rule or just cut out Bluff and sense motive for role-playing situations. O RLY? (#3 and #7 are the money posts.) Hope that helps.
Kursk 07-23-07, 04:04 PM	Yes it sucks if the player just says, "I'll bluff the guard" and rolls the d20, but how about demanding more from your players? I NEVER let a player do that. They at least have to come up with an idea. How well the idea is executed and how persuasive they are is the dice roll.
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 04:07 PM	Eh, if a player does a great RP job, we can trump the roll with it, but not every player can actually act out a roleplaying scenario involving those activities (bluff, diplomacy, etc.) Some folks, no matter how smart or savvy, just don't have the 'polish' to smooth-talk their way into or out of a situation. That doesn't mean they shouldn't play such characters (as I've seen others on these boards suggest), that's like saying "If you can't cast Lightning Bolt in the real world, you have no business playing a Wizard." Bluff, Diplomacy, and other skills like that are for those guys.
not Yoda 07-23-07, 04:18 PM	Not Yoda, perhaps you should try limiting yourself to speaking of the merits of your preferred system, since you are so clearly unable to convincingly attack the systems you dislike. I would argue that you haven't and will not do so because the system is essentially meritless on the grounds that any claim of merit will be grounded in anecdote rather than the facts of the system. Care to prove me wrong? Vaelan, If I have attacked unconvincingly, perhaps you have decided not to be convinced. I do not mean offense, but it was a tough pill for me to swallow realizing that I could no longer stomach the prep time necesary to play. I have spent hundreds on this system. Now, in response to merit. 2e is faster in prep time. 2e is faster in resolution mechanics. These first two are all I need. Core Classes are more balanced. If you think I'm wrong please show me how. Weapon proficiencies make far more sense than starting play knowing all martial weapons. Then again it isn't about making sense, is it?
Frugal 07-23-07, 04:22 PM	Some folks, no matter how smart or savvy, just don't have the 'polish' to smooth-talk their way into or out of a situation. That doesn't mean they shouldn't play such characters (as I've seen others on these boards suggest), that's like saying "If you can't cast Lightning Bolt in the real world, you have no business playing a Wizard." Bluff, Diplomacy, and other skills like that are for those guys. Exactly, the problem is that it often sets up a double standard with skills. I don't have to know anything about climbing, jumping or swimming and I can have my character do those no problem. Does the rogue have to describe how he's picking the lock? Or the technique in picking someone's pocket? Do I have to know anything about the topic to have ranks in knowledge? Do I need a fundamental understanding of how magic works to use spellcraft? Do I have to describe how I craft something? Of course the answer to all of these is a resounding, "no". So why is it considered perfectly acceptable to have skills for those but as soon as you have a "social" skill some DM's expect acting on par with a Shakespearian troupe?
MagicMouth 07-23-07, 04:28 PM	Core Classes are more balanced. If you think I'm wrong please show me how. Actually, those with a good grasp on how game mechanics work have come to the conclusion that several of the most prominent the Core classes are anything but balanced. The Wizard, the Cleric and particularily the Druid are the worst offenders in this case. There is an abundance of threads regarding this on the Classes and Character Optimization boards if you just search a little, but I´ll be nice and see if I can find anything for you. Update in a while. EDIT: What is CoDzilla? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=717485) cleric-hows it so "Uber" (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-670593) (Archived) Explain Druid-zilla (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=880713)
ItaraKoturo 07-23-07, 04:28 PM	The epic battle of shadzar vs. the rest of the thread. Man, shadzar, you've been playing how long? You seem to have some really incredible misunderstandings of how D&D works and why it runs the way it does. Have you ever considered that you might not like these "new players" because they're actually playing D&D and you're trying to play a different game entirely? It doesn't sound like you enjoy D&D.
Anaxander 07-23-07, 04:29 PM	Vaelan, If I have attacked unconvincingly, perhaps you have decided not to be convinced. I do not mean offense, but it was a tough pill for me to swallow realizing that I could no longer stomach the prep time necesary to play. I have spent hundreds on this system. Now, in response to merit. 2e is faster in prep time. 2e is faster in resolution mechanics. These first two are all I need. Then perhaps 2e is indeed better for you. Have fun :) But saying that 3.5 is "a crappy system. Shoots and Ladders makes for better RP" has nothing to do with 'faster prep time' & 'resolution mechanics'. The d20 system is a unified mechanic for a skills and rolls, except for a couple exotic checks, like stabilizing (which they should have turned into some kind of fort save imo). Saving throws are easy and intuitive to understand. Ability scores have an impact on almost any aspect of your character, which is nice (what's the point of having stats which do nothing?) ... Core Classes are more balanced. If you think I'm wrong please show me how. Other posters have already pointed out the not so balanced 2e core classes. Weapon proficiencies make far more sense than starting play knowing all martial weapons. Then again it isn't about making sense, is it? No it is about having fun. A fighter can use (almost!) any weapon he wants. That's fun for a fighter. A wizard can't use martial weapons and only some simple weapons. That isn't a problem since his 'fun' does not depend on using martial weapons.
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 04:38 PM	Then perhaps 2e is indeed better for you. Have fun :) But saying that 3.5 is "a crappy system. Shoots and Ladders makes for better RP" has nothing to do with 'faster prep time' & 'resolution mechanics'. The d20 system is a unified mechanic for a skills and rolls, except for a couple exotic checks, like stabilizing (which they should have turned into some kind of fort save imo). Saving throws are easy and intuitive to understand. Ability scores have an impact on almost any aspect of your character, which is nice (what's the point of having stats which do nothing?) ... Other posters have already pointed out the not so balanced 2e core classes. No it is about having fun. A fighter can use (almost!) any weapon he wants. That's fun for a fighter. A wizard can't use martial weapons and only some simple weapons. That isn't a problem since his 'fun' does not depend on using martial weapons. PREACH IT, BROTHAH! (Crap! We need a Malcom X smiley!)
shadzar 07-23-07, 04:41 PM	Lalala :) hahahaha so funny putting responses inside a quote when these forums lack the ability to properly multiquote a reply... and i aint about to dissect it to respond, but will just say i don't agree with 50% of what you said. you can guess what parts. :rolleyes:
shadzar 07-23-07, 04:43 PM	Please don´t call something stupid just because you don´t like how it works. This is a great and simple way of advancing characters, and it shows how much you focus in different areas of your training. For example, a Wizard13/Archmage3 has put more time in learning the deeper mysteries of magic. The Wizard15/Archmage1, on the other hand, prefers to stick to the things he know better and is more cautious in exploring the more advanced dweomers. it doesn't require a subclass with its own level structure. that is what is stupid. there are numerous other ways it could have been handled and written.
not Yoda 07-23-07, 04:58 PM	Actually, those with a good grasp on how game mechanics work have come to the conclusion that several of the most prominent the Core classes are anything but balanced. The Wizard, the Cleric and particularily the Druid are the worst offenders in this case. There is an abundance of threads regarding this on the Classes and Character Optimization boards if you just search a little, but I´ll be nice and see if I can find anything for you. Update in a while. Actually, those with a good grasp on how game mechanics work have come to the conclusion that several of the most prominent the Core classes are anything but balanced. The Wizard, the Cleric and particularily the Druid are the worst offenders in this case. There is an abundance of threads regarding this on the Classes and Character Optimization boards if you just search a little, but I´ll be nice and see if I can find anything for you. Update in a while. EDIT: What is CoDzilla? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=717485) cleric-hows it so "Uber" (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-670593) (Archived) Explain Druid-zilla (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=880713) My apoligies for being unclear. The merits I listed were those of 2e. Absent in 3.$.
MagicMouth 07-23-07, 05:01 PM	it doesn't require a subclass with its own level structure. that is what is stupid. there are numerous other ways it could have been handled and written. Well, it´s not really a subclass. "Subclass" implies that it is categorized under one of the base classes, which it´s not: while a Wizard background is indeed the most common, a Sorcerer or any other arcane spellcaster who meets the preqs could also follow this path. I still don´t understand why you think it´s "stupid". And, as I have said before, keeping track on how many levels you have in different classes shows you more precisely what you´ve been focusing on during your career. It also gives room for more flexible characters, as not everyone who wants to be an Archmage has to have trained as a Wizard before.
OravennasBrother 07-23-07, 05:03 PM	Being able or willing to work around a crappy ruleset has nothing to do with having a good imagination. I agree wholeheartedly. Working around the crappy 3.X rules, is in point of fact, a great workout for ones imagination. The ONLY complexity Issue I regularly heard for 2nd was THAC0 - and that was primarily from mathematical midgets who had trouble with basic subtraction. But 3.X? Every feat is another MTG card with it's own interaction with the rules. Even the spells have a troubling flavor being less magical and more formulaic. If there were enough 2ed players I wouldn't even bother with 3.X. Though it will be poetic justice to watch the 3.X guru's whine when 4.X comes out.
Ezell Pike 07-23-07, 05:06 PM	I agree wholeheartedly. Working around the crappy 3.X rules, is in point of fact, a great workout for ones imagination. The ONLY complexity Issue I regularly heard for 2nd was THAC0 - and that was primarily from mathematical midgets who had trouble with basic subtraction. But 3.X? Every feat is another MTG card with it's own interaction with the rules. Even the spells have a troubling flavor being less magical and more formulaic. If there were enough 2ed players I wouldn't even bother with 3.X. Though it will be poetic justice to watch the 3.X guru's whine when 4.X comes out. :clap: And to Hlethvagi, Welcome to the revolution.
DrowBattlemind 07-23-07, 05:07 PM	i would sure hate to have you as a DM, so glad you dislike 2nd edition so i don't have to worry about that potential ever happening. ;) The ONLY good thing about 2nd ed was the Forgotten Realms flavor text. Period.
shadzar 07-23-07, 05:08 PM	Well, it´s not really a subclass. "Subclass" implies that it is categorized under one of the base classes, which it´s not: while a Wizard background is indeed the most common, a Sorcerer or any other arcane spellcaster who meets the preqs could also follow this path. I still don´t understand why you think it´s "stupid". And, as I have said before, keeping track on how many levels you have in different classes shows you more precisely what you´ve been focusing on during your career. It also gives room for more flexible characters, as not everyone who wants to be an Archmage has to have trained as a Wizard before. the whole idea of the 2nd kits, and the 3.x prestige classes are stupid. the kits gave a few things, but to me were pretty much subclasses. wizard/sorcerer whateveer, they are the same thing...MU, MAGIC-USER. the four core class group have not been so utterly altered that they are no longer distinguishable. Fighter Wizard Priest Rogue anything else is a subclass to one of those main four. it would make more sense to me to have "specialists" just gain things as they go like the kits for each class, but they don't need to be so worked up and convoluted as the kits were. hey your wizard can become a specialist (not in a school, but in magic in general) so gets these bonuses he can choose from at these levels if he chooses. of course some bonuses would have dependencies on others so you wouldn't get early level high-end payoffs. get the idea?
MagicMouth 07-23-07, 05:09 PM	My apoligies for being unclear. The merits I listed were those of 2e. Absent in 3.$. Ah. Well, as I don´t have much experience with 2nd Ed., I can´t really make a comparsion. However, I´ve heard from several former 2e players that the balance issues were even worse than in the current edition.
shadzar 07-23-07, 05:12 PM	The ONLY good thing about 2nd ed was the Forgotten Realms flavor text. Period. :confused: flavor text? 2nd edition wasn't a card, or an expansion for Magic the Gathering, that was called Beta. B-E-T-A, technically Beta Limited if you was to split hairs about it. ;) are you by chance meaning the setting details, novels, etc?
WithnailScott 07-23-07, 05:12 PM	Yeah, it comes with more options/customisability. Plus side, way more versatility and unique characters. Downside, way more prep time, which the DM will feel more so than the players. Yes and no. I don't need to know how to swing a sword in order for my character to be able to, so why should it be any different for bluffing? Yes it sucks if the player just says, "I'll bluff the guard" and rolls the d20, but how about demanding more from your players? RP it out a bit and if he seems to be doing a particularly good job of it then assign him a circumstance bonus. The point though is that skills force you to actually have some ability in what you're doing as a character, not as a player. Ever had the character with the 8 CHA being the party "face" who makes all kinds of inspiring speeches and does all the diplomacy and bluffing? Well guess what, that player is just getting away with that 8 CHA not meaning anything and having free ranks in a ton of skills. Now have him make that same speech, assign modifiers if you feel they're appropriate and roll the dice, if he rolls low then guess what, that was what he meant to say but he stumbled over his words, or spoke to quickly in spots, or stammered, or spent the whole time staring at the bar maid's breasts, for whatever reason he failed. Skills don't have to sacrifice RP, if done well they enhance it. Very valid and helpful suggestions. Thank you. It seems to confirm that 3.5 has easy solutions to issues just like the other editions did but with a more logical foundation.
MagicMouth 07-23-07, 05:18 PM	the whole idea of the 2nd kits, and the 3.x prestige classes are stupid. the kits gave a few things, but to me were pretty much subclasses. wizard/sorcerer whateveer, they are the same thing...MU, MAGIC-USER. the four core class group have not been so utterly altered that they are no longer distinguishable. Fighter Wizard Priest Rogue anything else is a subclass to one of those main four. it would make more sense to me to have "specialists" just gain things as they go like the kits for each class, but they don't need to be so worked up and convoluted as the kits were. hey your wizard can become a specialist (not in a school, but in magic in general) so gets these bonuses he can choose from at these levels if he chooses. of course some bonuses would have dependencies on others so you wouldn't get early level high-end payoffs. get the idea? Thank you. Now I understand more of your point of view, although I still don´t agree with it. Might I suggest taking a look at the Generic Classes system (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) from the d20 SRD? The variety of class options available to characters can seem overwhelming. Though that variety can lead to interesting and exciting combinations, a game master who desires to run a simpler campaign (while still allowing for character variety) can use these "generic" character classes in place of the standard character classes. The three generic classes here—warrior, expert, and spellcaster—cover the common roles of a group of adventurers. (Despite sharing names with NPC classes, the warrior and expert presented here are very different from those classes.) But despite these classes' basic approaches to character building, each one allows a wide variety of archetypes through the selection of skills and feats. If you use these generic classes, you shouldn't also use the standard character classes (or variants of those classes). You can still include prestige classes, if you wish to add that level of complexity to your game, but you may have to tweak some prestige class prerequisites that include class features not available to these classes.
DaidojiTaidoru 07-23-07, 05:19 PM	Ah 2nd ED. The days where the only difference between two fighters was their stats and gear. The days when being good at something that didn't involve killing things depended entirely on your base stats. The days where Bards decided to skip being Jack of All Trades in favor of Mastering everything. Where you needed separate charts for each classes different saves, Thac0 and level reqs. Where a 3rd level rogue usually had a 95% chance of sneaking past anyone, unless of course that creature could see invisible things in which case they couldn't hide at all. The days where the random designers suggestion on the exact way you were supposed to play your class, which almost inevitably was a cheap stereotype, was not suggested flavor text but "good roleplaying" :rolleyes: Man I so don't miss any of that.
BaltotheJunkie 07-23-07, 05:26 PM	Paladin: 1st: Everyone and everything must be lawful good! If you are neutral good MAYYYYYYYYBE I can work for you under extreme duress, but only for a little while! Why, that's totally playable right? Works witha ny group right? Nevermind I can't use a ranged weapon ever! I'm sure the Chaotic Evil Red dragon will come down and play fair instead of nuke us from above! 3.5: Hey I can work with most groups now! Who knew? Bows are nice, even if I cant smite with them! Are you confusing 1st ed. Paladin and 1.5 (came out in Dragon, originally) Cavalier? I think so...
BaltotheJunkie 07-23-07, 05:33 PM	Anyway, what I miss was the magic items and magic names. Vancian or not, I liked the strange names that spells used to have- they may have been unwieldy, but they were fun and interesting. I liked the idea of cursed items (more as a DM than player, perhaps) and the relative rarity of magic items. Yes, in our campaigns we were happy to have any potion we could find. I preferred Gygax's rather purple prose, and liked the art more as well. I guess that makes me a curmudgeon.
Wiseblood 07-23-07, 05:40 PM	Anyway, what I miss was the magic items and magic names. Vancian or not, I liked the strange names that spells used to have- they may have been unwieldy, but they were fun and interesting. I liked the idea of cursed items (more as a DM than player, perhaps) and the relative rarity of magic items. Yes, in our campaigns we were happy to have any potion we could find. I preferred Gygax's rather purple prose, and liked the art more as well. I guess that makes me a curmudgeon. I agree with all of the above.:D Another thread reminded me of something. When I started playing we didn't use minis or a battle mat. It worked out fine. You would have to make some changes to pull that off in 3rd edition.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 06:16 PM	and that is exactly what is stupid. if it will always be an archmage is archmage levels + 13 for a true level, thenwhy call archmage something other than wizard? ...But it won't be. A Wizard might choose to get all the way up to 16th level without taking Archmage. And an Archmage might be a Sorcerer, or a Wu Jen, or anyone else who can wrangle the arcane spellcasting requirement. can a thief become an archmage? No, because 1) a "thief" is not a name for a character class in D&D, and 2) a pure Rogue might not meet the requirements. However, it is possible to be a Sorcerer/Rogue/Archmage or a Wizard/Rogue/Arcane Trickster/Archmage (in which case you won't be taking your first Archmage level until 18 or 19). so why not continue counting normally? he is a 14th level character, period. so why have multiple names for a single class just to add more stupid math into it when you complain about the way the math was in previous editions? You... really don't understand how this works at all, do you? Like I said, have you even *played* 3rd edition? It's not a single class. They are multiple classes. You can choose how many levels you want from each. the way the kits explained things were much beter than making a new set of class levels. at 14th level the wizard can become an archmage and get XX abilities. at so-and-so level he gets these XX abilites, etc. Which is a lot more limiting. Here, you can choose how much longer you want to remain an ordinary Wizard before you become an Archmage (and there are tradeoffs associated with both). You can choose to become a Mage of the Arcane Order first and *then* become an Archmage. And so on. It's not a single option that must be activated at a certain level for only one class. you didn't need a different # for the levels and could just look, oh he is 16th level wizard. instead of 3rd level archamage, + 13 wizard levels... its stupid. prestige classes are just kits earned at specific levels of the base class with more garbage tacked onto them. "effective character level" is stupid when you can just say "level". No. PrCs are kits earned at *any* level of *any* base class that can meet their requirements. That's a huge difference. Archmage is a very bad example, here. A better one would be one like Legendary Leader or Warforged Juggernaut or Illithid Slayer, where any number of different character concepts can pick up the PrC at any number of different points in their progression to achieve any number of different goals.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 06:21 PM	well the "rouge/wizard" is a rogue/wizard, not a thief. and again the "archmage" doesn't need its own levels. ok you take this "kit" at 13th level. you only need to know how many levels have passed since you took archmage. you are level 15 wizard. 15 -13 = 2. ok you have all the benefits of 2 "ranks" in the Archmage. but the sheet always says wizard 15. so you immediately known the level of the character. Unless I decided to go to Wizard 18 and then take 2 levels of Archmage. still it is all stupid either way. why not just create an archmage class. have the first 13 levels use the wizard charts and then deviate. ...Because then only Wizards could be Archmages, and there'd be less point to it? I like how you consistently forget Sorcerers even exist. Like I said, have you even *played* a 3e game? i can see the ultimate stupidity of the prestige classes now. Bob: hi am a 20th level fighter what are you? Fred: level 5 rouge, level 3 handler, level 6 wizard, level 6 archamge, level 4 fighter, level 3 [insert fighter prestige class]. Bob: oh so you have 6 classes? Fred: no just three. Bob: :thinks: :confused: Well, that's the stupidity of making PrCs something fundamentally different from multiclassing into two base classes, which is actually an unnecessary and hoary artifact of older editions. d20 Modern is better about this. You can have as many classes as you want at once, with none of this crap about XP penalties. A "class" is a set of abilities you're choosing to spend your XP on, not some sort of inherent identifier of what you are.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 06:25 PM	My apoligies for being unclear. The merits I listed were those of 2e. Absent in 3.$. Having one class be mediocre all the time (Fighting-Man) and one class be utterly helpless at low levels and utterly omnipotent at high levels (Magic-User) is not "balance". Admittedly, this has not changed all that much over the different editions, but at least they're trying now (Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle are two books that try to fix the inherent problem with D&D core class design).
Grand Theft Otto 07-23-07, 06:41 PM	Ah. Well, as I don´t have much experience with 2nd Ed., I can´t really make a comparsion. However, I´ve heard from several former 2e players that the balance issues were even worse than in the current edition. It depends. 2nd edition prided itself on not being balanced. So I guess when you dont have a goal, you cant miss the mark...
Grand Theft Otto 07-23-07, 06:55 PM	I liked the idea of cursed items (more as a DM than player, perhaps) and the relative rarity of magic items. Magic items, by the rules, were not rare. Go look through any published module. They werent rare. Roll on treasure tables, and you'll be dripping with crap. Playing legit, my players got a ring of 4 wishes from a cockatrice at 4th level. Granted, Gygax and company TOLD you they should be rare, but its hardly the first time they showed a grotesque disconnect from the game they thought they wrote. I refer you to "Poker, Chess and the AD&D System", where he gripes about houserules. Pretty ballsy when your typical task resolution that doesnt involve hitting something is "make it up yourself".
Silverblade The Enchanter 07-23-07, 07:20 PM	Sigh, some folk are just partizan :) Drowbatlemind, nah yer whole 1st post on this, which was damned funny ;) Only problems I have with 3rd ed are: 1) Takes time writing NPCs up, so may choices, skill points etc. It's very cool in play though, as Npc vs PC is MUCH better balanced in 3rd ED: no sneaking by that Sentry chosen for being alert by one dumb ass % roll (or failing it either) 2)Grapple, still bugs me figuring that out at times, lol. 3) Guantlets of Ogre Power, Girdle of Hill Giant Strength, gah they should GIVE those exact bonuses, and not allow higher either, ie 18, 19 etc ;) +Strength is cool, just a NAMED strength should = an exact strength score. Minor peeve. 4) Munchkins, alas, 3rd ed can easily abused by munchkins, who I HATE WITH A PASSION! You want a weird character in my games, explain him, and I may allow it, but you cheat to make a super-duper character and you can kiss that character sheet bye bye ;) However, in 2nd ed, they also existed...dual wielding uber strength fighters, ugh. As others state, since stats give same bonuses, and Saves and skills are all linked, OMFG, that's so much easier for me as DM to work things out, HALLELUJAH!! :D Oh, and Charisma is worth a damn now. As for RP vs skills, what I usually do, is if a player does a very good job of RP, he gets a +4 bonus on a skill check, like Bluff etc. In the end, it's liek comparing old to modern cars. Yes, often the old cars looke dbetter, though some were ugly! But, the new cars are soooo much more smoother, reliable (if they ain't American, haha!) and pleasant to drive...alas though, modern roads are jam packed, the munchkins in our soup :uh-huh:
Werral 07-23-07, 07:30 PM	I just take what I like and don't give a damn.
Hlethvagi 07-23-07, 07:38 PM	Hey all, Wow! I didn't expect this many replies. Thanks to all the people who wish me luck, things are looking good. One player is very excited to go back, and with all the old stuff of mine that he's seen, he knows that it should be pretty cool:D . Of course, some of the players aren't exited at all. Most of them learned how to play with 3.5, and have never tried 2.0. I'll be making up some characters, thinking high level, maybe not. I want to run Night Below, then go into Return to the Tomb of Horrors or a Paladin in Hell or something. Hlethvagi
High Octane 07-23-07, 07:57 PM	He's never met a 15th-level caster with Spell Focus? 15th level monk: Between a +9 in all base saves and probably at least a +4 in con, dex, and wisdom, and easily a +5 cloak of resistance the monk has a +18 on every save. That's the base save DC of an 8th level spell, so the monk has to roll the caster's Int modifier+2 (greater spell focus) on a 20 sided to make the save for the caster's highest level spells. Probably not higher than a 10 total. Also monks get a +2 on enchantment saves. That's after the caster makes it past SR 25. The caster can still beat the monk, he just has to make sure he uses spells that don't involve saving throws. Or do it at a distance until the monk rolls ridiculously low on something.
TheAnthroDM 07-23-07, 07:58 PM	2.0 DnD sucked. In 2.0 the DM is your Boss and God. In 3.X the DM is your friend and story teller. The rules were far to complex, allowed for way to little options, 3.X has so many options it can make your head spin, but here's the best part, you only have to use the ones you want to. Amazing, I don't have to be a Dread Necromancer with Tomb-Tainted Soul if I don't want to! And the reason why there are more power gamers in 3.0 is really easy to answer. It's called the Internet, now munchkins can share their knowledge on manipulating the system. So yes, if you want to play a far inferior and much more complicated game, then be my guest. Especially when you get a player who wants to be a Martial Artist, oh the joy!
not Yoda 07-23-07, 08:05 PM	Having one class be mediocre all the time (Fighting-Man) and one class be utterly helpless at low levels and utterly omnipotent at high levels (Magic-User) is not "balance". Admittedly, this has not changed all that much over the different editions, but at least they're trying now (Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle are two books that try to fix the inherent problem with D&D core class design). Not much has changed. The new motto is "lets build a system from the ground up that increases the power of casters and nerfs the "fighting man" then we'll try to rebalance it by selling them more crap". Yay. Why do you think they sold you 3.5 to begin with? You have a flair for overstating things, flinging about terms like helpless and omnipotent. In 2e if things got out of hand the DM could step in and fix them. Now a pervasive, overdeveloped sense of entitlement, results in surly players when you try to curtail abuses facilitated by the glut of rules.
BaltotheJunkie 07-23-07, 08:11 PM	Magic items, by the rules, were not rare. Go look through any published module. They werent rare. Roll on treasure tables, and you'll be dripping with crap. Playing legit, my players got a ring of 4 wishes from a cockatrice at 4th level. Granted, Gygax and company TOLD you they should be rare, but its hardly the first time they showed a grotesque disconnect from the game they thought they wrote. I refer you to "Poker, Chess and the AD&D System", where he gripes about houserules. Pretty ballsy when your typical task resolution that doesnt involve hitting something is "make it up yourself". Well, they were not uncommon if you just blindly read out the list of treasure at the end of a fight. If you actually had to announce you were searching, and then had to decide what to test with detect magic, and if you went by the rules of command words and such, functioning magic items did not often end up in our characters' possession. In addition, if you really made items save against magic (after clearing that room with a fireball) you should never have gotten so many magic items- at least not ones that were still in one piece...
not Yoda 07-23-07, 08:12 PM	Having one class be mediocre all the time (Fighting-Man) and one class be utterly helpless at low levels and utterly omnipotent at high levels (Magic-User) is not "balance". Admittedly, this has not changed all that much over the different editions, but at least they're trying now (Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle are two books that try to fix the inherent problem with D&D core class design). Not much has changed. The new motto is "lets build a system from the ground up that increases the power of casters and nerfs the "fighting man" then we'll try to rebalance it by selling them more crap". Yay. Why do you think they sold you 3.5 to begin with? You have a flair for overstating things, flinging about terms like helpless and omnipotent. In 2e if things got out of hand the DM could step in and fix them. Now a pervasive overdeveloped sense of entitlement results in truly surly players when you try to curtail abuses facilitated by the glut of rules.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 08:15 PM	Not much has changed. The new motto is "lets build a system from the ground up that increases the power of casters and nerfs the "fighting man" then we'll try to rebalance it by selling them more crap". Yay. I admit that to make Wizards a class you can actually *play* and *have fun* with, as opposed to old-school D&D (with its loathsome attitude of "The game gets more fun as you become a more 'elite' player" so that you had to be a rules wizard in real life to have any fun as a Magic-User) was enough of a priority that Wizards really overtook Fighters as interesting characters. The problem of casting being inherently more interesting than fighting has always been there. The idea of Fighter feats actually was a *good step* in the right direction, compared to the no-customization-at-all of earlier editions' Fighters. Tome of Battle is a better -- far more daring -- step in the right direction, but it's understandable why they wouldn't take such a huge step when 3e first came out. Why do you think they sold you 3.5 to begin with? Because they're willing to admit their mistakes? You have a flair for overstating things, flinging about terms like helpless and omnipotent. In 2e if things got out of hand the DM could step in and fix them. Now a pervasive, overdeveloped sense of entitlement, results in surly players when you try to curtail abuses facilitated by the glut of rules. ...If you say so. I prefer a system that gives DMs a leg to stand on when they have to make up random crap on the fly, as opposed to making big mistakes they have to fix themselves later on in the same campaign.
Alex_P 07-23-07, 08:16 PM	I must agree that the 2.0 system was great for it's time.Eh, in terms of developments in the hobby/industry as a whole, I disagree. As a set or rules (i.e. just plain ignoring setting and art and whatnot), AD&D 2nd Edition was pretty backward for its own time. Even games like Traveller and Runequest (both significantly older) put it to shame. -- Alex
BaltotheJunkie 07-23-07, 08:16 PM	Magic items, by the rules, were not rare. Go look through any published module. They werent rare. Roll on treasure tables, and you'll be dripping with crap. Playing legit, my players got a ring of 4 wishes from a cockatrice at 4th level. Granted, Gygax and company TOLD you they should be rare, but its hardly the first time they showed a grotesque disconnect from the game they thought they wrote. I refer you to "Poker, Chess and the AD&D System", where he gripes about houserules. Pretty ballsy when your typical task resolution that doesnt involve hitting something is "make it up yourself". Well, they were not uncommon if you just blindly read out the list of treasure at the end of a fight. If you actually had to announce you were searching, and then had to decide what to test with detect magic, and if you went by the rules of command words and such, functioning magic items did not often end up in our characters' possession. In addition, if you really made items save against magic (after clearing that room with a fireball) you should never have gotten so many magic items- at least not ones that were still in one piece...
High Octane 07-23-07, 08:17 PM	Not much has changed. The new motto is "lets build a system from the ground up that increases the power of casters and nerfs the "fighting man" then we'll try to rebalance it by selling them more crap". Yay. Why do you think they sold you 3.5 to begin with? You have a flair for overstating things, flinging about terms like helpless and omnipotent. In 2e if things got out of hand the DM could step in and fix them. Now a pervasive, overdeveloped sense of entitlement, results in surly players when you try to curtail abuses facilitated by the glut of rules. How are fighting men more nerfed then they were in 1st and 2nd edition? Anyway, I'm thinking they sold him 3.5 to make money. Shame on a business to do that. Oh and "It's not broken since the DM can fix it" is a laughable statement. A good DM can fix anything. However we are talking about how the 3.5 system requires LESS fixing than 2nd did.
not Yoda 07-23-07, 08:30 PM	Compare saving throws at high level. That should sum it up.
High Octane 07-23-07, 08:38 PM	Well, they were not uncommon if you just blindly read out the list of treasure at the end of a fight. If you actually had to announce you were searching, and then had to decide what to test with detect magic, and if you went by the rules of command words and such, functioning magic items did not often end up in our characters' possession. In addition, if you really made items save against magic (after clearing that room with a fireball) you should never have gotten so many magic items- at least not ones that were still in one piece... So you are saying the system is great if you just ignore it completely, as intended. And they never did explain magic items on a body and whether they also had to make saving throws verse spells. I don't know about you, but it sounds pretty lame to have to roll a dozen saving throws every time your character saves verse a fireball or lightning bolt. Especially since each one of your scrolls would have to roll a 19 or 20. Not to mention you had to consult a chart based on the item's material, and what sort of damage it was taking. In the case of many items the DM has to make up what they are made of on the spot, wands for example could be made of glass, metal, wood, or bone. Plus that means that your average fireball, even if you save, will wipe out 1/3 of your inventory or loot (the guy you targetted) And that is ALLL assuming that the wizard used a fireball or lightning bolt. What if he used magic missle? What if instead, I dont know, the rest of the party killed him with melee weapons? No saving throw needed and all the loot was still there. Simply lining up the bodies and stripping them down, then an arc of detect magic detected anything magical. In fact it should see the magic items through clothing and such unless they are wearing lead underwear. And most magic items are not impossible to find. Rings are on the fingers. Circlets are on the head. Armor is worn on the chest, weapons are at the side, potions are in bottles. The bad guys don't hide their magic item's in their eyelids or ******! As for animals and dragons and ghouls, just check their stomachs. Your solution for the bad magic item charts is along the same lines as the drow items that used to melt in sunlight. Edit: Oh and of course identify. 1000gp to identify a 250gp potion was always fun. Not to mention it had serious effects on the caster. Still, it beat the alternative, which was the player spending hours going through a dictionary to figure out the command word. Oh 1st edition, how Gygax must have spent hours laughing at his poor players who had valuable magical items in their possession yet no means to figure out what they were.
tankschmidt 07-23-07, 09:32 PM	One player is very excited to go back, and with all the old stuff of mine that he's seen, he knows that it should be pretty cool:D . Of course, some of the players aren't exited at all. Most of them learned how to play with 3.5, and have never tried 2.0. Good news. I hope they enjoy it! My advice is to take it a little easy on "restricting" the guys who have never played before. If I were to convert my group, I'd go easy on some of the demihuman level limits. Maybe waive some of the ability score prerequisites for difficult classes? One of the most rewarding characters I was fortunate enough to DM for was a half-orc paladin. Always wanted to run Night Below. Maybe I'll pick up the pdf on the cheap!
ArcTan 07-23-07, 09:44 PM	Sigh, some folk are just partizan :) Drowbatlemind, nah yer whole 1st post on this, which was damned funny ;) Only problems I have with 3rd ed are: 1) Takes time writing NPCs up, so may choices, skill points etc. It's very cool in play though, as Npc vs PC is MUCH better balanced in 3rd ED: no sneaking by that Sentry chosen for being alert by one dumb ass % roll (or failing it either) It doesn't take that much time, if you consider that neither 3e nor previous editions does anything to prevent you using the same character stat block for all generic NPCs (all "Human Guards" have the same stats, all "Bugbear Bandits" have the same stats, etc.) 2)Grapple, still bugs me figuring that out at times, lol. The attempt to make combat fair did result in some byzantine rules, yes. This was the problem with trying to make warriors still "act like warriors" (same basic menu of choices for every single combat round) while casters "act like casters" (very large menu of choices that get used up over time). Really, the game is just more fun if everyone acts like a caster, which was the shocking revelation that led to Tome of Battle (years and years after designers of games like Diablo II realized it). 3) Guantlets of Ogre Power, Girdle of Hill Giant Strength, gah they should GIVE those exact bonuses, and not allow higher either, ie 18, 19 etc ;) +Strength is cool, just a NAMED strength should = an exact strength score. Minor peeve. Well... that has the effect of making some items that are incredibly powerful for some characters and totally useless for others. Not exactly a bad thing, maybe, but it is pretty dumb that these items were items that made your bad roll for Str completely and totally irrelevant, while a good roll for Str meant you never even had a reason to pick one up. 4) Munchkins, alas, 3rd ed can easily abused by munchkins, who I HATE WITH A PASSION! You want a weird character in my games, explain him, and I may allow it, but you cheat to make a super-duper character and you can kiss that character sheet bye bye ;) However, in 2nd ed, they also existed...dual wielding uber strength fighters, ugh. The usual argument is "In 2e the system doesn't even give the illusion of being complete so to be a DM you *had* to be tyrannical and nitpicky and **** so being a munchkin was hard!" I think it should be obvious why I don't buy this argument. (Namely, 3e makes it possible to relax about the rules and *not* be a tyrannical nitpicky **** blowhard if you want, as long as you don't have a munchkin in the group. 2e required that the DM do hours of work for the game to even be slightly fair, even assuming total good faith on the part of his players. Non-Weapon Proficiencies are a great example.) In the end, it's liek comparing old to modern cars. Yes, often the old cars looke dbetter, though some were ugly! But, the new cars are soooo much more smoother, reliable (if they ain't American, haha!) and pleasant to drive...alas though, modern roads are jam packed, the munchkins in our soup :uh-huh: And as with that change, the latter change has more to do with the simple fact that more people drive cars these days than any particular feature of newer cars. Claiming that D&D 3e is responsible for the flood of newbs and munchkins and lamers into the hobby is like claiming that there wouldn't be so many jerks on the road if cars were still as hard to start and still traveled as slowly as Model Ts.
tuffn00gies 07-23-07, 09:44 PM	Hey all, Wow! I didn't expect this many replies. Thanks to all the people who wish me luck, things are looking good. One player is very excited to go back, and with all the old stuff of mine that he's seen, he knows that it should be pretty cool:D . Of course, some of the players aren't exited at all. Most of them learned how to play with 3.5, and have never tried 2.0. I'll be making up some characters, thinking high level, maybe not. I want to run Night Below, then go into Return to the Tomb of Horrors or a Paladin in Hell or something. Hlethvagi I'd be interested in hearing which system the guys "raised" on 3.5 like better and their reasons why.
ArcTan 07-23-07, 09:47 PM	Well, they were not uncommon if you just blindly read out the list of treasure at the end of a fight. If you actually had to announce you were searching, and then had to decide what to test with detect magic, and if you went by the rules of command words and such, functioning magic items did not often end up in our characters' possession. Ah, passive-aggressive DM stalling. If you walk out of the room to go to the bathroom, and refuse to come back inside and start playing again until the player shuts up, Pun-Pun is no issue at all in 3e either. In addition, if you really made items save against magic (after clearing that room with a fireball) you should never have gotten so many magic items- at least not ones that were still in one piece... This is yet another example of Gygax & Co. writing a rule they should've realized no one in the world would actually follow because it would make the game unplayable, and then citing it as a balancing factor. To be fair, this exists in 3e too -- grappling as the "balancing factor" in magic vs. melee contests -- but it's a lot less egregious.
WizO_Cat 07-23-07, 10:02 PM	Ok, let's keep the posts polite.
Vaelan 07-23-07, 11:41 PM	Yes it sucks if the player just says, "I'll bluff the guard" and rolls the d20, but how about demanding more from your players? I would like to note that by "more" you are actually saying "the amount the book explicitly requires". The book tells you to evaluate the bluff and assign a modifier based upon believability. You can't do that unless the player goes into the specifics of the lie. Vaelan, If I have attacked unconvincingly, perhaps you have decided not to be convinced. No, you just weren't presenting any actual arguments. Unfavorably comparing a system you dislike to Chutes & Ladders? Not an argument. But thanks for saying that it is purely a matter of my unwillingness to listen! I really appreciate it when people I try to advise to stop acting like raving morons take the time to insult my openmindedness. That having been said, the amount of prep time and speed of resolution is not purely a matter of the system, but it does have roots in the system. Congratulations, you made a valid point!
TyWebb 07-24-07, 12:47 AM	Compare saving throws at high level. That should sum it up. Ok, now I'm curious what you mean here...I thought that saving throws was one of the mechanics that was VASTLY improved from 1st/2nd to 3rd editions. 2nd ed.: It's been awhile, but I seem to recall that very high-level PC/NPCs, given a not unreasonable amount of magical protection and some decent ability scores, rarely failed ANY of their saves except on a 1, 2, or 3 (or was it 1 or 2?). The potency of effect did not scale as the save progression improved with level. Plus, the categorization and whole "saving throw priority" thing was illogical, IMO. 3.x: Given a not unreasonable amount of magical protection and some decent ability scores, very high-level PCs/NPCs will still usually have one save they will basically never fail unless they roll a 1, but they will not be as invincible in the other two generally. In fact, given the scalable nature of spells and effects, and the direct correlation between spell DCs and spell level/relevant casting ability score, high-level folks may have one save that is fairly difficult to make routinely. I'll grant you that 3.0 ran into some problems with an abundance of "save-or-die/be completely hosed" spells that was somewhat remedied in 3.5, but at least to me, magic-heavy combat (and that's really all high-level combat is) is a bit more interesting and suspenseful when both sides aren't just shrugging off effect after effect, waiting to see who rolls a 1 first. Not trying to flame ya, Yoda, just was genuinely curious what was "summed up".
shadzar 07-24-07, 03:04 AM	Why do you think they sold you 3.5 to begin with? Because they're willing to admit their mistakes? Survey says: X because they want more money. Having one class be mediocre all the time (Fighting-Man) and one class be utterly helpless at low levels and utterly omnipotent at high levels (Magic-User) is not "balance". Admittedly, this has not changed all that much over the different editions, but at least they're trying now (Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle are two books that try to fix the inherent problem with D&D core class design). funny 2nd edition had splat books too. :eek: if the balance is so bad the what other reason beside making money could there be for not fixing the balance in the core rules.
shadzar 07-24-07, 03:19 AM	And they never did explain magic items on a body and whether they also had to make saving throws verse spells. I don't know about you, but it sounds pretty lame to have to roll a dozen saving throws every time your character saves verse a fireball or lightning bolt. firebal and lightning bolt seem to be spells so the item saving throws table seems to include spells saves for items. were you wanting items to have saves for things like hold person, sleep. confusion? and how often does your character have to deal with the full brunt of a fireball or lightning bolt?
Anaxander 07-24-07, 04:00 AM	because they want more money. funny 2nd edition had splat books too. :eek: if the balance is so bad the what other reason beside making money could there be for not fixing the balance in the core rules. I see it this way: they realised the system had some minor and major flaws and made an effort to make it better. Which is nice. However, since writing many errata costed a lot of time, energy and money, they decided to put them in a new edition. If you improve the system, why not making some money out of it. So 3.5 is practically 3.0 but with errata. Of course, 3.5 isn't perfect. But because WotC know that people would burn their HQ if they put out a 3.75, they sneakily added errata in new books (polymorph rules, swift & immediate actions) or did not bother to write some errata at all. One could argue that, meanwhile, 3.5 has developed into half way of a "3.75" edition. If WotC publishes a rules compendium, it will contain most errata (I guess) and perhaps be an update to 3.6 or whatever. Again: they improved the system while making some money out of it, which is not illogical.
shadzar 07-24-07, 07:45 AM	I see it this way: they realised the system had some minor and major flaws and made an effort to make it better. Which is nice. However, since writing many errata costed a lot of time, energy and money, they decided to put them in a new edition. If you improve the system, why not making some money out of it. So 3.5 is practically 3.0 but with errata. Of course, 3.5 isn't perfect. But because WotC know that people would burn their HQ if they put out a 3.75, they sneakily added errata in new books (polymorph rules, swift & immediate actions) or did not bother to write some errata at all. One could argue that, meanwhile, 3.5 has developed into half way of a "3.75" edition. If WotC publishes a rules compendium, it will contain most errata (I guess) and perhaps be an update to 3.6 or whatever. Again: they improved the system while making some money out of it, which is not illogical. and the company that recalled the child safety seats because it was a defective product that could possibly fail in the most extreme circumstances while being used/fastened improperly should have jsut made the people buy the product all over again. (there are other example of a product recall not involving possible injury, but this is the only things that came to mind.) yet the faulty product was recalled and the fixed prodcut or monetary reimbursement was sent to those who purchased the fault product. you can brown nose WotC all you want, we all see you are so good at it; but it doesn't change the fact that your naive opinion of why WotC or any business does things is incorrect. It would be great and wonderful to live in a world where everyone fixes things for the sake of the people, but it doesn't work that way. WotC had 2 choices when an evident problem came about because the inadequecies of 3.0. stop making D&D all together and lose the revenue, or release a new product. for as many years i have known of Wotc, i am pretty sure that its decisions revolve more around the bottom line rather than happy customers. their are just so many "happy" customers because they are content with a product, but i gaurantee every gamer has complaints about their favorite game. and if WotC were doing it for the gamers, then in your concept they would include all the gamers ideas. DDM actually has WotC staff memebrs post in the forum asking how to make the game better, what people would like to see in new sets, what rules don't work, etc. has much come out of the "future products" section that players decided? i don't go there because i don't care about the future of 3.x editions. only time will tell if/when fourth edition comes out to see if the company is really doing it based on what the players want.
BaltotheJunkie 07-24-07, 07:52 AM	So you are saying the system is great if you just ignore it completely, as intended. And they never did explain magic items on a body and whether they also had to make saving throws verse spells. I don't know about you, but it sounds pretty lame to have to roll a dozen saving throws every time your character saves verse a fireball or lightning bolt. Especially since each one of your scrolls would have to roll a 19 or 20. Not to mention you had to consult a chart based on the item's material, and what sort of damage it was taking. In the case of many items the DM has to make up what they are made of on the spot, wands for example could be made of glass, metal, wood, or bone. Plus that means that your average fireball, even if you save, will wipe out 1/3 of your inventory or loot (the guy you targetted) And that is ALLL assuming that the wizard used a fireball or lightning bolt. What if he used magic missle? What if instead, I dont know, the rest of the party killed him with melee weapons? No saving throw needed and all the loot was still there. Simply lining up the bodies and stripping them down, then an arc of detect magic detected anything magical. In fact it should see the magic items through clothing and such unless they are wearing lead underwear. And most magic items are not impossible to find. Rings are on the fingers. Circlets are on the head. Armor is worn on the chest, weapons are at the side, potions are in bottles. The bad guys don't hide their magic item's in their eyelids or ******! As for animals and dragons and ghouls, just check their stomachs. Your solution for the bad magic item charts is along the same lines as the drow items that used to melt in sunlight. Edit: Oh and of course identify. 1000gp to identify a 250gp potion was always fun. Not to mention it had serious effects on the caster. Still, it beat the alternative, which was the player spending hours going through a dictionary to figure out the command word. Oh 1st edition, how Gygax must have spent hours laughing at his poor players who had valuable magical items in their possession yet no means to figure out what they were. I said exactly what I meant. I would suggest you go back and read my words very carefully, instead of trying to construct a straw man argument. As to item saving throws: Well, if your character had dozens of magic items, maybe you had a game balance problem, eh? And how did you know that the ring on the villain's finger was magical? You didn't. You suspected it might be, but you had no way of knowing. Just putting it on was probably safe. Unless it was an alignment related item... I guess you like the idea of magic being easy and controllable. I prefer a bit more mystery.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-24-07, 07:55 AM	I guess you like the idea of magic being easy and controllable. I prefer a bit more mystery. Why would something that has been studied in game since the beginning of time by the greatest minds the world has produced be mysterious? That makes no sense what so ever.
shadzar 07-24-07, 08:00 AM	Why would something that has been studied in game since the beginning of time by the greatest minds the world has produced be mysterious? That makes no sense what so ever. then why hasn't a wizard found a permanent spell that prevents damage? multiple wizards could produce similar if not exact copies of effects from items without the items being the exact same.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-24-07, 08:19 AM	then why hasn't a wizard found a permanent spell that prevents damage? Maybe it's not possible? Why can't we move faster then light? multiple wizards could produce similar if not exact copies of effects from items without the items being the exact same. I was kind of under the assumption that a test/theory is only valid if it can be reproduced and gives the same results, was I wrong? If magic is a science(and it should be, it's only logical) then the formulas for creating magic items will be known by most serious Wizards.
BaltotheJunkie 07-24-07, 08:30 AM	Why would something that has been studied in game since the beginning of time by the greatest minds the world has produced be mysterious? That makes no sense what so ever. I think you are making the (false) assumption that by the virtue of having been studied, a concept must be explainable. Even a casual examination of the history of epistemology shows this to be demonstratably false. To give a concrete example, we have studied other human beings, their psychology and pysiology, their habits and everything that makes them "human". However we still do not understand them perfectly. I would argue that something as esoteric and arcane as magic is even less explicable, and some of the rules in the various books would back me up, the fact that there is even a spellcraft skill, for instance. epistemology "theory of knowledge," 1856, coined by Scot. philosopher James F. Ferrier (1808-64) from Gk. episteme "knowledge," from Ionic Gk. epistasthai "know how to do, understand," lit. "overstand," from epi- "over, near" + histasthai "to stand." The scientific (as opposed to philosophical) study of the roots and paths of knowledge is epistemics (1969).
Wiseblood 07-24-07, 09:29 AM	Why would something that has been studied in game since the beginning of time by the greatest minds the world has produced be mysterious? That makes no sense what so ever. From what other editions said "wizards jealously guard their secrets". This also includes guarding them from their peers. The information that even the greatest minds have,(was most likely stolen or "liberated from a tomb") is held within the dangerous vault of a wizards mind. IMHO magic is best compared to medicine. We've been studying it for millenia. Even with the brightest minds and sharing of techniques misdiagnoses still can be a factor. Add to the comlexity of this formulae with the "Patents" drug companies have to protect their research.
OravennasBrother 07-24-07, 10:28 AM	If magic is a science(and it should be, it's only logical) then Magic is NOT science. Treating it like science is pandering to the lowest common denominator - the people with no true sense of wonder, just a desire to have everything reduced to formulas. Side note - Items on a person only required saving throws if the person FAILED their saving throw against a damaging area effect spell or if the spell specifically called for item saves. Some of the other "inconsistencies" were similarly covered by rules which were seldom invoked and hence forgotten by many. The thief invisible if they make their 95% hide in shadows? NO - not if an area is brightly illuminated, then they cannot hide in shadows at all. 3.0 was not an improvement on 2nd Edition, rather is was a completely new system. Nothing is balanced because there was no solid standard upon which to evaluate. 3.5 "needed" (insert sarcasm smiley) to be rushed to print because WoTC profits margins were slipping. Had the community at large refused to purchase such low quality drivel we might TODAY be playing a better game. Instead we are reduced to sifting past all the morons and munchkins, drawn like moths to flame, to find a few good players.
Manic Man 07-24-07, 10:30 AM	Playing through from 1e, i find that 3.5 solved several mechanical problems. But with the solving of those said problems with rules, one of the aspects of running a campaign disappeared. Now its pretty much on your head if balance breaks because you handed out a 5000gp reward or gave them a dragon's horde that is really a horde. The structured nature of 3.5 solves problems but structure by itself restricts. It literally is very much like D&D's law vs chaos for 3.5 vs 2e.
Frugal 07-24-07, 11:02 AM	I'd just like to point out that whether or not 3.5 was a money grab has nothing to do with its quality (or lack thereof) as a system. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss whether 2ed was a "better system" to play than 3ed/3.5. If we're going to evaluate that then we need to look at the systems, the way WOTC and TSR marketed those systems and priced them is irrelevant to that.
Anaxander 07-24-07, 11:18 AM	you can brown nose WotC all you want, we all see you are so good at it; but it doesn't change the fact that your naive opinion of why WotC or any business does things is incorrect. It would be great and wonderful to live in a world where everyone fixes things for the sake of the people, but it doesn't work that way. Read my post. I said that they only fixed the problems through a new edition because this was the way they could make some money out of it. I know my English isn't that good, but you can't possibly interpret my post as the total opposite of what I meant. And please keep your tone friendly :)
Anaxander 07-24-07, 11:21 AM	I'd just like to point out that whether or not 3.5 was a money grab has nothing to do with its quality (or lack thereof) as a system. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss whether 2ed was a "better system" to play than 3ed/3.5. If we're going to evaluate that then we need to look at the systems, the way WOTC and TSR marketed those systems and priced them is irrelevant to that. True. The discussion however was if 3.5 was published because 3.0 was 'broken' or fatally flawed or not (and if not, if it was just a cash cow). So it has some impact on the discussion, but a minor one, I concede.
Deekin 07-24-07, 12:04 PM	Magic is NOT science. Treating it like science is pandering to the lowest common denominator - the people with no true sense of wonder, just a desire to have everything reduced to formulas. Taste the magical[Non-science] flavor. http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w247/kolboldbard/angrywizard.jpg
shadzar 07-24-07, 01:39 PM	Maybe it's not possible? Why can't we move faster then light? I was kind of under the assumption that a test/theory is only valid if it can be reproduced and gives the same results, was I wrong? If magic is a science(and it should be, it's only logical) then the formulas for creating magic items will be known by most serious Wizards. only if those wizards openly share their information in an open forum. i doubt most evil wizards would openly let their created magicks fall into the hands of everyone else. ;)
Grand Theft Otto 07-24-07, 01:43 PM	I said exactly what I meant. I would suggest you go back and read my words very carefully, instead of trying to construct a straw man argument. As to item saving throws: Well, if your character had dozens of magic items, maybe you had a game balance problem, eh? ANYONE playing byt he rules had dozens. Go back and read adventures, you'll see +1 crap everywhere in low level dungeons. And how did you know that the ring on the villain's finger was magical? You didnt necessarily. However you took it anyways, stuffed it in a bag, and later downed some wine, an owl feather and 100gp of ground up pearl.
Grand Theft Otto 07-24-07, 01:45 PM	Magic is NOT science. Treating it like science is pandering to the lowest common denominator - the people with no true sense of wonder, just a desire to have everything reduced to formulas. To players, magic frequently IS mundane. Your character breaks the laws of physics more frequently than he poops.
shadzar 07-24-07, 01:46 PM	Read my post. I said that they only fixed the problems through a new edition because this was the way they could make some money out of it. I know my English isn't that good, but you can't possibly interpret my post as the total opposite of what I meant. And please keep your tone friendly :) then why do you insist on saying 3.5 was created for anything other than monetary reason such as they were being so nice as to fix the product that was broken. it wasn't nice of them, or for any other reason than money. just the same as Magic is now. its all about money, not gameplay. otherwise they wouldn't keep "fixing" things in magic that aren't broken, yet break things that already worked. same goes for D&D. new editions = new revenue. example: i prefer 2nd edition. i have more than what i ened for it. therefore i am no longer in WotC prime market because i don't by 3.x editions. for people who bought 3.0 then they are people still with WotC in their D&D pockets. so making new editions to kep them updated is so WotC can make money primarily rather than produce a good game. case in point whyever all the licenses from other companies are being let to expire. so WotC isn't competing with them. WotC won't even release new material for older editions because they fear they would be hurting themselves, even though they would profit from it. WotC doesn't support players it supports $$$.
Frugal 07-24-07, 02:03 PM	then why do you insist on saying 3.5 was created for anything other than monetary reason such as they were being so nice as to fix the product that was broken. Because in order for them to be able to make money with a new edition they have to offer some reason to change to it. For instance, they couldn't just take 3ed and call it 3.5 and put out new books and have anyone buy it, because it'd be exactly the same context. So things had to be changed. So if you have to offer something new in order to get people to buy what do you offer? Well fixing things that were problematic in 3ed comes to mind, so you publish an update with enough changes that people will want to "upgrade". They made the change relatively soon after 3ed was launched so they had to justify the new edition with making it an "upgrade" and throwing around that 3ed material could still be used with it as that lessened some of the edge from the short time between editions. But to suggest that they just did it for money is ludicrous, they had to offer something that people would buy or else it would have flopped miserably and everyone would have stuck with 3ed. The fact that it didn't suggests that they did do a reasonably good job of updating it. Could it have been done better? Most certainly. Is there stuff that I hate about 3.5? Absolutely. But is it better than 3ed? Well that's a matter of opinion but personally I'd say yes.
not Yoda 07-24-07, 02:56 PM	No, you just weren't presenting any actual arguments. Unfavorably comparing a system you dislike to Chutes & Ladders? Not an argument. But thanks for saying that it is purely a matter of my unwillingness to listen! I really appreciate it when people I try to advise to stop acting like raving morons take the time to insult my openmindedness. That having been said, the amount of prep time and speed of resolution is not purely a matter of the system, but it does have roots in the system. Congratulations, you made a valid point! Fair enough. I did not present actual arguments merely comparisons as to why things take longer. Wich is in itself one of my major gripes with 3.x. It has been my experience on these boards that poeple have often already made up their minds as to exactly how things are. Situations like these rarely lead anywhere except to hard feelings. TyWebb Ok, now I'm curious what you mean here...I thought that saving throws was one of the mechanics that was VASTLY improved from 1st/2nd to 3rd editions. 2nd ed.: It's been awhile, but I seem to recall that very high-level PC/NPCs, given a not unreasonable amount of magical protection and some decent ability scores, rarely failed ANY of their saves except on a 1, 2, or 3 (or was it 1 or 2?). The potency of effect did not scale as the save progression improved with level. Plus, the categorization and whole "saving throw priority" thing was illogical, IMO. 3.x: Given a not unreasonable amount of magical protection and some decent ability scores, very high-level PCs/NPCs will still usually have one save they will basically never fail unless they roll a 1, but they will not be as invincible in the other two generally. In fact, given the scalable nature of spells and effects, and the direct correlation between spell DCs and spell level/relevant casting ability score, high-level folks may have one save that is fairly difficult to make routinely. I'll grant you that 3.0 ran into some problems with an abundance of "save-or-die/be completely hosed" spells that was somewhat remedied in 3.5, but at least to me, magic-heavy combat (and that's really all high-level combat is) is a bit more interesting and suspenseful when both sides aren't just shrugging off effect after effect, waiting to see who rolls a 1 first. Not trying to flame ya, Yoda, just was genuinely curious what was "summed up". No flaming taken. High level PC's did make saves fairly easily. I felt that they are heroic after all. As characters get closer to cosmic power levels (on par with avatars) Combat should be almost academic except in the most unusual situations. Facing demon princes, holding up the sky and whatnot. A battle that poses a serious threat to pc's should be pretty important. Not run of the mill "high level stuff". I also felt that saving throw priority worked. No need to check to see if you had a soft landing if you make the balance check to avoid falling. That made more sense before I typed it. At any rate, things on the chart go from truly dire to potential nusance. Save vs. being turned to stone or save vs.Tasha's uncontrollable hideous daughter. It really doesn't have to make sense any more than fireball does or, for that matter Evasion in 3.x. It's a way to resolve something. For me it's easy an added bonus is that it is harder to metagame. In 3.x saving throws are three categories Fort, Ref, Will. With two classes good/poor. Since a class is often easily picked out just by the gear worn. Players are able to maximize the effect of their abilities. Not necesarily bad. But it does have a substantial impact on player decisions. That has nothing to do with role playing. In 2e as you incresed level the number of save or die situations increased. This was ok because you didn't suck at it. In 3.0 as you mentioned save or die/get hosed increased as you leveled, however this time the difficulty may have actually gone up. This translated to an increase of deaths and getting killed sucks. Also the number of saves required in a given round of combat has increased with the introduction of 3.x. In 2e magic users (holy and arcane) could cast more than one spell in one round through Timestop or Contingency. Both of which cost valuable spell slots. In 3.x More than one spell can be achieved through the use of swift spells/quickened spells/magic items that quicken spells/Timestop/contingency/Sudden Metamagic/DMM/and so on not to mention spontaneous casting and the overall increase in spell slots. This has made multiple spells (inherently more powerful than a single attack) not only a possiblity but commonplace. With a decreased chance for interruption and time left over for a 30' move. Higher DC's Throw the game way out of whack.
Frugal 07-24-07, 03:15 PM	Also the number of saves required in a given round of combat has increased with the introduction of 3.x. In 2e magic users (holy and arcane) could cast more than one spell in one round through Timestop or Contingency. Both of which cost valuable spell slots. In 3.x More than one spell can be achieved through the use of swift spells/quickened spells/magic items that quicken spells/Timestop/contingency/Sudden Metamagic/DMM/and so on not to mention spontaneous casting and the overall increase in spell slots. This has made multiple spells (inherently more powerful than a single attack) not only a possiblity but commonplace. With a decreased chance for interruption and time left over for a 30' move. Higher DC's Throw the game way out of whack. True that you can get off multiple spells a few more ways but I think you'll find that you're still only looking at 2 spells in a round. Quicken is a swift action so that rules out swift spells or items that quicken because you've used up that swift action. Sudden metamagic or DMM are just other ways you might get quicken. Time stop is useless for any offensive spells since everyone else is immune to the effects of your spells (unless they have a duration longer than the amount of rounds time stop last for). So basically you're looking at a very small number of other ways to get a 2nd spell in the same round.
ArcTan 07-24-07, 04:09 PM	funny 2nd edition had splat books too. :eek: if the balance is so bad the what other reason beside making money could there be for not fixing the balance in the core rules. Because then you get a lot of whiners who complain that the new core books are incompatible with the old core books, because technically this is what a "new edition" means. I think WotC actually learned their lesson from the backlash to 3.0->3.5. Personally *I* wouldn't mind seeing a 3.75 or 4.0 edition to fix the core books, but I can understand what they're doing now, which is essentially a "stealth revision" -- publishing splats that offer new, better things to replace the core books (Warblade vs. Fighter, Binder vs. Wizard) without *actually* replacing the core books. Keeping everything "optional". This is essentially no different from Player's Option kits, except of course that (IMO) the balance in the new Tome books actually *works*.
Stormonu 07-24-07, 04:18 PM	WotC won't even release new material for older editions because they fear they would be hurting themselves, even though they would profit from it. WotC doesn't support players it supports $$$. TSR never published 1E material after 2E came out, either. You might be able to use some 1E material in 2E, but it will require some conversion - from very little to a lot, depending on the material. Have you tried to run G1-G3 in 2nd ed? It wouldn't be usable without some serious work because of the power bump giants got, for example.
not Yoda 07-24-07, 04:32 PM	True that you can get off multiple spells a few more ways but I think you'll find that you're still only looking at 2 spells in a round. Quicken is a swift action so that rules out swift spells or items that quicken because you've used up that swift action. Sudden metamagic or DMM are just other ways you might get quicken. Time stop is useless for any offensive spells since everyone else is immune to the effects of your spells (unless they have a duration longer than the amount of rounds time stop last for). So basically you're looking at a very small number of other ways to get a 2nd spell in the same round. Hrrmmm... for some reason I was under the impression that quicken made a spell a free action. Free actions are not counted against your immediate/swift actions this is how I understand it. BICBW Frugal, I have checked the SRD and you are correct. It is swift. I would go so far as to say that it is easier to do in 3.x, not only that but you can do it ealier, with fewer resources expended. While at the same time having more resources than in previous editions.
OravennasBrother 07-24-07, 04:59 PM	TSR never published 1E material after 2E came out, either. You might be able to use some 1E material in 2E, but it will require some conversion - from very little to a lot, depending on the material. Have you tried to run G1-G3 in 2nd ed? It wouldn't be usable without some serious work because of the power bump giants got, for example. AS opposed the enormous power bump of almost all the large monsters between 2nd and 3rd? Truth is that 2nd edition had a pretty workable system and MANY of the abuses were kept fairly well in hand. 3.0 discarded the entire system in favor of a moronic "One Die to Rule Them All" motto, even when a d20 distribution really skews results into absurdity. Consider that an Elf with 20 Dexterity and Improved initiative will still lose to a klutz with 8 dexterity and unacceptably large portion of the time. The complaint that the 2nd ED "Random Treasure" tables were not workable is laughable when compared with the "Population" demographics which result from the idiotic Random Town Generator from 3.0 AND 3.5.
shadzar 07-24-07, 06:00 PM	TSR never published 1E material after 2E came out, either. You might be able to use some 1E material in 2E, but it will require some conversion - from very little to a lot, depending on the material. Have you tried to run G1-G3 in 2nd ed? It wouldn't be usable without some serious work because of the power bump giants got, for example. g1-3 is going the wrong way converting. actually for a long time module stated "compatible with AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition" most of the game was similar enough to not need a total revision, but with 3.x the entire game changed so they couldn't maintain both. and with previous editions they still produced material suitable for all editions. maybe not adventures, but other things. how many campaign settings had edition specific information? could Eberron be run in second edition without converting many things? could 2nd edition forgotten realms setting be played with 3.x? what you want is backward compatibility not just forward compatibility. dragon and dungeon magazines both had space for all editions until 3.x ran them out and they became no longer supported. Rules Cyclopedia (1991) was still in print after 2nd edition (1989) came out....
Ezell Pike 07-24-07, 06:03 PM	AS opposed the enormous power bump of almost all the large monsters between 2nd and 3rd? Truth is that 2nd edition had a pretty workable system and MANY of the abuses were kept fairly well in hand. 3.0 discarded the entire system in favor of a moronic "One Die to Rule Them All" motto, even when a d20 distribution really skews results into absurdity. Consider that an Elf with 20 Dexterity and Improved initiative will still lose to a klutz with 8 dexterity and unacceptably large portion of the time. The complaint that the 2nd ED "Random Treasure" tables were not workable is laughable when compared with the "Population" demographics which result from the idiotic Random Town Generator from 3.0 AND 3.5. Preach on OravennasBrother, Heh, I never even considered the initaitive. I may have to adjust my sig. Allow me to fill in the 2e section Initiative is rolled every round on a d10 then Casting times for spells or weapon speeds are added. Lowest goes first. Daggers are fast I think 1 or 2 Two-handes swords are slow 7 or more I think Longswords 4.
High Octane 07-24-07, 06:09 PM	Consider that an Elf with 20 Dexterity and Improved initiative will still lose to a klutz with 8 dexterity and unacceptably large portion of the time. That being, mathematically, 11.25% of the time and tie 2.5% of the time. Assuming going without improved initiative as a feat, the elf with 20 dex would instead lose only 22.75% of the time and tie 3.5%. Total 26.25% he did not win. In 1st edition the elf with 19 dexterity Had a 3 initiative modifier on his roll in his favor, and the guy with 8 dexterity had no bonus or penalty, and initiative was a d10. Mathematically, the klutz would beat the elf in initiative 21% of the time and tie another 7% of the time using the same weapons. Total 28% he did not win. Edit: This is ALL assuming they are using the same weapons. Another edit: And lets just drive that puppy home and point out that given the same weapons the mook with 6 dexterity and the gifted guy with 15 dexterity were both even money for initiative!..... unless I remember it wrong and its instead the mook with 7 dexterity and the guy with 14 dexterity share the same initiative. Re-edit: Math wrong
DaidojiTaidoru 07-24-07, 06:34 PM	In 1st edition the elf with 19 dexterity Had a 3 initiative modifier on his roll in his favor, and the guy with 8 dexterity had no bonus or penalty, and initiative was a d10. Oh man. 2nd ED initiative. Why did you have to remind me? And 2nd ED surprise.... That was such a horrible set of rules.
TyWebb 07-24-07, 06:44 PM	As characters get closer to cosmic power levels (on par with avatars) Combat should be almost academic except in the most unusual situations. Facing demon princes, holding up the sky and whatnot. A battle that poses a serious threat to pc's should be pretty important. Not run of the mill "high level stuff". I can see where you're coming from...seems more a flavor/style preference thing then, which is cool. I just prefer...less academic combat, I guess would be the term. You can still go your route easily enough in 3.x as well...not every battle is going to be for the fate of the multiverse, but those important battles are going to keep the players on their toes. I also felt that saving throw priority worked. No need to check to see if you had a soft landing if you make the balance check to avoid falling. Well, it works that way in 3.x as well. I had always thought those types of saves, in any edition, represented the fact that if you made, say, the Balance check or Reflex save or whatever, then you managed not to fall (grabbed the ledge on the cliff face at the last second, regained your balance on the tightrpoe, whatever). If you failed, you fell. That made more sense before I typed it. Heh...happens to me all the time! :D In 3.x saving throws are three categories Fort, Ref, Will. With two classes good/poor. Since a class is often easily picked out just by the gear worn. Players are able to maximize the effect of their abilities. Not necesarily bad. But it does have a substantial impact on player decisions. That has nothing to do with role playing. It does and it doesn't. Players who are munchkins are gonna be munchkins regardless of what edition we're playing. I'll grant you that one of the things that I very much dislike about 3.x is the background assumption that PCs are supposed to be able to waltz into Ye Old Magick Shoppe and just expect that they can pick out any old item simply because they've got the g.p.s burning a hole in their belt pouches. Reliance on gear is much more a part of 3.x than previous editions. But many of those player decisions, even if metagame in origin, can be worked into the fabric of the campaign and justified in character as well. It depends on how the DM handles it...whether or not the PCs can just buy magic items at will, or if they devise a quest for a specific item after researching it and gathering lore. In 2e as you incresed level the number of save or die situations increased. This was ok because you didn't suck at it. In 3.0 as you mentioned save or die/get hosed increased as you leveled, however this time the difficulty may have actually gone up. This translated to an increase of deaths and getting killed sucks. Sure does. 3.5 went a ways towards remedying the prevelance of "save-or-die" over 3.0, and I suspect future editions will go even further along those lines. Again, I guess we've got a flavor difference here...I'd just prefer a scalable threat level over a gradually increasing invulnerability, and the different mechanics between editions favors different things. If 2nd edition does it for ya, rock on, dude. I played it for years and had a blast while I did. My favorite (and longest) campaign that I ever ran was in 2nd edition. While I have my bones to pick with 3.x, they're mostly flavor issues that I can retool without altering the mechanics.
High Octane 07-24-07, 06:46 PM	Oh man. 2nd ED initiative. Why did you have to remind me? And 2nd ED surprise.... That was such a horrible set of rules. No it wasn't, it was just undeveloped. They were developing a system that had no precedent. That doesn't mean that others didn't find better systems later.
Alex_P 07-24-07, 07:28 PM	Balto, Well, if your character had dozens of magic items, maybe you had a game balance problem, eh?As other have pointed out here, that means printed treasure tables or published adventures are always a "balance problem." Treasure is dumb in any edition. It's a resource that makes or breaks a character, fluctuates wildly, and (until 3e) something that was pretty much completely out of the non-GM players' control. Given that magical loot was -- and still is -- the most fine-grained way to customize a character, that last part is particularly silly. I guess you like the idea of magic being easy and controllable. I prefer a bit more mystery.Eh, I think D&D magic flat-out fails at mystery regardless of edition. Having a list of specific spells that can be cast with mechanistic accuracy will do that. It makes for a playable game, more or less, but D&D magic is nothing like consorting with demons or calling upon gods or charting the astral plane with your mind or focusing your chakras or anything like that. It's really more like pulling stuff out of your backpack than anything, err, magical. You can try to dress that up with description and setting, but the underlying system, in both AD&D 1e/2e and in D&D 3e, still treats spells as little gadgets, pretty much. They are, by definition, predictable, reproducible, and easily controlled, and they don't come with any price. It's very much not like the magic of myth and fiction, not even Dying Earth's. Putting "mystery" into it would really require scrapping the whole system, not just dressing it up a little or saying one thing while doing another. While I can see why you might like 2e more than 3e, I'm not really clear on why you actually do like 2e, since it seems to have most of 3e's crippling conceptual issues. -- Alex
ArcTan 07-24-07, 07:35 PM	You can try to dress that up with description and setting, but the underlying system, in both AD&D 1e/2e and in D&D 3e, still treats spells as little gadgets, pretty much. They are, by definition, predictable, reproducible, and easily controlled, and they don't come with any price. It's very much not like the magic of myth and fiction, not even Dying Earth's. Putting "mystery" into it would really require scrapping the whole system, not just dressing it up a little or saying one thing while doing another. Oh, old-school spell descriptions were vague and open to interpretation enough that the DM could always surprise you with unintended consequences, which is a sort of "mystery". Just not a good kind.
posternutbag 07-24-07, 07:59 PM	I have played every edition except 3.0, and I think the game has, overall, gotten better. I think people perceive 3.5 as more complicated simply because D&D is now a worldwide community with thousands if not tens of thousands of rules lawyers lurking behind every keystroke, hiding out in every forum. When it was 1 or 2 ed and just your friends, things seemed simpler because there were fewer ideas being exchanged. I remember two world destroying cataclysmic events in my young D&D life. The first was when some new players came to town with their own characters and worlds. It was amazing how differently the two groups preceived some rules. It was like Martial Artists arguing over whose style was superior. We ended up having a "Secret Wars" style smackdown to determine premminence. Fortunately, at the exact same time, we had a second cataclysm. 2 ed was released, rendering our godlike creations null and void and allowing a reboot. Enough remminiscence. I think that balance was an even greater issue in 1 and 2 ed. It also made for cookie cutter builds. Until 2 ed. released the Fighter's hanbook, pretty much every fighter wore full plate and carried a shield and a longsword. There were usually one or two, at most, optimal builds. Some classes were ridiculously overpowered and some underpowered, as it was, as it shall be. My main issue was with the lack of options, and the 2 ed. proficiency system. I actually kind of like weapon speed. THACO was a really backward way of thinking, we actually used a graduated additional AC system like the 3.5 ed. rather than the subtractuion, THACO system. I did like the Bards handbook and would like to see some of that ported into 3.5.
Vaelan 07-24-07, 08:00 PM	Ok, now I'm curious what you mean here...I thought that saving throws was one of the mechanics that was VASTLY improved from 1st/2nd to 3rd editions. It was and that was his point. Casters were weaker because saving throws were trivial. Save negates basically meant don't waste your spell slot. However, there were spells that gave penalties to saving throws based on your caster level (-1 per two caster levels was somewhat common). They were often low-level spells that completely disabled the person you decided to target, as well. Save for half spells were more potent because everything had fewer hitpoints, so you can't really say that Wizards were worse on these grounds. Treating it like science is pandering to the lowest common denominator - the people with no true sense of wonder, just a desire to have everything reduced to formulas. Yeah, people who try to understand things are so terrible! :rolleyes: It has been my experience on these boards that poeple have often already made up their minds as to exactly how things are. Everyone has already made up their minds because this isn't a new issue. I like 3.5 and I won't go back to earlier editions, but I'm not going to deny a system's obvious merits just because I prefer another one. It is simply a value judgement based upon each system's merits and how much they mean to you. For example, speed means nothing to me because I know the rules very, very well. My group doesn't even take 30 seconds to play out a whole combat round, including the manipulation of miniatures. As for prep time, the most time it takes me to write up an NPC is three minutes. That is for a level 20 Human Fighter, for which I have to choose 19 feats. I see where it would take most people more time though, so the complaint is certainly valid regardless of it being irrelevant to me. Also, I would like to note that I didn't post what I did because of my opinion on the editions. I posted criticizing people's arguments so that people will discuss the matter in a way that resembles rationality, rather than people screaming obscenities at each other. In 3.x saving throws are three categories Fort, Ref, Will. With two classes good/poor. Since a class is often easily picked out just by the gear worn. Players are able to maximize the effect of their abilities. Not necesarily bad. But it does have a substantial impact on player decisions. That has nothing to do with role playing. That could just as easily be an in-character determination. It is all very basic reasoning based solely upon that which is observable and simply makes sense. Agile people are good at dodging lightning bolts? Duh. They tend to wear lighter armor because lighter armor is less restricting? Duh. People who use their minds to control unknowable powers have strong wills? Not exactly a huge leap of logic, especially for someone who uses their mind to control unknowable powers. They don't wear armor or tend to carry holy symbols? Once again, not something too hard for someone who controls unknowable powers to figure out. In 3.x More than one spell can be achieved through the use of swift spells/quickened spells/magic items that quicken spells/Timestop/contingency/Sudden Metamagic/DMM/and so on not to mention spontaneous casting and the overall increase in spell slots. Swift action spells are never overtly offensive in nature, Quickened spells aren't terribly relevant since they're so ineffective, Time Stop has heavy restrictions on which kinds of spells you can cast, Contingency can only affect yourself, Sudden Metamagic is once/day (Quicken requiring pretty much all of your feats and being available very late), and Divine Metamagic is broken and shouldn't be held against the edition since we really don't want to get into non-core mechanics that break the game (Chromatic Orb, anyone? Save-or-die, but you die even if you do save!). With a decreased chance for interruption... That is debatable. Under the written rules for the older editions, it actually ranged from trivial to nearly impossible to disrupt a spell. However, in my experience the written rules were never followed when they made disrupting difficult until third edition.
Kesthol 07-24-07, 08:53 PM	Let me boil down the arguments in favor/against AD&D (I assume y'all mean 'not 3rd', so that is what I mean by AD&D) and D&D 3.5... I think we can all agree that 3.0 was worse than either of these. In favor of AD&D:Game mechanically favors storytelling and role-playing, as: Archetypes of High Fantasy (magical elves, powerful wizards, magicless dwarves, fighters that kill dragons) are much more ingrained in the game system. This could also be stated, "The standard real life European mythologies are much more ingrained into the system." Most dice rolls deal with combat and survival (things that tend to rely on some luck). Rich, non-standard worlds were easily accessible, and provided more flavor than additional options for characters. It took a modicum of understanding to play, prompting people who tended to be more intelligent and/or creative (or imaginative) than average to take up the game. (Against the argument that playing with archetypes stifles creativity: Just because someone plays in an archetyped role doesn't mean he/she plays in a stereotyped role. Additionally, with the powerful creatures so far beyond your reach (usually), you had to get creative when you wanted to steal their hoard.) Acheiving high levels was something rare. The DM was (culturally, by this I mean in the culture of AD&D)given license to adjudicate situations as he/she saw fit. It was culturally acceptable for DMs to kill off characters that had gone awry. Against AD&D: Cumbersome system of tables for dice rolls. Archetypes to tightly ingrained. The rules are too complicated, as there are different rules for essentially every different type of action. (Or, as some of you seemed to put it: "Too many rules! Rules hard! Rules hurt Krunk's brain!") Acheiving high levels was something rare. The DM was given license to adjudicate situations as he/she saw fit. It was culturally acceptable for DMs to kill off characters that had gone awry. For D&D 3.5: Better system of rules for attempting actions. (How hard is it to remember to roll d20 +/- modifiers?) This includes attacks, saves, and skills. "So easy, a level 1 commoner can do it!" :rolleyes: Ability scores are easier to understand. Multi-classing is easy as pie! Any race can be any class, to any level. Options, options, options! Against D&D 3.5: Number-crunching is now a valid strategy. (And it is possible to "win"). Multi-classing is easy as pie! The endless options discourage role-playing, and encourage power-gaming. (It has been studied, and people get more creative when they have to do complex tasks with fewer tools. On the flip side, when they have too many tools, they either 1) get much more efficient at the same tasks, and potentially go way beyond overkill, simply because they can; or 2) fuddle around, not knowing what to do.) The elements of High Fantasy have been lost. Crucial DM-player interactions (like bluffing your way past angry townsfolk) have been, in most cases, relegated to dice rolls. Killing off players because they got too powerful is culturally frowned upon. The DM has to answer to his party for adjudicating things on the fly, rather than looking up where the answer was in the rulebook, and spelling it out letter by letter (even if the result is the same, in game, or in plot importance) Epic levels are are too easy to reach. ----- All in all, I would say that 3.5 rules are a little better, but the flavor of AD&D was much better. Although the HUGE number of options for classes and prestige classes in D&D 3.5 is starting to seem more rediculous than trying to figure out the THAC0 for a "dual"-class AD&D Fighter 4/Thief 11/Mage 14/Cleric 16, (which was possible, with a lenient DM and a lucky character.) Don't get me wrong, getting to play a dwarf monk/wizard or kobold fighter/sorcerer/dragon (don't ask how I'm going to take dragon levels, I've yet to get that by the DM) is incredibly sweet (and essentially impossible in AD&D).
TyWebb 07-24-07, 08:56 PM	Ok, now I'm curious what you mean here...I thought that saving throws was one of the mechanics that was VASTLY improved from 1st/2nd to 3rd editions. It was and that was his point. Er....the poster I was replying to (not Yoda) was actually debating in favor of the 2nd Edition system. I do agree with the rest of your post, though...I think you crystallized the difference in saves between editions better than I did in the earlier post I had made.
DrowBattlemind 07-24-07, 09:19 PM	The elements of High Fantasy have been lost. ????? Kesthol, I'm afraid I must (albeit, respectfully) disagree. That's NOT a matter of rules-set, that's a matter of world-setting. Eberron? Definitely not High Fantasy, I agree. Forgotten Realms? Well, truthfully, it depends on whose DMing the game. It can be, but in some hands, it becomes Eberron-lite. (By that, I mean Eberron without the steampunk add-ons.) Ravenloft? Gothic Fantasy-Horror. Greyhawk (REAL Greyhawk, not 'homebrew'), ABSOLUTELY High Fantasy.
Hlethvagi 07-24-07, 09:48 PM	Hey Everyone, I really wasn't that interested in starting a what is better thread. I really was looking to find some 2e enthusiasts who would like to share what they liked about that system, not what they don't like about the current system. But in the spirit of the thread, I have to post what I don't like about 3.x. Gutless DMs that just can't tell a player "No". That is my biggest gripe. Just because I have every book, doesn't mean I want everthing in my game. and I guess that is another thing that has changed. It used to be the DMs game, not the players seem to have the power. Not in my D&D! Hlethvagi
GhostStepper 07-24-07, 10:16 PM	Let me boil down the arguments in favor/against AD&D (I assume y'all mean 'not 3rd', so that is what I mean by AD&D) and D&D 3.5... I think your assessment sounds a little biased IMO. Some of the strengths you acredit to 2E i think apply to 3E as well and most of the things you list as weaknesses of 3E ive found many people to consider strengths. Many folks like the aspect of 3E which you derogatorily label "number crunching", though it is still just as impossible to "win the game" as it was in 2E (and the fact that you claim it is seems to show an irrational prejudice against 3.x). After all, DnD has its roots in war gaming and many people enjoy that aspect of it. I also think its pretty silly to hold "multiclassing is easy as pie" against 3E since its inherently a good thing both mechanically and roleplaying-wise. Characters in-game dont know what "class" they are so its pretty rediculous to think that a fighter that has levels in rogue and wizard must somehow be less well roleplayed because of what is written on his character sheet. Easy multiclassing allows people to more easily reflect the roleplaying concept they have in their mind with the mechanics of the game. While 3.5 still hasnt made multiclassing easy enough (dumb favored classes enforcing pre-determined flavor...) its much better than in previous editions. And about having social interaction governed by die rolls; there are 2 issues here. First, just because you have to roll, it doesnt mean that the interaction occurs without roleplaying. Just like you can roleplay out a combat that relies on die roles with colorful description, nothing is stopping players and DMs from acting out social interactions in 3E. Second, not every player or DM is an oscar winning actor or even remotely charismatic. Having die rolls allows players to actually play a charismatic character without being that themselves (we dont expect players to know how to use a sword when playing a fighter so why should everyone playing a diplomat be forced to be charismatic in real life?). Finally, some like the fact that level advancement happens more rapidly than in previous editions. Im not one of them, but id hardly list it as an automatic flaw in the system. But in the spirit of the thread, I have to post what I don't like about 3.x. Gutless DMs that just can't tell a player "No". That is my biggest gripe. Just because I have every book, doesn't mean I want everthing in my game. and I guess that is another thing that has changed. It used to be the DMs game, not the players seem to have the power. Lol I felt the same was about 2e. There were splats back then too that not every DM wanted in (psionics for example). Your gripe really has nothing do with the edition as much as specific DMs/players.
DrowBattlemind 07-24-07, 10:34 PM	I have to post what I don't like about 3.x. Gutless DMs that just can't tell a player "No". That is my biggest gripe. Just because I have every book, doesn't mean I want everything in my game. Agreed. When I DM, I make a list for my players what books I will and will not allow character creation to be used from, and what feats or classes are (and are not) allowed in the books that fall in the gray area. If players want a race that has an ECL, I strongly and strictly enforce it. I run Greyhawk, so no Eberron races, no guns or samurai swords (katana, wakizashi, no-dachi, etc.), and no handy-dandy "magic shops" on every street corner of every city (there are a few, but they're few and darned hard between). So far, my players have loved my campaign, and a few keep asking me when we're going back. "After our present campaign (the other DM's running a Forgotten Realms campaign) ends..."
shadzar 07-24-07, 10:57 PM	Hey Everyone, I really wasn't that interested in starting a what is better thread. I really was looking to find some 2e enthusiasts who would like to share what they liked about that system, not what they don't like about the current system. But in the spirit of the thread, I have to post what I don't like about 3.x. Gutless DMs that just can't tell a player "No". That is my biggest gripe. Just because I have every book, doesn't mean I want everthing in my game. and I guess that is another thing that has changed. It used to be the DMs game, now the players seem to have the power. Not in my D&D! Hlethvagi AMEN!! :bow: how is converting those 3.x player you have coming? i think you have found out what many 3.x players and 2nd ed players feel were the strengths and weeknesses of 2nd. maybe this will help you convert other players who think like yourself into the older edition in your area and start a revolution! LONG LIVE AD&D2E! VIVA LA REVOLUCIONE! :cool:
Neutronium_Dragon 07-24-07, 11:44 PM	> Many folks like the aspect of 3E which you derogatorily label "number > crunching", though it is still just as impossible to "win the game" as it was in > 2E (and the fact that you claim it is seems to show an irrational prejudice > against 3.x). After all, DnD has its roots in war gaming and many people enjoy > that aspect of it. I'm afraid that it also conveniently overlooks the fact that number crunching and optimization was just as prevalent in 2E. The difference in that regard is that 3E recognized that it was going to happen and accomodates it reasonably well short of absurd extremes, whereas 2E tends to fly apart at the seams when anyone starts doing so.
posternutbag 07-25-07, 12:33 AM	I have to admit, I am somewhat nostalgic for 1 ed AD&D. I wonder if some people's comparisons come from ret con rather than objective experience. As far as enthusiasts, I guess I am a collector, I have the original 1 ed players Handbook, (minus the cover), the 1 ed DMG with the big red Demon, and my pride and joys, an original Fiend Folio with the Githyanki on the cover, and a Deties and DemiGods with the Aztec Dragon Visage battle. I even have one of my original characters handwritten in 11 year old script on a piece of legal pad. Looking back, there are two things that really jump out at me about AD&D. 1) Really powerful characters, maybe not epic in that coin of phrase, but I'm pretty sure my 29th level Thief could deal some pretty hefty damage. 2) Immense amounts of Monty Hall style gaming. Rather than Character Ops (Multiclassing was all but forbidden) you increased in power primarily through the aquisition of powerful items. Bags of holding were requesite for the three +5 Vorpal Shortswords my Thief had. Why three, just accumulation over two years of playing the same character. Add in my +5 Hand Crossbow and +5 Bolts, I could do some serious damage on a Sneak Attack. You know what I really miss, though? The Grimtooth's Traps books. Anyone who played AD&D in the late 80s remembers the Rube Goldbrick traps found in the Grimtooths Volumes. You could totally make a Saw style game out of those books.
DrowBattlemind 07-25-07, 01:02 AM	I have to admit, I am somewhat nostalgic for 1 ed AD&D. I wonder if some people's comparisons come from ret con rather than objective experience. As far as enthusiasts, I guess I am a collector, I have the original 1 ed players Handbook, (minus the cover), the 1 ed DMG with the big red Demon, and my pride and joys, an original Fiend Folio with the Githyanki on the cover, and a Deties and DemiGods with the Aztec Dragon Visage battle. I even have one of my original characters handwritten in 11 year old script on a piece of legal pad. Well, since I started first with D&D Expert set then switched to 1st Ed AD&D with the advent of the World of Greyhawk boxed set, I'd have to say my own opinions are definitely experience, rather than retconning. As for the Deities & Demigods Cyclopedia, which printing do you have, out of curiosity? Mine's beat all to Hades, but I'm too fond of the Cthulhu and Melnebone mythos' to let it go...
Anaxander 07-25-07, 04:20 AM	Hey Everyone, I really wasn't that interested in starting a what is better thread. I really was looking to find some 2e enthusiasts who would like to share what they liked about that system, not what they don't like about the current system. No, offense, but this is a 3rd edition board. But in the spirit of the thread, I have to post what I don't like about 3.x. Gutless DMs that just can't tell a player "No". That is my biggest gripe. Just because I have every book, doesn't mean I want everthing in my game. and I guess that is another thing that has changed. It used to be the DMs game, not the players seem to have the power. Not in my D&D! And how has this anything to do with the 3.5 system? Does the 3.5 system produces 'gutless' DMs? Do the books force you or other DMs to use their contents? Has rule 0 been erased from the game?
ArcTan 07-25-07, 04:26 AM	No, offense, but this is a 3rd edition board. True that. Look, "edition wars" threads will appear anywhere you go, but this is a board primarily about 3rd edition (provided, after all, by the company that makes it). If all you really want is a harmless talk about 2nd edition rather than a debate, you should probably look at a board like ENWorld or Dragonfoot.org. (They're *real* oldschool at Dragonfoot -- a bastion of people who never migrated from 1e.)
Anaxander 07-25-07, 04:42 AM	Archetypes of High Fantasy (magical elves, powerful wizards, magicless dwarves, fighters that kill dragons) are much more ingrained in the game system. This could also be stated, "The standard real life European mythologies are much more ingrained into the system." Look at the 3.5 spell list & monster manuals. High Fantasy & mythological beasts if you want them. And how is a 'magic-less dwarf' an archetype of fantasy? Most dice rolls deal with combat and survival (things that tend to rely on some luck). Everything depends on 'some luck' Rich, non-standard worlds were easily accessible, and provided more flavor than additional options for characters. Eberron? In addition, it must be noted that the abundance of campaign worlds was one of the major factors in the downfall of TSR. Furthermore, campaign material has nothing to do with the 3.5 system It took a modicum of understanding to play, prompting people who tended to be more intelligent and/or creative (or imaginative) than average to take up the game. Creativity and good roleplaying have nothing to do with mathematical insight (because that is meant by 'understanding'). It was just a cumbersome system, no need to embellish it, or create post factum legitimations for it Acheiving high levels was something rare. depends on which level you start I guess? How many % of the 3.5 players have ever played an epic character? The DM was (culturally, by this I mean in the culture of AD&D)given license to adjudicate situations as he/she saw fit. Rule 0 still exists in 3.5, but with less opportunities of extreme DM abuse. Which should be a good thing It was culturally acceptable for DMs to kill off characters that had gone awry. And this is a good thing why? And how does the 3.5 system (again!) prevent any 'cultural' play style? Against D&D 3.5: Number-crunching is now a valid strategy. (And it is possible to "win"). It is not possible to win. Number-crunching has always been important. Multi-classing is easy as pie! Which is a good thing in order to avoid stereotypical characters The endless options discourage role-playing, and encourage power-gaming. (It has been studied, and people get more creative when they have to do complex tasks with fewer tools. On the flip side, when they have too many tools, they either 1) get much more efficient at the same tasks, and potentially go way beyond overkill, simply because they can; or 2) fuddle around, not knowing what to do.) It has been studied?? Source please. D&D isn't a complex task, it's a game, played by people with various play styles. Options can both kill and enable roleplaying (TWF: wow, this gives me the idea of a two dagger wielding rogue! etc) The elements of High Fantasy have been lost. No, other posters already covered this Crucial DM-player interactions (like bluffing your way past angry townsfolk) have been, in most cases, relegated to dice rolls. Then you aren't playing the game by the rules. Bluff checks get a modifier on how believable the bluff is. A player who's saying nothing but just rolling dice gets a -100 to his check... Killing off players because they got too powerful is culturally frowned upon. Killing of players without their consent is frowned upon, and rightly so! Game problems should be solved in interaction with the players, not with the characters The DM has to answer to his party for adjudicating things on the fly, rather than looking up where the answer was in the rulebook, and spelling it out letter by letter (even if the result is the same, in game, or in plot importance) Depends on the DM, the party, etc. Again, it has NOTHING to do with the 3.5 system Epic levels are are too easy to reach. Maybe, although I'm playing 3.5 for three years now and never even hit 12th level, so it depends on your play style I guess. All in all, I would say that 3.5 rules are a little better, but the flavor of AD&D was much better. So combine the 'flavor' of AD&D with the 3.5 system and you have your perfect game :) Although the HUGE number of options for classes and prestige classes in D&D 3.5 is starting to seem more rediculous than trying to figure out the THAC0 for a "dual"-class AD&D Fighter 4/Thief 11/Mage 14/Cleric 16, (which was possible, with a lenient DM and a lucky character.) Don't get me wrong, getting to play a dwarf monk/wizard or kobold fighter/sorcerer/dragon (don't ask how I'm going to take dragon levels, I've yet to get that by the DM) is incredibly sweet (and essentially impossible in AD&D). If you find the abundance of classes and options rediculous, don't play them. Other people seem to like them. Nobody is force feeding you classes or feats...
ArcTan 07-25-07, 05:50 AM	Look at the 3.5 spell list & monster manuals. High Fantasy & mythological beasts if you want them. And how is a 'magic-less dwarf' an archetype of fantasy? It's the opposite, really. In Norse mythology, Dwarfs were supposed to be *better* at magic than humans. That was their thing -- they made magic artifacts, they had magic powers, they were a magic race. Read the Ring cycle. Creativity and good roleplaying have nothing to do with mathematical insight (because that is meant by 'understanding'). It was just a cumbersome system, no need to embellish it, or create post factum legitimations for it Yeah. The argument that a badly written and difficult to understand system makes for "better" players is one I really hate. For one thing, being a good player and being good at dealing with badly written rules are two very different things. If anything, a lot of people who would've made good players were kept *out* of the system because it was so damn frustrating. (And, frankly, still are -- 3e fixed a lot of things but is *still* harder than I think it should be.) Rule 0 still exists in 3.5, but with less opportunities of extreme DM abuse. Which should be a good thing Yeah. Frankly, the feeling that I should *have* to ignore 50% or more of what I read in the rulebook to have a playable game annoys the hell out of me. It's a big excuse for TSR basically tricking people out of their money. * It was culturally acceptable for DMs to kill off characters that had gone awry. And this is a good thing why? And how does the 3.5 system (again!) prevent any 'cultural' play style? If anything, the possibility of "Your character gets devoured by blue flames" was just an indication that D&D was still a glorified board game pretending to be a roleplaying game, and that people were still groping around figuring out what an RPG should be. But if you're even going to slightly pretend that you're telling epic stories, then this attitude of the capricious DM who can blast things to bits on a whim needs to die a painful death.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:13 AM	No, offense, but this is a 3rd edition board. funny i thought this was a D&D general forum... :confused: If it doesn't fit above then post it here! and this subforums is under the D&D Fundamentals section. seems like the differences between editions can be considered fundamentals of the game and its evolution. and if it is a 3rd edition board, then why is there discussion of 3.5? which clearly isn't 3rd edition but 3.5 edition. or did you mean this is a 3.x board, with "x" standing for a variable to mean anything. talka bout prejudice if only one small section on this website allows for older editions all clumped into one single forum, yet "current product" gets 20+ forums. the reason why people like version a to version b is fundamental to why they play in the first place. unless heaving trolling/personal harrassment/flaming/etc happens i doubt the company would want to disassociate completely from odle editions else risking losing a large part of its playerbase that MIGHT become returning customers of the game. look what happened with the decreased sales of Games Workshop when they closed down their forums. like some people saying the DMs should give the players what they want, then i would think the company wanting money from people wouldn't alienate those people it has forsaken completely. some people like different versions. one thing however remains the same.... newer != better
Anaxander 07-25-07, 07:22 AM	funny i thought this was a D&D general forum... :confused: and this subforums is under the D&D Fundamentals section. seems like the differences between editions can be considered fundamentals of the game and its evolution. and if it is a 3rd edition board, then why is there discussion of 3.5? which clearly isn't 3rd edition but 3.5 edition. or did you mean this is a 3.x board, with "x" standing for a variable to mean anything. talka bout prejudice if only one small section on this website allows for older editions all clumped into one single forum, yet "current product" gets 20+ forums. the reason why people like version a to version b is fundamental to why they play in the first place. unless heaving trolling/personal harrassment/flaming/etc happens i doubt the company would want to disassociate completely from odle editions else risking losing a large part of its playerbase that MIGHT become returning customers of the game. look what happened with the decreased sales of Games Workshop when they closed down their forums. My point was that the OP should not have been surprised that posting in this forum instead of this (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54)one results in an 'edition war'. Since there exists an 'out of print board', it is safe to presume that these D&D boards are aimed at the 3rd edition user. Of course there is room here to discuss 2nd edition content, but when you do this, don't be surprised when you're surrounded (in a non-hostile way) by 3rd edition users.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:28 AM	maybe for once someone gave 3.x players the benefit of doubt of being polite. :) all editions break down to technicalities. i think 4th edition should be a metagame. remove all the statistical data and just give information on how things operate and let individuals figure out how to adjudicate saves and such.
Gorbacz 07-25-07, 08:47 AM	Shadzar I think you should be playing Amber :) Let's face it, 2.0 had less numbers and crunchy bits, and frankly it felt a lot that it was a role-playing dungeon crawl slapped on top of tabletop wargame system. No knowledge skills, no social skills.... I love to play RPGs but I hate having to ponder maths of saving throws or having to create my own skills system just because the system rules didn't have that. So I enjoy 3/3.5 because it is so much more a "pick it up and have fun without hassle game". That being said, 2.0 had some insane good sourcebooks - so for me it's d20 mechanics with 2.0 fluff please, so I can spend less time trying to figure things out and more time creating cool adventures.
tankschmidt 07-25-07, 09:20 AM	Well I guess I'll throw my two cents into the ring too. I don't understand what is so hard about the mechanics of 2nd edition. THAC0 - It's just the number you need to hit zero. If you want to hit ten, subtract ten from this number. If you want to hit -3, add three. Not that difficult, right? Nonweapon proficiencies - roll under your ability score, possibly modified by the proficiency itself. A higher roll (provided it is a success) is better. Again, I don't see what's so arcane about this. Roll over your saving throw number. It's written right there on your character sheet! That said, I will grant that the third edition mechanic for handling attacks and saving throws is far better. Managing third edition skill points, however, is an exercise in minutia, and one I am happy to be without. When the time came to switch over to 3.x, I held out for awhile, but I eventually did make the leap. Since then I have moved away from 3.x for several reasons: 3.x requires way too much preparation time for the DM in the form of number-crunching and combing through stat blocks. Combat takes forever when everybody and his brother has attacks of opportunity, tactical movement, reach, etc. I was never a wargamer, so I don't appreciate this kind of stuff, and I'd rather shout a few battle cries, kill the monsters, and get down to some good roleplaying. Depending on the level of experience your players have with optimization, you get vastly different power levels within the party. Now, I'm not going to go and say that all classes are equal in any edition of (A)D&D, but I never had a big problem with this before 3.x. In any other edition, someone completely new to the system could come up with a reasonably competent character on the spot. In 3.x, too many feats, prestige classes, two-level dips, level adjustments, and orb spells have left us with a D&D the Gathering, where accumulating books leads to dominating combat. The above, however, is just my experience with the game, and yours may be quite different. In the end, I will very happily play any form of (A)D&D, but I will no longer DM 3.x. Both 2nd edition and 3.x have their strongpoints, but neither is anywhere near perfect.
Ezell Pike 07-25-07, 10:11 AM	For me, 2e is more fun to DM than 3e. In 3e I feel that the rules have been carefully crafted to protect players from "Bad DM's". Every DM has an off day or moment. I'm fairly certain that even your favorite DM's have made you mad with their decisions. The 3.x system does not protect you from bad DM's. No matter how concise and exact the rules are. The one difference it has made is that you can almost certainly tell when you are getting the shaft. (This doesn't help me enjoy a game.) This leads to arguments, debate, hard feelings and so on. Not every player will make a big deal of something, some will. Those that would let minor DM infractions slide (for whatever reason) just want to play, and are expected to sit and wait while things are hashed out between other players and DM's. This is not fun. In 2e both as a DM and a player I felt greater freedom to pretend. Because combat was rarely complicated. Your character can have any personality they want, any theme they want. In 3e (not to offend anyone) I end up pretending to give a damn about someone elses build. (and what they can do if/then) And if you want personality you have to put skill points into it, and if you don't or can't afford them because of your class, then you need a new personality or a new class (even if the mechanics of that class are not appealing). If you want a theme, they have rules for what you want so now you have to build a character with classes/feats/abilities to prop up your theme, when before, just pretending worked fine. Granted pretending isn't always an option. Pretending your wizard can win at an arm wresling contest against a giant doesn't hold up to the simple resolution mechanics that the DM can come up with on the spot. Or the few that already exist as resolution mechanics. But having more modifiers/action types/abilities and overall exacting structure provided by 3e just leads me to more work to get a result. That is why I prefer 2e. I can pretend.
BaltotheJunkie 07-25-07, 10:25 AM	ANYONE playing byt he rules had dozens. Go back and read adventures, you'll see +1 crap everywhere in low level dungeons. You didnt necessarily. However you took it anyways, stuffed it in a bag, and later downed some wine, an owl feather and 100gp of ground up pearl. That didn't mean that everyone got it. Items were often hidden, there were time restraints, and worries about other monsters that limited the time available for searches, there was always the problem with encumbrance. And maybe you didn't go to every room. In addition, don't forget those item saving throws for when you used burning hands or other spells...
Neutronium_Dragon 07-25-07, 10:28 AM	> * THAC0 - It's just the number you need to hit zero. If you want to hit > ten, subtract ten from this number. If you want to hit -3, add three. Not > that difficult, right? It may not be difficult, but it's darned counterintuitive when you end up subtracting negatives and a values get better as they get lower - except that you want to roll higher when dealing with them. > * Nonweapon proficiencies - roll under your ability score, possibly > modified by the proficiency itself. A higher roll (provided it is a success) is > better. Again, I don't see what's so arcane about this. So now you want to roll low, but not too low. "Closest to the actual value without going over" is great for The Price is Right, but it makes for a lousy RPG mechanic. > * Roll over your saving throw number. It's written right there on your > character sheet! So now we have another value that gets better as it gets lower but you want to roll higher. And the arbitrary save categories were obnoxious.
BaltotheJunkie 07-25-07, 10:32 AM	Oh, old-school spell descriptions were vague and open to interpretation enough that the DM could always surprise you with unintended consequences, which is a sort of "mystery". Just not a good kind. Like "Wish"?
tankschmidt 07-25-07, 10:46 AM	> * THAC0 - It's just the number you need to hit zero. If you want to hit > ten, subtract ten from this number. If you want to hit -3, add three. Not > that difficult, right? It may not be difficult, but it's darned counterintuitive when you end up subtracting negatives and a values get better as they get lower - except that you want to roll higher when dealing with them. Like I said, it's not perfect. But my point is that 3.x has it's drawbacks in attack resolution as well: "Let's see base attack bonus plus strength, -3 for power attack, and I'm enlarged does that change anything?, +2 for charge, +2 for flanking, -4 for cover, oh but the cleric doesn't provide a flank because he sheathed his mace to bless me, dude you should five over there to give me a flank, oh +1 for bless, am I still shaken?, that gives me a minus 2, right? Yes! I hit. What? It's a displacer beast? 50% miss chance? But my half-Troglodyte build gives me scent, right?" You know how it is. When players who are used to the classic editions talk about 3.x being overly complex, that's what they're talking about. If only we could have the best of both worlds - intuitive mechanic and a less complicated jumble of modifiers during combat. (Insert plugs to your favorite non-WoTC games here ;))
Grand Theft Otto 07-25-07, 11:09 AM	You know what I really miss, though? The Grimtooth's Traps books. Anyone who played AD&D in the late 80s remembers the Rube Goldbrick traps found in the Grimtooths Volumes. You could totally make a Saw style game out of those books. There is a series that is directly tied to Grimtooth books, Traps and Threachery. A number of the traps make their reappearance (Treadmill of Doom etc). I somewhat prefer them, as there are actual rules for the traps.
Grand Theft Otto 07-25-07, 11:18 AM	Well I guess I'll throw my two cents into the ring too. I don't understand what is so hard about the mechanics of 2nd edition. [LIST] THAC0 - It's just the number you need to hit zero. If you want to hit ten, subtract ten from this number. If you want to hit -3, add three. Not that difficult, right? Humans add easier than they subtract. Further, why would a Dexterity BONUS of +3 LOWER your AC? Why would a sword +1 LOWER your THAC0? As near as I can tell, its because it sounded good one night while drunk/high at 4am and scribbled on a pizza box. 1st edition "design" in a nutshell. Nonweapon proficiencies - roll under your ability score, possibly modified by the proficiency itself. A higher roll (provided it is a success) is better. Again, I don't see what's so arcane about this. A higher roll isnt better however. You want to roll low for proficiencies. And initiative. Lets not forget the stupidity of opposed rolls, where when a 20 on an attack would ordinarily be great suddenly becomes terrible. Depending on the level of experience your players have with optimization, you get vastly different power levels within the party. Now, I'm not going to go and say that all classes are equal in any edition of (A)D&D, but I never had a big problem with this before 3.x. In any other edition, someone completely new to the system could come up with a reasonably competent character on the spot. In 3.x, too many feats, prestige classes, two-level dips, level adjustments, and orb spells have left us with a D&D the Gathering, where accumulating books leads to dominating combat. You're right, it was so much better in 2nd edition where everyone was a fighter/cleric or cleric/mage. Because hey, you were a piddly level behind the dumbass who thought a human fighter would actually be useful. 3rd edition TRIES to be balanced. It doesnt always succeed, but its a hell of a lot better in this regard than the system that thought a cleric should advance faster than a fighter.
Wiseblood 07-25-07, 11:25 AM	Like I said, it's not perfect. But my point is that 3.x has it's drawbacks in attack resolution as well: "Let's see base attack bonus plus strength, -3 for power attack, and I'm enlarged does that change anything?, +2 for charge, +2 for flanking, -4 for cover, oh but the cleric doesn't provide a flank because he sheathed his mace to bless me, dude you should five over there to give me a flank, oh +1 for bless, am I still shaken?, that gives me a minus 2, right? Yes! I hit. What? It's a displacer beast? 50% miss chance? But my half-Troglodyte build gives me scent, right?" You know how it is. Man, I have seen that. High level drow Warblade/scout/dervish with very high dex, great saves, sr, and with good AC using pearl of black doubt. All while wearing a cloak of displacement. Meaning your target (ac) was different for almost every attack and when you hit you may not have hit. This was an enemy not a party member. When players who are used to the classic editions talk about 3.x being overly complex, that's what they're talking about. If only we could have the best of both worlds - intuitive mechanic and a less complicated jumble of modifiers during combat. (Insert plugs to your favorite non-WoTC games here ;)) That, would indeed, be nice.
shadzar 07-25-07, 11:53 AM	Shadzar I think you should be playing Amber :) :thinks: who is she?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-25-07, 11:58 AM	Everything in 2.0 is simple and easy to understand. I guess you skipped the page on THACO, then. ;)
shadzar 07-25-07, 12:03 PM	3rd edition TRIES to be balanced. It doesnt always succeed, but its a hell of a lot better in this regard than the system that thought a cleric should advance faster than a fighter. clerics advanced faster so they would have access to more healing spells maybe? also a fighter is just a meat shield to impede people while the caster blast away at them. thus a severly injured fighter eneds a strong cleric to heal after the wizard has charbroiled everyone in the "room".
Grand Theft Otto 07-25-07, 12:14 PM	clerics advanced faster so they would have access to more healing spells maybe? also a fighter is just a meat shield to impede people while the caster blast away at them. thus a severly injured fighter eneds a strong cleric to heal after the wizard has charbroiled everyone in the "room". So the obvious answer is to make the more powerful class advance faster than the crappily designed and weak class? I guess in bizarro world, that makes sense. Unfortunately I live in the real world. I also dont have a traumatic childhood of being bullied by jocks, so dont feel the need to make the athletic style class ****** as a petty form of geek revenge. In 2nd edition, the smart answer was to replace the fighter with another cleric anyways. On noes, I go from d8/d12 with my longsword to 2d4 with my morningstar and my THAC0 is a tiny bit worse. And I get hold person, heat metal, slay living, creeping doom.... And if you got some splat like Faiths and Avatars or something... look out!
aotrscommander 07-25-07, 12:26 PM	:thinks: who is she? I believe Amber is a diceless system though more than that I don't know; I only know that much from hearing it mentioned in passing.
Stormonu 07-25-07, 12:51 PM	how many campaign settings had edition specific information? All of them. Let's see you run Dark Sun in 1st Edition. And what about the Time of Troubles that was nothing but a huge retcon for 2E? could Eberron be run in second edition without converting many things? It could be done, but some of the 2E rules would have to be relaxed. All I see that would need to be changed is adding the new races (Warforged, Changlings, Shifters, etc.) a new class (Artificer) and convert the spells. Just about everything else would be fluff and 2E rules. If you can set up a campaign like Dark Sun in 2E, I think setting up Eberron in 2E would be no more difficult. could 2nd edition forgotten realms setting be played with 3.x? More so than the 1E to 2E versions if you figure in the Time of Troubles. Remember the entire destruction of the assassin and monk class as part of that retcon? The death of Bane? The ascention of Midnight? The releveling of many spells? The arquebus and wondermakers of Gond? Wild Magic? The appearance of speciality priests? And so much more... Hell, its easier to go from 1E FR to 3E FR and skip 2E. dragon and dungeon magazines both had space for all editions until 3.x ran them out and they became no longer supported. That is incorrect. Either you presented your article in the current edition or it did not get accepted. TSR explicitly switched all articles over to 2E as soon as the new edition came out and would NOT accept 1E submissions. (The basic game was still running strong in its own niche until it was folded into AD&D a few years before 3E) I had 1st hand experience with this.
shadzar 07-25-07, 12:59 PM	All of them. Let's see you run Dark Sun in 1st Edition. And what about the Time of Troubles that was nothing but a huge retcon for 2E? sorry i avoided stupid settings like birthright, 5th age dragonlance, dark sun and planescape, and spelljammer, to name a few. they just weren't my cup of tea. and for things like forgotten realms or dragonlance you didn't need any specifics other than monster stats the rest was just fluff. even the stats could be done away with if said monster had an equal in the other edition. no tweaking require just straight cross over the monster from edition a to edition b. it either becomes stronger and you lessen it in numebrs, or it becomes weaker and you raise its numebrs to challenge the party. could 2nd edition forgotten realms setting be played with 3.x? More so than the 1E to 2E versions if you figure in the Time of Troubles. so 2nd edition FR was better than 2nd edition FR? :uh-huh: That is incorrect. Either you presented your article in the current edition or it did not get accepted. TSR explicitly switched all articles over to 2E as soon as the new edition came out and would NOT accept 1E submissions. (The basic game was still running strong in its own niche until it was folded into AD&D a few years before 3E) I had 1st hand experience with this. never tried ot submit anything so i never knew of that. i never felt it worth the effort and by the time 2e became the only one i had probably stopped my subscription. will have to read through my DMA to see what went on then.
Roxlimn 07-25-07, 01:25 PM	Having played 2e in a number of campaigns in various worlds since its inception, I REALLY don't see all these things that are being attributed to it. Does a 2e game boast a more forceful DM? Of course not. That's for the DM himself to decide. A DM can be equally forceful whatever system he runs, even if it's freaking Poker. Does 3e promote more number crunching? In that there's more numbers to actually crunch, yes. There weren't a whole lot of numbers to do anything with in 2e, which led to the somewhat infamous problem of Fighters being more or less identical except for their name and gear. You can RP your Fighter anytime you like, for as much as you like, but it kind of helps when one Fighter actually is more likely to do something than another. While there's that "Weapon Proficiency" thing, it didn't really turn out all that well, what with the random treasure generation and stuff. Most people tended to use longswords because you were likely to be screwed with the magic item generation charts if you didn't. Was there too much magic treasure? Cannot be answered. Since 2e didn't bother to tell you how much treasure was appropriate to HAVE, you more or less had to guess, and one man's "too much" is another man's "not enough." Of course, the lack of any guidance meant that the DM had to fudge outrageously with the magic treasures, ESPECIALLY with the magic creation rules and the item saving throw things being what they were. I suppose we were a rather unusual group in that we actually played with the item saving throw things, and I did rather lose quite a few to the odd fireball or dragon breath. Yes, there tended to a hefty amount of such things in most modules such as Castle Greyhawk, Deserts of Desolation, and Tomb of Horrors. In spite of that, players who stripped everything that wasn't nailed to the floor tended to be significantly better off than those who were more cavalier with acquisition, since significant magic tended to be found in rather uncommon places. Identification rarely became an issue if you spared a week or two for such activity. How were the saving throws? Pretty weird. The fact that high level anythings resisted magic so well tended to relegate such magic only to taking care of cannon fodder and minions. On the flip side, it was rather difficult to randomly die from saved effects, especially Fighters and Paladins. The changeover in the 3.X editions is both a good and a bad thing. It's not a simple one, either. The increased efficacy of attack spells favors the attackers - spellcasters and monsters generally, so unless you're one of those, the balance is shifted against you. Furthermore, unlike in 2e, the disparity between saves increases as you level, rather than the opposite, which was somewhat true for some 2e save tables. This means that 1st level Fighters are ironically more resistant against level-appropriate effects than their higher level counterparts. Personally, I prefer for it to be the opposite. The disparity between saves ought to be more pronounced at the lower levels, when you're all fresh from training, and then less as you level, as you adapt to the various challenges you face on the field. Personally, I feel that 3e is a big change for the better. I probably feel like this because I have no problems handling the numbers. Writing down all modifiers systematically REALLY cuts down on "add time." I can understand where a less numerically able DM would prefer a less complicated system. For instance: "Let's see base attack bonus plus strength, -3 for power attack, and I'm enlarged does that change anything?, +2 for charge, +2 for flanking, -4 for cover, oh but the cleric doesn't provide a flank because he sheathed his mace to bless me, dude you should five over there to give me a flank, oh +1 for bless, am I still shaken?, that gives me a minus 2, right? Yes! I hit. What? It's a displacer beast? 50% miss chance? But my half-Troglodyte build gives me scent, right?" In the first place, if you're up on the initiative, you shouldn't be dithering with BAB. You should be presenting a total AB for all modifiers you usually have, at the very least. If you make a maneuver, I (the DM) will assign you a final modifier which I calculate based on everything I see. Charge is +2. I'd have noted that the Cleric doesn't have his mace on hand, so no flank. The Cleric will have instructed everyone to add +1 morale on all their running ABs during his turn. If you were shaken, then I would have instructed you to apply it to your running AB, not to be removed until I say so. So the turn goes: "My current running AB is +15. I charge." I check. "I concur. Apply a +2 on your charge roll only. Run a -2 to your AC until next turn please. Roll it!" Miss chances are, of course, rolled by me. It actually goes rather fast. If you prefer not to have all these modifiers, you don't have to use them. You can use as much or as little of the modifiers as you prefer. They are not set in stone. It's still 3e. That said, I still think that some things were better done in 2e. Restrictions and flavor complaints are utter nonsense. The game has whatever flavor you give it. If you don't like Elven Paladins, you can ban them in 3e, and the game instructs you to do so if you prefer that. As a DM, I find that I like not having to look at charts all the time. I used to have to carry around like 15 or so charts in my head, just for the saving throws and XP estimations. You're supposed to write down your STs in your character sheet, of course, but something as simple as a level drain could mess things up in a hurry. shadzar: WotC won't even release new material for older editions because they fear they would be hurting themselves, even though they would profit from it. WotC doesn't support players it supports $$$. It doesn't surprise me in the least to hear that WotC is making and publishing D&D in order to make money. They are, after all, not registered as an NPO. I don't see how this is supposed to make 3e into a bad product. By that argument, everything produced by profitable companies is a bad product.
Jewelprotector 07-25-07, 01:32 PM	My 2cp... I quit playing DnD for a long time when 2e came out. I took a look at the rules and thought "WTF?! I could do better than this!" So I tried. It ended up looking a lot like 3e, except for the couple of years when I tried to go diceless. So when 3e came out, and it looked a lot like what I was already doing but better, the WHOO-HOO-HOO echoed through Missouri was probably mine. I love it. I will NEVER go back. It's the most internally consistent system it has ever been my pleasure to play.
Frugal 07-25-07, 01:55 PM	The one difference it has made is that you can almost certainly tell when you are getting the shaft. (This doesn't help me enjoy a game.) This leads to arguments, debate, hard feelings and so on. Not every player will make a big deal of something, some will. Those that would let minor DM infractions slide (for whatever reason) just want to play, and are expected to sit and wait while things are hashed out between other players and DM's. This is not fun. In 2e both as a DM and a player I felt greater freedom to pretend. Because combat was rarely complicated. Your character can have any personality they want, any theme they want. Argumentative players are going to exist in any edition. Yes, players will nitpick about rules mistakes in 3.x, but it's pretty likely that those same players would nitpick any ruling by the DM in 2ed. If we assume a reasonable group then it's not an issue for either edition, in 2ed if the DM makes a call and someone disagrees with it then they'll talk it out then, or after the session (maybe just before the next session starts, whatever) and work out a reasonable solution. The same is true for 3.5, the DM makes a rules mistake and his reasonable group discusses it, maybe they find the rule right away and correct it, maybe they look it up later and sort it out for the next session, no big deal. But it seems like a lot of people like to assume unreasonable players in 3.x but assume that they don't exist in 2ed. Honestly, I think 2ed even has more room for these kinds of arguments because with so much left up for the DM's judgement it means there's all kinds of potential for a player to assume that something unstated will work a certain way and then have the DM rule differently. Not to mention what happens if a player comes from another group or the issues with keeping DM rulings straight between 2 different groups you might play with. And, if we have a player who's being as unreasonable as some people like to say players are in 3.x then "I'm the DM and I say so" doesn't hold much water, whereas if it's spelled out explicitly in the rules at least the DM can say, "I say so because of the rule on p. x," which carries a lot more weight.
OravennasBrother 07-25-07, 02:10 PM	Humans add easier than they subtract. Only if they are incompetent at basic arithmetic. Addition = First Grade Subtraction = 2nd Grade Multiplication = 3rd Grade So as long as the players have at least 3rd grade ability at basic arithmetic, they should be fine with subtraction. Lets not forget the stupidity of opposed rolls, where when a 20 on an attack would ordinarily be great suddenly becomes terrible. Except that when one player ALWAYS rolls 20, at least there are times when they don't get an auto-win. Aside******************* Player "Look I rolled a Nat 20 to hit, ooh I back it with a Nat 20, that's a crit with my scythe. Good thing I power attacked for full BAB" Me, "Can I watch your rolls." Player "You don't trust me. I want to play with friends who trust me." ME "Sure I trust you, I just want to observe your phenomenal luck in action." Player "Nu-uh, you don't trust me." Me "OK I'll agree with you I don't trust you. Roll where I can watch or it doesn't count." End Aside**************** You're right, it was so much better in 2nd edition where everyone was a fighter/cleric I never saw that many clerics in 2nd. Was that the same game I played where non-human clerics were limited to about 4th level or so and then were still splitting their Exp but not getting anything in exchange except for a reduction to half the HP a fighter would normally get?
Grand Theft Otto 07-25-07, 02:25 PM	Only if they are incompetent at basic arithmetic. Addition = First Grade Subtraction = 2nd Grade Multiplication = 3rd Grade So as long as the players have at least 3rd grade ability at basic arithmetic, they should be fine with subtraction. People can also walk backwards. It doesnt make it easier than walking forwards. I'm stating a fact, and thats humans add easier than they subtract. When given the choice to do something in which people have a natural inclinition, good design leans that way, particularly when theres no compelling reason you should do it the other way. Or are you honestly going to say theres more complaints about how 3rd edition attack bonus vs. AC is handled as compared to THAC0 vs AC? Except that when one player ALWAYS rolls 20, at least there are times when they don't get an auto-win. Aside******************* Player "Look I rolled a Nat 20 to hit, ooh I back it with a Nat 20, that's a crit with my scythe. Good thing I power attacked for full BAB" Me, "Can I watch your rolls." Player "You don't trust me. I want to play with friends who trust me." ME "Sure I trust you, I just want to observe your phenomenal luck in action." Player "Nu-uh, you don't trust me." Me "OK I'll agree with you I don't trust you. Roll where I can watch or it doesn't count." End Aside**************** Thats pretty nice straw man you made there. Harvest time must be arriving early eh? I'll throw some words out there, you all can craft your own rebuttal to this nonsense. In.. cheating... edition... any... players... exist. I never saw that many clerics in 2nd. Was that the same game I played where non-human clerics were limited to about 4th level or so and then were still splitting their Exp but not getting anything in exchange except for a reduction to half the HP a fighter would normally get? No, you clearly were not playing 2nd edition by the book, as non-human clerics had a level cap above 4. Dont feel bad, no one played that trash legit anyways. Moreover, most campaigns ended pre-level restriction cap. Looks like Gygax hit another out of the park in the Bad Design Home Run Derby.
Frugal 07-25-07, 02:27 PM	Only if they are incompetent at basic arithmetic. Addition = First Grade Subtraction = 2nd Grade Multiplication = 3rd Grade So as long as the players have at least 3rd grade ability at basic arithmetic, they should be fine with subtraction. Except that when one player ALWAYS rolls 20, at least there are times when they don't get an auto-win. Aside******************* Player "Look I rolled a Nat 20 to hit, ooh I back it with a Nat 20, that's a crit with my scythe. Good thing I power attacked for full BAB" Me, "Can I watch your rolls." Player "You don't trust me. I want to play with friends who trust me." ME "Sure I trust you, I just want to observe your phenomenal luck in action." Player "Nu-uh, you don't trust me." Me "OK I'll agree with you I don't trust you. Roll where I can watch or it doesn't count." End Aside**************** Yes because cheating in D&D wasn't invented until 3ed :rolleyes:.
not Yoda 07-25-07, 02:34 PM	Having played 2e in a number of campaigns in various worlds since its inception, I REALLY don't see all these things that are being attributed to it. Does a 2e game boast a more forceful DM? Of course not. That's for the DM himself to decide. A DM can be equally forceful whatever system he runs, even if it's freaking Poker. Does 3e promote more number crunching? In that there's more numbers to actually crunch, yes. There weren't a whole lot of numbers to do anything with in 2e, which led to the somewhat infamous problem of Fighters being more or less identical except for their name and gear. You can RP your Fighter anytime you like, for as much as you like, but it kind of helps when one Fighter actually is more likely to do something than another. While there's that "Weapon Proficiency" thing, it didn't really turn out all that well, what with the random treasure generation and stuff. Most people tended to use longswords because you were likely to be screwed with the magic item generation charts if you didn't. Was there too much magic treasure? Cannot be answered. Since 2e didn't bother to tell you how much treasure was appropriate to HAVE, you more or less had to guess, and one man's "too much" is another man's "not enough." Of course, the lack of any guidance meant that the DM had to fudge outrageously with the magic treasures, ESPECIALLY with the magic creation rules and the item saving throw things being what they were. I suppose we were a rather unusual group in that we actually played with the item saving throw things, and I did rather lose quite a few to the odd fireball or dragon breath. Yes, there tended to a hefty amount of such things in most modules such as Castle Greyhawk, Deserts of Desolation, and Tomb of Horrors. In spite of that, players who stripped everything that wasn't nailed to the floor tended to be significantly better off than those who were more cavalier with acquisition, since significant magic tended to be found in rather uncommon places. Identification rarely became an issue if you spared a week or two for such activity. How were the saving throws? Pretty weird. The fact that high level anythings resisted magic so well tended to relegate such magic only to taking care of cannon fodder and minions. On the flip side, it was rather difficult to randomly die from saved effects, especially Fighters and Paladins. The changeover in the 3.X editions is both a good and a bad thing. It's not a simple one, either. The increased efficacy of attack spells favors the attackers - spellcasters and monsters generally, so unless you're one of those, the balance is shifted against you. Furthermore, unlike in 2e, the disparity between saves increases as you level, rather than the opposite, which was somewhat true for some 2e save tables. This means that 1st level Fighters are ironically more resistant against level-appropriate effects than their higher level counterparts. Personally, I prefer for it to be the opposite. The disparity between saves ought to be more pronounced at the lower levels, when you're all fresh from training, and then less as you level, as you adapt to the various challenges you face on the field. Personally, I feel that 3e is a big change for the better. I probably feel like this because I have no problems handling the numbers. Writing down all modifiers systematically REALLY cuts down on "add time." I can understand where a less numerically able DM would prefer a less complicated system. For instance: In the first place, if you're up on the initiative, you shouldn't be dithering with BAB. You should be presenting a total AB for all modifiers you usually have, at the very least. If you make a maneuver, I (the DM) will assign you a final modifier which I calculate based on everything I see. Charge is +2. I'd have noted that the Cleric doesn't have his mace on hand, so no flank. The Cleric will have instructed everyone to add +1 morale on all their running ABs during his turn. If you were shaken, then I would have instructed you to apply it to your running AB, not to be removed until I say so. So the turn goes: "My current running AB is +15. I charge." I check. "I concur. Apply a +2 on your charge roll only. Run a -2 to your AC until next turn please. Roll it!" Miss chances are, of course, rolled by me. It actually goes rather fast. If you prefer not to have all these modifiers, you don't have to use them. You can use as much or as little of the modifiers as you prefer. They are not set in stone. It's still 3e. You make some valid points. I have to disagree about the running BAB example. Attack bonuses have so many situationally dependent modifiers that as soon as combat starts, what you had written on character sheets is no longer applicable except as part of a rapidly expanding equation. Furthermore, most of the modifiers in a combat round apply to AC and Attack Bonus. Spells, (touch attack spell falling more in line with normal attacks) while rules in and of themselves, are easier to resolve. I understand that martial characters, other than Adepts, can really only attack or full attack. These attacks rarely have an outcome other than X damage. The net result is the backbone of combat winds up being a convoluted mess to resolve comparitively puny damage and next to nothing else (especially when considering AoO's). I would like to see combat more streamlined (ie. fewer modifiers) and more flexible with attack options being more like maneuvers. Additionaly, While adding may in fact be easier for humans. Adding 16+19 is not as easy as 12-4.(considering that there is a ceiling in 2e also helps) In fact, since playing 3.x seeing adults, even those skilled in math and those with high IQ's, counting on their fingers is silly. In 3.x we have gotten to the point where we don't actually know what AC we really hit because it's too much of a hassle to figure out. A natural one is at least a break from work. How about that? Failure is rewarding? I'm sure WotC is proud.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-25-07, 02:35 PM	I have to post what I don't like about 3.x. Gutless DMs that just can't tell a player "No". That is my biggest gripe. I have to post what I don't like about crappy D&D games, and it has precisely nothing to do with any particular edition: gutless DMs that just can't tell a player "No". That is my biggest gripe. Anyone who believes crappy DMing is unique to 3e has clearly never played any other edition of the game or has been far, far luckier than most other players.
Frugal 07-25-07, 02:42 PM	The other thing I find funny is that whenever someone mentions something that was confusing to work out (THAC0, saves, etc) in 2ed and someone else responds, "it's written right on your character sheet," and then proceeds to talk about how hard it is to work out bonuses in 3.x. Well here's a concept, I *gasp* write those on my character sheet too! In our last campaign I was playing a goliath barbarian, I had my STR score while raging, with bull's strength, and with bull's strenght and raging all on my sheet. I also had my attack bonus and damage for my primary weapon written down for all these situations as they came up on a regular basis. There's really no excuse for not having common bonuses like this worked out on your sheet all the time so you can just quickly look them up. Then you just apply the temporary bonuses as they apply. It's not nearly as complicated as some 2ed players make it out to be (which to be fair, 2ed wasn't as complicated in some ways as 3.x players make it out to be either).
OravennasBrother 07-25-07, 02:49 PM	Yes because cheating in D&D wasn't invented until 3ed :rolleyes:. But I ran into an idiot in 2nd edition who always rolled a "natural" 20 and got upset when it wasn't always the "best" result. In 3.X that same idiot will always gets the "good" result in return for his cheating. BTW - Unless you want to play a Dwarf (and be terribly slow) I don't recall all that many Cleric Fighter MC options in 2nd.
Stormonu 07-25-07, 03:00 PM	so 2nd edition FR was better than 2nd edition FR? No, there was a 1st edition version of FR (the black box with the gold cover). When 2E came around, the Time of Troubles was invented to retcon the 1E version of FR to match to 2E (as discussed in FR adventures hardbook). It was a pretty serious change up of things in the realms. and for things like forgotten realms or dragonlance you didn't need any specifics other than monster stats the rest was just fluff. Um, excuse me, there are game rules for becoming a Harper, what happens if you use another wizard's sigil and several other mechanics in the FR books as well as fluff. And for Dragonlance - hello, Knights of Solomnia? The three moons, orders of High Sorcery? What about the "No character on Krynn can ever go past 18th level?" That's fluff? sorry i avoided stupid settings like birthright, 5th age dragonlance, dark sun and planescape, and spelljammer, to name a few. Sorry, but just because you feel they are stupid doesn't write them out of existance. They are part and parcel to 2E, and I feel sorry for you if you didn't take time to enjoy those wonderful worlds (although I agree that 5th age/SAGA wasn't even D&D). Now, if you want to talk crap - let's talk Horde and Maztica (for FR) :yuck:
shadzar 07-25-07, 03:12 PM	I'm stating a fact, and thats humans add easier than they subtract. nope sorry not true. humans add least of all. subtract, they have a nack for taking things from other people without reason. divide, we put ourselves into competing groups; the human race somewhere along the line gainged a finish point and everyone is trying to win. multiply, just look at population growth the only thing albe to add is to debt, which is basically subtracting from what you have. sit a box of money in your front yard for a day and leave it open and see how many people add tot he amount vs how many subtract some for themselves, :evillaugh
shadzar 07-25-07, 03:22 PM	Um, excuse me, there are game rules for becoming a Harper, what happens if you use another wizard's sigil and several other mechanics in the FR books as well as fluff. And for Dragonlance - hello, Knights of Solomnia? The three moons, orders of High Sorcery? What about the "No character on Krynn can ever go past 18th level?" That's fluff?how many of those thing that you mentioned are dependant on eiditon? that is the stats i mean you can do with out. yes you had specifics for each settings no shyte! :rolleyes: but the things such as HP, AC, etc the stats can be ignored ans just replace a 1e monster with its equivelant 2e monster and vice versa. Sorry, but just because you feel they are stupid doesn't write them out of existance.yup it does. they don't exist at all in my D&D universe. but i guess you are write, it doesn't write them out, it just never lets them be written to begin with! :evillaugh
High Octane 07-25-07, 05:03 PM	But I ran into an idiot in 2nd edition who always rolled a "natural" 20 and got upset when it wasn't always the "best" result. In 3.X that same idiot will always gets the "good" result in return for his cheating. BTW - Unless you want to play a Dwarf (and be terribly slow) I don't recall all that many Cleric Fighter MC options in 2nd. So you are saying that the edition being counterintuitive and inconsistent was a GOOD thing since it helped find cheaters since cheaters never understand the system. Do you actually READ what you write? If the cheater doesn't understand the system, there is about as much chance that the other players don't either.
Neutronium_Dragon 07-25-07, 05:05 PM	> Adding 16+19 is not as easy as 12-4. It is easier than 12 - (-4) though, which is what Thaco quickly devolved into.
OravennasBrother 07-25-07, 05:17 PM	So you are saying that the edition being counterintuitive and inconsistent was a GOOD thing since it helped find cheaters since cheaters never understand the system. My experience is that players who are too stupid to use tactics are the ones prone to Cheating to defeat opponents. Thus the Stupid Cheaters are at a loss when a game makes it hard to guess what number is "Best" and then the "One roll to rule them all" becomes a VERY bad idea.
TyWebb 07-25-07, 05:49 PM	nope sorry not true. humans add least of all. Actually, what Grand Theft Otto is saying is exactly true. I'm currently getting an education degree, and the class I am taking right now is "Methods of Teaching Elementary Level Mathematics". Every texbook and journal article I've ever read concerning the teaching of mathematics bases their pedagogy on the fact that addition is the easiest natural concept, and forms the foundation for nearly every other core mathematical concept. Other basic algorithims (subtraction and especially multiplication) are all initially introduced to young students by relating them to the basic addition principles. (Division is a little trickier). Even in the upper grades, new concepts are generally always initially explained using addition-based examples and terminology. Now, I'm not trying to pass myself off as Dean of Mathematics at Harvard or anything, I'm just relating what I have found to be current educational theory.
not Yoda 07-25-07, 06:05 PM	Actually, what Grand Theft Otto is saying is exactly true. I'm currently getting an education degree, and the class I am taking right now is "Methods of Teaching Elementary Level Mathematics". Every texbook and journal article I've ever read concerning the teaching of mathematics bases their pedagogy on the fact that addition is the easiest natural concept, and forms the foundation for nearly every other core mathematical concept. Other basic algorithims (subtraction and especially multiplication) are all initially introduced to young students by relating them to the basic addition principles. (Division is a little trickier). Even in the upper grades, new concepts are generally always initially explained using addition-based examples and terminology. Now, I'm not trying to pass myself off as Dean of Mathematics at Harvard or anything, I'm just relating what I have found to be current educational theory. Hit Points. Maybe we should start at 0 and add to them to see who dies first. Saying subtraction is too hard a concept is rediculous.(I am not accusing TyWebb of this, Your post was just conveinient.) Adding negative modifiers is still here in 3.e abilty score penalties or negative levels for example, you want something dificult how about fractions, half damage for this or multiplying by the decimal. (empowered for damage x1.5 or perhaps wielded 2 handed) If subtraction is so impossible to grasp how can we finish a single round of combat. At least you have the benefit of smaller numbers in 2e (not to mention fewer numbers) to resolve an action.
BaltotheJunkie 07-25-07, 06:14 PM	But I ran into an idiot in 2nd edition who always rolled a "natural" 20 and got upset when it wasn't always the "best" result. In 3.X that same idiot will always gets the "good" result in return for his cheating. BTW - Unless you want to play a Dwarf (and be terribly slow) I don't recall all that many Cleric Fighter MC options in 2nd. Never had a problem with players cheating- all dice rolls witnessed by the DM or no soap. Half-elf, half-orc (who could only go to 4th level in 1st ed) I think even halflings could be clerics...
High Octane 07-25-07, 06:53 PM	My experience is that players who are too stupid to use tactics are the ones prone to Cheating to defeat opponents. Thus the Stupid Cheaters are at a loss when a game makes it hard to guess what number is "Best" and then the "One roll to rule them all" becomes a VERY bad idea. Or maybe on the flip side its harder to catch a cheater since he can roll both high and low rolls with the same die. It becomes more obvious someone is cheating when all their rolls are above 17. Edit: And what tactics? In 2nd there was no charging, no feat choices, no flanking, no bull rushing, no disarming, no tripping, no attacks of oppurtunity, no power attack, no cleaving, no fighting defensively or full on defensive, no 5 foot moves, no feinting, no casting defensively and most of the buffing spells sucked. There was just grappling (which was a NIGHTMARE compared to modern rules, which people still have a hard time with and ignore), cover, initiative, and hit things with sword.
Holy_Beholder 07-25-07, 07:16 PM	i think 4th edition should be a metagame. remove all the statistical data and just give information on how things operate and let individuals figure out how to adjudicate saves and such. If you want that, play FUDGE. The rest of us like having stats and dice to decide things, a metagame for D&D would suck. And I am not going against FUDGE, I like FUDGE, I play FUDGE(with my younger brother and his friends, its simpler for them)
ArcTan 07-25-07, 08:22 PM	My experience is that players who are too stupid to use tactics are the ones prone to Cheating to defeat opponents. Thus the Stupid Cheaters are at a loss when a game makes it hard to guess what number is "Best" and then the "One roll to rule them all" becomes a VERY bad idea. If this is really your attitude, I don't understand the complaining. You seem to relish the idea of your hobby being the sole province of a tiny number of "elites" who are willing to struggle through counterintuitive, unnecessarily complex rules. You seem to feel that the only way to keep "cheaters" or "bad players" out of the hobby is to keep as many *people* out of the hobby as possible, and to stand as gatekeepers with your THAC0 and your tables and the infallible judgment of the DM-as-god, to make playing D&D a secret society that requires effort and blood and sweat to even dare to essay. So you should be *happy*, because the move to 3e means that your little 2e community gets to stay insular and tiny and self-absorbed. As long as there isn't official new product material coming out, you're guaranteed a community free from uncouth, inexperienced newbies, and guaranteed that you'll never feel any pressure -- nay, not even the opportunity -- to play with anyone but your established gaming group and pat each other on the backs all the time for not being stupid anime-watching teenagers who cheat. So why not let the rest of us unwashed masses have our fun?
ArcTan 07-25-07, 08:24 PM	Or maybe on the flip side its harder to catch a cheater since he can roll both high and low rolls with the same die. It becomes more obvious someone is cheating when all their rolls are above 17. Yeah, I don't get it. What kind of a person needs the system to make it "difficult" to cheat? As though people don't notice when you roll a natural 20 every time?
High Octane 07-25-07, 08:35 PM	Yeah, I don't get it. What kind of a person needs the system to make it "difficult" to cheat? As though people don't notice when you roll a natural 20 every time? I agree. Having a more confusing system doesn't make it harder to cheat, it just makes it confusing. If a cheater doesn't know how to cheat due to the system, its a good bet that good non-cheating players don't know how to use the system correctly. Oravennas seems to think that all cheaters are cheaters because they are stupid. That isn't true. In fact many cheaters are intelligent and it's their intelligence that gives them the arrogance and ego to cheat. You seem to equate intelligence with not being a douche. I know plenty of intelligent people who are douches.
DrowBattlemind 07-25-07, 08:36 PM	So you should be *happy*, because the move to 3e means that your little 2e community gets to stay insular and tiny and self-absorbed. As long as there isn't official new product material coming out, you're guaranteed a community free from uncouth, inexperienced newbies, and guaranteed that you'll never feel any pressure -- nay, not even the opportunity -- to play with anyone but your established gaming group and pat each other on the backs all the time for not being stupid anime-watching teenagers who cheat. Yea, verily, a hit! A palpable hit!
Downtym 07-25-07, 08:39 PM	I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I remain aghast that all the rules-hating make-it-up-as-we-go players and DMs still think that it was worth their money and time to pay TSR for the privilege of buying rulebooks (often *very expensive* rulebooks) and then ignoring them and making up their own rules. I don't mind making up stories as I go along. I think it's a lot of fun. I also don't see why I have to give forty bucks to a company to give me permission to do so. If I give money to a game designer it's because I *want* him to give me rules that work that I can use. This alternative attitude is just bizarre and insane. "I like our old car better. Half the time it didn't work, so instead we walked and got decent exercise. Now *that* was a car worth spending money on, not like these new cars that work all the time so you have to drive them instead of walking." I love you.
Kursk 07-25-07, 08:58 PM	I've ever read concerning the teaching of mathematics bases their pedagogy on the fact that addition is the easiest natural concept, and forms the foundation for nearly every other core mathematical concept. After teaching my 4 children I'd have to agree.
Frugal 07-25-07, 09:04 PM	I agree. Having a more confusing system doesn't make it harder to cheat, it just makes it confusing. Actually, I'd argue that it makes it harder to catch someone who's cheating because odds are that the other players and the DM don't know the rules well enough to do it.
Kursk 07-25-07, 09:15 PM	Actually, I'd argue that it makes it harder to catch someone who's cheating because odds are that the other players and the DM don't know the rules well enough to do it. No. There weren't that many rules to remember. In 1st & 2nd it was easy for me to memorize every rule. In 3.5 it is pretty much impossible.
Ezell Pike 07-25-07, 09:26 PM	No. There weren't that many rules to remember. In 1st & 2nd it was easy for me to memorize every rule. In 3.5 it is pretty much impossible. QFT
not Yoda 07-25-07, 09:30 PM	After teaching my 4 children I'd have to agree. Fair enough. Which version of D&D would be easier to teach them to play?
Frugal 07-25-07, 09:33 PM	No. There weren't that many rules to remember. In 1st & 2nd it was easy for me to memorize every rule. In 3.5 it is pretty much impossible. I wasn't talking about 2ed per se, just the concept that you need a more complicated system to get away with cheating. A simple example is that a lot of people find 3.x's bonuses confusing and which stack, so how easy would it be for someone to slip in a bonus that's not supposed to stack? How hard will it be to catch that short of doing a full audit of the guy's character sheet? See what I mean? Now I agree there's a pile of rules in 3.x, but at least they're, generally, much more consistent. If you don't know a rule it's a pretty safe bet that it's going to involve a DC and rolling a d20 + modifiers. Now yes, there's a few rules out there that drive me nuts and don't work like that. Off the top of my head, turning and grappling come to mind, but part of what makes turning so weird is that it's very "2ed" in it's approach, and I've even seen posts from D&D designers saying they'd redo it if they had the chance to simplify it and make it more in line with how things work in 3.x.
RadicalTaoist 07-25-07, 10:09 PM	Lightning Bolt (Evocation) Range: 40 yards + 10 yards / level Components: VSM Duration: Instantaneous Casting Time: 3 Area of Effect: Special Saving Throw: 1/2 Upon casting this spell, the wizard releases a powerful stroke of electrical energy that inflicts 1d6 points of damage per level of the spellcaster (maximum damage of 10d6) to each creature within its area of effect. A successful saving throw vs. spell reduces this damage to half (round fractions down). The bolt begins at a range and height decided by the caster and streaks outward in a direct line from the casting wizard (example omitted). The lightning bolt may set fire to combustibles, sunder wooden doors, splinter up to 1/2 foot thickness of stone, and melt metals with a low melting point (lead, gold, copper, silver, bronze). Saving throws must be rolled for objects that withstand the full force of a stroke (see the Fireball spell). If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it (i.e. the saving throw fails), the bolt continues. A bolt can breach one inch of wood or 1/2 inch of stone per caster level up to a maximum of one foot of wood or 1/2 foot of stone. The lighting bolt's area of effect is chosen by the spellcaster: either a forked bolt 10 feet wide and 40 feet long or a single bolt five feet wide and 80 feet long. If a bolt cannot reach its full length, because of an unyielding barrier (such as a stone wall), the lightning bolt rebounds from the barrier toward its caster, ending only when it reaches its full length. The DM might allow reflecting lightning bolts. When this type of lightning bolt strikes a solid surface, the bolt reflects from the surface at an angle equal to the angle of inclination (like light off a mirror). A creature crossed more than once by the bolt must roll a saving throw for each time it is crossed, but still suffers either full damage (if one saving throw is missed) or half damage (if all saving throws are made). Wheeee. I suppose this is simpler/more flavorful than 3e's spell targeting too.
DrowBattlemind 07-25-07, 10:19 PM	Fair enough. Which version of D&D would be easier to teach them to play? My 8-year old seems to have grasped the D20 mechanic and skills/feats system easily enough to role-play her half elven ranger quite effectively in our campaign. Alternately, I've never met anyone under the age of 12 or 13 who got 1st OR 2nd Ed's byzantine negative AC/THAC0 concept.
High Octane 07-25-07, 10:19 PM	Fair enough. Which version of D&D would be easier to teach them to play? I would use 3.5 and just leave out some of the complexities. Things like grappling, tripping, shield bashing, casting defensively, ignore most of the racials that don't come into play often, and make feat choices with more passive benefits like weapon focus and spell focus.
High Octane 07-25-07, 10:21 PM	My 8-year old seems to have grasped the D20 mechanic and skills/feats system easily enough to role-play her half elven ranger quite effectively in our campaign. Alternately, I've never met anyone under the age of 12 or 13 who got 1st OR 2nd Ed's byzantine negative AC/THAC0 concept. I agree. 1st and 2nd generally meant learning more to cover less ground. TThe reason 3.5 is much more complicated is it covers more ground. In order to learn the same things that were available in 2nd edition, you would have an easier time with the d20 system.
Reinforcements 07-25-07, 11:28 PM	Wheeee. I suppose this is simpler/more flavorful than 3e's spell targeting too. Fireball was even worse. Hooray for calculating irregularly shaped volumes!
Roxlimn 07-26-07, 02:10 AM	As I recall, no one wanted to calculate irregularly shaped Fireball volumes when we played, which is the main reason DMs groaned whenever they had to use a Fireball-using monster on people. The radius of a Fireball exploding in a dungeon just involves too much physics to be easily accessible to a layman. not Yoda: You make some valid points. I have to disagree about the running BAB example. Attack bonuses have so many situationally dependent modifiers that as soon as combat starts, what you had written on character sheets is no longer applicable except as part of a rapidly expanding equation. It's less of an equation and more of a running total. Companies don't use complex theories and mathematics to figure out how much cash they have on hand based on what they had last year. They just count what they have NOW. Same here. The concept is that you have a baseline AB that precalculates all your inherent stuff that doesn't usually change - Strength bonus, size modifiers, sword bonus and so on. This is part of a stat block that represents your character's combat avatar - something that's basic to D&D in both 3e and 2e. Whenever a situation develops to change them, you change them on a running tally sheet, not your character sheet. That way, you don't have to add a +1 from Bless every round you're affected. You only add it when it comes online, and then remove it when the DM tells you to. Very simple and quick. Furthermore, most of the modifiers in a combat round apply to AC and Attack Bonus. Spells, (touch attack spell falling more in line with normal attacks) while rules in and of themselves, are easier to resolve. I understand that martial characters, other than Adepts, can really only attack or full attack. These attacks rarely have an outcome other than X damage. The net result is the backbone of combat winds up being a convoluted mess to resolve comparitively puny damage and next to nothing else (especially when considering AoO's). I would like to see combat more streamlined (ie. fewer modifiers) and more flexible with attack options being more like maneuvers. Well, 2e doesn't resolve combats like they were maneuvers, either, and Tome of Battle options only exist in 3e, which is one of the many draws I find in 3e. Most combat rounds involve only one or two modifiers at most, and that only involves only one or two changes per round to a running total. Most of the time, there's no change at all. In fact, much of the combat game pre-TOB was to try to find as many negative modifiers you can throw at your enemy and as many positive modifiers to add to your own. If you're running combat with running totals as I do, it feels very much like you're lobbing things at your enemy, actually attacking his AC or his AB, with hp only being a way to keep "score." Damage in 3e is NOT puny, given that a totally core Barbarian can demolish a level appropriate enemy in about 3 to 4 rounds or less. 2e physical combats DO involve puny damage totals, though, so it ends up about twice as long. While adding may in fact be easier for humans. Adding 16+19 is not as easy as 12-4.(considering that there is a ceiling in 2e also helps) In fact, since playing 3.x seeing adults, even those skilled in math and those with high IQ's, counting on their fingers is silly. In 3.x we have gotten to the point where we don't actually know what AC we really hit because it's too much of a hassle to figure out. A natural one is at least a break from work. How about that? Failure is rewarding? I'm sure WotC is proud. I confess that I don't have much of a problem adding 16 and 19 together. It's just 6 and 9 with an extra 20. If you don't have a problem adding 6 and 9, then you shouldn't have a problem adding 16 and 19. After a while, you tend to add the extra 10 of either 16 and 19 rather automatically, since that's the "range" of your AC or AB, and it quickly devolves to just 6 and 9, as I said. I've heard that Westerners have a problem with decimal addition. Is that true? What's hard about adding 10 and 10? I've never had to count on my fingers, and when I do (not in D&D), I'm usually doing finger math (which is a lot more efficient that just using fingers to mark "ones"). I'd have a hard time saying that anyone who has to count fingers to figure totals less than 100 is "good at math." If you such a hard time at it, for god's sakes use a calculator! 2e combat math tends, as mentioned, into the realm of 12 - (-4) and there were several instances when it became 12 + (-(-4)). Unless you write down every such instance on a piece of paper, getting the signs wrong can be surprisingly easy. Of course, I can't say that I'm the best judge of what's easy between 2e and 3e because I don't have a problem with either of them! Personally, not Yoda, I think that you'll greatly benefit from and enjoy a modded 3e game rather than a 2e game. There are any number of proposed alternatives in the DMG, on the boards, and in 3rd party sites, material, and fansites. d20 Modern itself can be modified to run a completely fantasy setting, and it'll involve only about as much work as you'll have to do to make 2e workable, anyway. The modifiers aren't as large, and magic actually is rarer and more powerful, so it'll conform to your tastes. If you want, we can make a project of modding d20 Modern and D&D so that it conforms to what you think is good in 2e. :) OravennasBrother: I confess that I'm having a hard time understanding this "anti-cheat" property of 2e. If you know he's cheating, then isn't that enough? Just ask him to roll your dice where everyone can see! No one ought to be offended at that. I ask it all the time from all my players. "You don't trust me!" "No, I just want this moment to be shared by everyone. It's an exciting attack, after all." "No, you don't trust me!" "Are you calling me a liar? Don't you trust ME?" If anything, 3e is better at sorting out the cheaters because high is always good. I'd have a hard time believing that someone simply NEVER rolls anything lower than a 10, whereas consistent success in a system that rewards all sections of the probability curve is somewhat believable.
Stormonu 07-26-07, 02:43 AM	but the things such as HP, AC, etc the stats can be ignored ans just replace a 1e monster with its equivelant 2e monster and vice versa. Wouldn't the same apply with 3E? I've converted Lost Shrine of Tamoachan to 3E, and I just took any of the 1E monsters within its confines and found the 3E version of it (with the exception of a vampire, who I had to stat up - but that was a custom vampire in the adventure anyway). Also, there were several places in the module where it had its own resolution mechanics for certain actions (one example is a hall of pits that had timbers spaced every so often. To get through the hall required hopping from timber to timber). I was able to throw those mechanics out (which by the way, the original mechanics didn't account for a character's Dex score, armor/gear or the like), set a Jump/Balance DC and go from there.
not Yoda 07-26-07, 09:16 AM	not Yoda: Personally, not Yoda, I think that you'll greatly benefit from and enjoy a modded 3e game rather than a 2e game. There are any number of proposed alternatives in the DMG, on the boards, and in 3rd party sites, material, and fansites. d20 Modern itself can be modified to run a completely fantasy setting, and it'll involve only about as much work as you'll have to do to make 2e workable, anyway. The modifiers aren't as large, and magic actually is rarer and more powerful, so it'll conform to your tastes. If you want, we can make a project of modding d20 Modern and D&D so that it conforms to what you think is good in 2e. :) Verily, you are persuasive. I can't speak for all westerners about math skills because I suck at math. With 2e the math was second nature. So many things were not bonuses they were effectively a reset. Bracers of Armor +8 were Bracers of Defence AC 2. In 2e I generally did not have to write things down because there were few modifiers to keep track of (and they were small). I could do it all in my head. 3.x, I would venture to say, is not something you want to try that with. As for the modded 3.x, I may give that some thought. Some friends of mine believe it may be the group I play with that has soured me.
Frugal 07-26-07, 09:55 AM	Verily, you are persuasive. I can't speak for all westerners about math skills because I suck at math. With 2e the math was second nature. So many things were not bonuses they were effectively a reset. Bracers of Armor +8 were Bracers of Defence AC 2. In 2e I generally did not have to write things down because there were few modifiers to keep track of (and they were small). I could do it all in my head. 3.x, I would venture to say, is not something you want to try that with. As for the modded 3.x, I may give that some thought. Some friends of mine believe it may be the group I play with that has soured me. No matter what, it's always going to feel unfamiliar and uncomfortable at first. That's not a question of which system is "better" that's a question of which system you're more familiar/comfortable with. The key is to get past that point and actually start getting familiar with the other system so that you can comment on how it works as a system rather than just react out of an initial bit of discomfort due to unfamiliarity. Then, look at what you like about 2ed, look at what you like about 3.x and try to find a way to combine the best of both worlds. My understanding is that 2ed had a ton of great flavour (didn't play it myself so I can't comment on that, I just know some of the basic mechanics), but flavour isn't specific to a particular edition so all of that can be carried over no problem. The big complaint I hear about 3.x is that it takes away from RP and focuses too much on optimisation. Well Stormwind fallacy aside, just focus more on RP. As I mentioned far earlier, social skills don't take away from RP, they just add a way of adjudicating how well that RP translates into game terms. So don't replace social RP with a die roll, require the social RP and then determine a modifier to the attempt and roll the die to see how swayed he was (and as has been pointed out, the rules actually state that's how you do it).
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-26-07, 10:01 AM	Anyone who is so concerned with cheating among a group of friends that they base their choice of game on it has much bigger problems to contend with that which set of rules they are using.
Steely_Dan 07-26-07, 10:05 AM	but part of what makes turning so weird is that it's very "2ed" in it's approach, and I've even seen posts from D&D designers saying they'd redo it if they had the chance to simplify it and make it more in line with how things work in 3.x. True, I have found the turning rules odd and clunky since 1st edition, which is why I use the CD variant. Now what to do about the antiquated, overpowered, Gygaxian magic system…
OravennasBrother 07-26-07, 10:05 AM	My 8-year old seems to have grasped the D20 mechanic and skills/feats system easily enough to role-play her half elven ranger quite effectively in our campaign. Alternately, I've never met anyone under the age of 12 or 13 who got 1st OR 2nd Ed's byzantine negative AC/THAC0 concept. Well sure if you want a game designed for 6 year olds, go with 3.X. If you want a game designed for adults.......
Steely_Dan 07-26-07, 10:15 AM	Well sure if you want a game designed for 6 year olds, go with 3.X. If you want a game designed for adults....... Is this "adult" game legal?
DnDsnd 07-26-07, 10:16 AM	I find that it is hilarious that anyone is even discussing going back to 2E and can you imagine all those new people who started with 3.0 or 3.5 I can see them all scratching their heads going what the F*&K is going on "THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0)" . It's just LMAO funny;)
Kursk 07-26-07, 10:20 AM	Fair enough. Which version of D&D would be easier to teach them to play? I taught both 2nd & 3.x due to age spread. 2nd was easier to get them up and playing. A small fraction of the rules to learn. Edit: Both were 9 or 10 when they learned the game.
OravennasBrother 07-26-07, 10:22 AM	Is this "adult" game legal? I don't recall the game police outlawing earlier editions of D&D. Nor any of a number of non-trivial board games ("Rommel in the Desert" anyone)
Steely_Dan 07-26-07, 10:26 AM	I don't recall the game police outlawing earlier editions of D&D. Nor any of a number of non-trivial board games ("Rommel in the Desert" anyone) I didn't realize you were referring to RPG/board games. So you think 3.x is for kids, but earlier editions of the game are for adults?
Kursk 07-26-07, 10:54 AM	I've never met anyone under the age of 12 or 13 who got 1st OR 2nd Ed's byzantine negative AC/THAC0 concept. I've taught 9 year olds without any problem. I'll admit that none of the kids were the product of the public school system though.
Grand Theft Otto 07-26-07, 11:13 AM	Hit Points. Maybe we should start at 0 and add to them to see who dies first. Its actually not a TERRIBLE idea. We use a variant HP/Wound system. I considered doing just that, as DC's to remain conscious/act are tied to the amount of wound damage sustained. Saying subtraction is too hard a concept is rediculous.(I am not accusing TyWebb of this, Your post was just conveinient.) Its not *too* hard. Its just unnecessary. There is no intelligent design reason to have AC's going into positives and negatives and THACO decrease (particularly when you hvae positive modifiers that actually subtract). Its needlessly counterintuitive, when the obvious answer that is easiest to understand is something similar to what 3rd edition did. How many posts have you seen griping about THAC0? How many posts have you seen griping about a system where you add your positive attack bonus to a d20 and compare it against the target's AC? Its not that THAC0 was incredibly onerous, its that there was a clear answer, and the dumber design choice was chosen. Presumably to give elitists nerds a feeling of superiority, as evidenced multiple times by people's snide remarks in this thread over those "too dumb" to get THAC0. If you're such a loser that you need an artifically complicated system to look yourself in the mirror in the morning, hey, go nuts. Grab that 1st edition handbook and go to town. Of course, then I'd wonder why you're not playing the World of Synnibarr. Now theres a thinking man's game! Again, I can drive a car with the radio controls in the back seat and the ignition in the trunk. Why should I have to, when a more ergonomic solution is readily apparent?
Kursk 07-26-07, 11:21 AM	Its not that THAC0 was incredibly onerous, its that there was a clear answer, and the dumber design choice was chosen. That aspect was a little more complex but only takes 5 minutes to learn. It takes much longer to learn the 3.5 rules as there are more rules to learn. Learning combat rules in 1st/2nd Ed is much quicker than 3.5, simple fact as there are a lot more rules. As far as "rule mechanics" go 3.5 is a better design but, there are too many rules and that's where it falls down.
Frugal 07-26-07, 11:28 AM	True, I have found the turning rules odd and clunky since 1st edition, which is why I use the CD variant. I keep meaning to look at that. Now what to do about the antiquated, overpowered, Gygaxian magic system… Agreed, the vancian concept really bothers me and the power curve is ridiculous. In earlier editions that power curve was at least somewhat balanced by having wizards require more xp to advance so the non-casters would always be several levels higher. I almost feel like the 3.x developers felt they had to keep the spell power curve or else it would lose the flavour of D&D but then kept the non-casters on a power curve similar to what they had in earlier editions without accounting for the fact that now everyone levels at the same rate.
Sarella Starshine 07-26-07, 11:34 AM	I've taught 9 year olds without any problem. I'll admit that none of the kids were the product of the public school system though. :rolleyes: So those of us who graduated through public schools are now too stupid to understand 1/2e? I am prob blowing that out of proportion, but you must felt that public education is either for dummies or dummies one down strong enough to mention that the kids you taught 1/2e were not part of it. Though, I started playing D&D about a year before 3.x was released, so I never got into 2e before the change of system. What little I was exposed to however was a tad confusing, but systems changed before I could get a decent grasp of how it worked. (Though, from the replies some of you are giving, that since I did not grasp it immediately, I was not smart enough to play D&D.) I do admit, that the concept behind THAC0 seemed simple (I roll this number or higher to hit AC 0), the actual implentation of it was wonky (so, I rolled this number, which if higher than the THAC0 number lets me hit a lower AC??) When I play, I have on my character sheet, my atk bonus,damage mods, and AC based on what effects I have. I have each set of numbers clearly labeled as to which set of effects I am currently under and when I roll my dice to attack, I look to see which number I need to add to the dice at the time. I even do this for the situational modifiers (flanking, charging, etc). About the only thing I may need to add (or subtract) is if someone tosses a rare buff/debuff on me.
Frugal 07-26-07, 11:48 AM	I think the thing is that people are mistaking counter-intuitive for hard. THAC0 isn't necessarily hard but it is unintuitive. Generally speaking, people will associate higher numbers with being better. With THAC0 a high AC is bad and a high THAC0 is bad, this is unintuitive, especially when other scores (stats, HP, etc) do improve as they get higher. This means the system is not internally consistent. Further, better magical items are listed as +x items. But with a +5 weapon you actually subtract 5 from your THAC0, this is unintuitive since the inclusion of a mathematical symbol would suggest that's the operation you need to perform. Similarly, for armour, you'd subtract the bonus from your AC, again unintuitive. None of this has anything to do with whether adding is easier than subtracting, it's about intuitiveness in the system as well as consistency. Someone earlier on suggested that HP should start at 0 and go up to your total. The issue with this is that while adding might be easier, it runs counter to the concept where a higher number is better, which is enforced in 3.x. Plus then you'd have the issue where you'd be healed and get a positive number of HP, which you'd then subtract from your HP total. Gee, now that I say that I'm almost surprised 2ed didn't do it that way.
Kursk 07-26-07, 11:52 AM	:rolleyes: So those of us who graduated through public schools are now too stupid to understand 1/2e? I am prob blowing that out of proportion, but you must felt that public education is either for dummies or dummies one down strong enough to mention that the kids you taught 1/2e were not part of it. No. For about a decade in California the public schools stopped teaching children in the lower grades to read. There was a big stink eventually and it got corrected. Also, the teaching of basic math in 1st - 3rd grade was pretty lousy as evidenced by children who were friends of my kids and hadn't been taught multiplication or division by 3rd grade. By 3rd grade my kids knew all basic arithmetic and by 4th, binary & hex.
Dungeonrenter 07-26-07, 12:10 PM	I just don't agree at all. I started on 2e. I liked 2e at the time. It was fine. 2e had splat growth as well remember KITS, those were super broken, but without them EVERY fighter was the same. Back when I started playing 2e there were people that were totally ****** at the way 2e worked and thought that anybody who was not playing D&D was a moron. Thac0 WAS hard to explain. The 3.x system was presented in dragon magazine and a ton of people latched onto it. 2e really has no "CORE" mechanic. Everything is its own unique subsystem that was designed by somebody who needed a system for doing thing X. Profiencies didn't work like attacks, there were no good rules for making magic items. The magic system had the same problems then as it does now, the only differance was that instead of wizards AND clerics being stupidly powerful once they got 9th level spells only mages were stupidly powerful because priest spells only went to 7th level. I have no problem with people playing 2e. However, to act like it doesn't have any problems or is some godsend is silly. People said the same things about it that you are saying about 3.x Whast more, it always seems like the people who want to revert editions are people who don't like the number and or direction of the splat books. They want something that is limited to what they had purchased when 2e books were no longer being published. Thats fine, but I ask you why you can't just get control of your game and tell your players that you don't want them to use splat book X. You can easily limit the game to a certain subset of content. Heck, I own probably 3 times as many source books as I use. I don't even have a real limit on the game books, but I my its not a problem, we only end up using a tiny subset of all my books.
not Yoda 07-26-07, 12:37 PM	Its not *too* hard. Its just unnecessary. There is no intelligent design reason to have AC's going into positives and negatives and THACO decrease (particularly when you hvae positive modifiers that actually subtract). Its needlessly counterintuitive, when the obvious answer that is easiest to understand is something similar to what 3rd edition did. How many posts have you seen griping about THAC0? How many posts have you seen griping about a system where you add your positive attack bonus to a d20 and compare it against the target's AC? Its not that THAC0 was incredibly onerous, its that there was a clear answer, and the dumber design choice was chosen. Presumably to give elitists nerds a feeling of superiority, as evidenced multiple times by people's snide remarks in this thread over those "too dumb" to get THAC0. If you're such a loser that you need an artifically complicated system to look yourself in the mirror in the morning, hey, go nuts. Grab that 1st edition handbook and go to town. Of course, then I'd wonder why you're not playing the World of Synnibarr. Now theres a thinking man's game! Good points on these. I've been playing since I was 7 or so and I just liked the dice. lol. They still are cool. I don't have a problem with adding an attack bonus vs an armor class. I have more of a problem with the sheer numbers of modifiers. And the list of different types of modifiers to determine stacking. I feel that limits moreso than x doesn't stack with x would tremendously speed play up. Limits would also fix a lot of balance issues. 3.e is like no limits blackjack. I don't have the resources for no limit play (financially or chronologically) as a player or DM. With so many rules it's more difficult to get your players on the same page as your campaign world or your other players. I understand that a Fighter 15 and a warlock 6/ binder 1/trickster 2/helfire warlock 6 have the exact same opportunities to RP. I find that increasingly character abilities have greater influence over PC actions than RP concept. For instance the DM has placed a treasure behind a stone door and placed a sphinx outside waiting to riddle. Instead of answering riddles and having a fun time playing, one player that through rules mastery can negate the encounter for everyone just by activating his abilities. Players love to use their abilities I don't begrudge them for that. However, when a player can hunt down FUN and kill it, I take exception. I would probaly like 3e more if it were presented in such a way that the DM decided at which complexity level he would like to run the game. Like basic/advanced/expert where basic is chapters 1-3 advanced is 4-6 and expert is 7-9 Or perhaps color coded in the phb. So that the DM has a say of wether he or she is running an almost board game a wargame or a simulation.
Frugal 07-26-07, 01:07 PM	I understand that a Fighter 15 and a warlock 6/ binder 1/trickster 2/helfire warlock 6 have the exact same opportunities to RP. I find that increasingly character abilities have greater influence over PC actions than RP concept. For instance the DM has placed a treasure behind a stone door and placed a sphinx outside waiting to riddle. Instead of answering riddles and having a fun time playing, one player that through rules mastery can negate the encounter for everyone just by activating his abilities. Players love to use their abilities I don't begrudge them for that. However, when a player can hunt down FUN and kill it, I take exception. Yes, but you're breaking one of the major tenants of 3.x there, "challenge the characters not the players". Riddle encounters are a very "old school" concept where getting through was completely based on the player's knowledge, not the character's. Now there's nothing wrong with that style of play if your group enjoys it but it's a mistake to call it "roleplaying" when it's completely a metagame exercise and forces the player to use his knowledge rather than play a character and act according to what the character knows.
Grand Theft Otto 07-26-07, 01:14 PM	That aspect was a little more complex but only takes 5 minutes to learn. It takes much longer to learn the 3.5 rules as there are more rules to learn. Learning combat rules in 1st/2nd Ed is much quicker than 3.5, simple fact as there are a lot more rules. As far as "rule mechanics" go 3.5 is a better design but, there are too many rules and that's where it falls down. 2nd edition had the same number of rules. Frequently they were not written down.
shadzar 07-26-07, 01:15 PM	> Adding 16+19 is not as easy as 12-4. It is easier than 12 - (-4) though, which is what Thaco quickly devolved into. that is so easy. with two - signs just make one perpendicular to the other. - - = + tada. then do the math.
Grand Theft Otto 07-26-07, 01:18 PM	Yes, but you're breaking one of the major tenants of 3.x there, "challenge the characters not the players". Riddle encounters are a very "old school" concept where getting through was completely based on the player's knowledge, not the character's. I prefer a bit of a mix, particularly if theres no "one true path" of play (which was particularly problematic in 2nd edition's rail roady style). If anyone has played the third edition challenge of champions series from Dungeon magazzine, it offers a great way to meld the concepts, where beating certain DC's with your appropriate skill gives you hints. Honestly, its not particularly different from an Idea roll in Call of Cthulhu, and I havent heard much pewling about that mechanic devaluing RP or player input.
shadzar 07-26-07, 01:19 PM	stuff about humans adding... i know the concept that all math is addition. 1+2=3 thats simple addition 3-2=1 thats adding a negative numebr 2*3 = 6 thats adding multiples of a numebr to itself 6/2=3 thats just adding divisions/seperation to a whole. i was being more pholosophical about the things humans do, not the principles of math itself.
shadzar 07-26-07, 01:23 PM	If you want that, play FUDGE. The rest of us like having stats and dice to decide things, a metagame for D&D would suck. And I am not going against FUDGE, I like FUDGE, I play FUDGE(with my younger brother and his friends, its simpler for them) i don't want that. nor do i care about these other silly systems like the diceless one, or whatever it is you mention. i LARPed VtM, WtA, and MtA with rock-paper-scissors as the determining factor and i now amny other ways to assign probabilites of failure and success than just dice. i was just saying that that method as an aproach might drive away some of the video gaming concept that currently exists in "tabletop" RPGs, by bringing back the roleplaying and attempting to remove the meta/powergaming based on the statistical data and evaulation of it to create and play characters.
Kursk 07-26-07, 01:23 PM	it offers a great way to meld the concepts, where beating certain DC's with your appropriate skill gives you hints. I really like this idea. Could work well with the 3.x system. Thanks
shadzar 07-26-07, 01:27 PM	Fair enough. Which version of D&D would be easier to teach them to play? Holmes/Mentzer blue or red boxes. mind you elf was a class, not a race in one of them, but it will get the RPG concept down pretty good and then you can expand into something as depending on how they like to play, or understand what it is they are playing.
OravennasBrother 07-26-07, 01:27 PM	Yes, but you're breaking one of the major tenants of 3.x there, "challenge the characters not the players". Because the Players don't seek challenge from the game?
Frugal 07-26-07, 01:29 PM	I prefer a bit of a mix, particularly if theres no "one true path" of play (which was particularly problematic in 2nd edition's rail roady style). If anyone has played the third edition challenge of champions series from Dungeon magazzine, it offers a great way to meld the concepts, where beating certain DC's with your appropriate skill gives you hints. Honestly, its not particularly different from an Idea roll in Call of Cthulhu, and I havent heard much pewling about that mechanic devaluing RP or player input. Fair enough. And yes, I thought the idea roll mechanic in CoC was a great idea, as was the know roll, so you could represent what your character knew and fill in stuff the player might not. There are pitfalls though. Consider the player who's quite intelligent but playing a character with low INT, allowing him to use player knowledge to solve puzzles his character wouldn't isn't good RP. Similarly, having all the players playing characters that should be able to solve a problem all sitting around scratching their heads because the players can't figure it out isn't good RP either. Beating DCs is a good way to cover the 2nd part and I think it helps with the puzzles and still makes them fun. But having a player get the answer right away because he has knowledge the characters don't (like maybe he saw the exact same thing in a movie) should be avoided as well. My main beef though are the puzzles that absolutely rely on out of game knowledge or are just designed to screw the players, but that's probably more in 1ed than 2ed, although the mindset continued. I get particularly annoyed when you run an adventure and there's some clue early on that you'll need to remember to do something later or something nasty will happen, and that something nasty could be months off in real-time but only a couple of hours later in game time and the DM's expected to go, "haha, you forgot to do x" when the players don't declare their players doing it, even though they solved the puzzle and knew exactly what they needed to do and the characters would quite reasonably remember to do so.
elondir 07-26-07, 01:33 PM	My opinion is that 3.5 is better than 2.0. If you prefer the feel of 2.0 but don't like the complicated mechanics like saves and THAC0, try 3.5 core only without minis and minis-essential things like AoOs, feats, or prestige classes, and use gestalt rules with LA+1 and no other multiclassing allowed. Then you're essentially playing 2.0 with patches. Oh yeah, and give bards the wizard spell list.
shadzar 07-26-07, 01:33 PM	I didn't realize you were referring to RPG/board games. So you think 3.x is for kids, but earlier editions of the game are for adults? 3.x is aimed at younger audiences. either due to a relaxed view of RPGs and D&D itself, or the rules have been, and i use this term extremely loosely, siimplified for younger audiences to understand. by simplified i mean THAC0 removed to always have bigger numebrs rather than smaller numbers even though it promotes the concept that "bigger is better" that isn't always true. 3.x removes the 2nd grade educational level required to subtract negative numbers. what are the age ranges printed on 3.x vs older editoins?
Frugal 07-26-07, 01:38 PM	Because the Players don't seek challenge from the game? What I mean by that is that the challenges to the players should come from challenging the characters' abilities and then the players figuring out how to overcome that as opposed to throwing in puzzles that require knowledge that the players have and their characters might not. For instance, a lot of older modules have logic puzzles or math puzzles or riddles and there was no mechanic in game for how the characters would solve them, it was purely based on the players' ability to figure it out. This is similar to what I'd said earlier about social skills, if you make it all RP it can be fun to play out but then you can allow for characters with low CHA to suffer no benefit from that, whereas if you make it part RP for establishing a bonus to the roll and part rolling the dice, you allow for good RP as well as making the character's ability to perform the task an important factor. The same goes for puzzles, don't let the INT 8 character just solve the puzzle because the player recognises that the room is really a giant sudoku puzzle when sudoku puzzles aren't widely available in the game world and his character's never seen one before in his life. Now I agree that a mix of checks to give some hints could make for fun, like having the players describe what they're trying and roll against the DC and figure out the effect. This also allows the DM to make up "puzzles" that are more complicated, or possibly even completely abstract with no real world solution and yet still have them solvable in-game. This also helps solve the metagame issue of the player being able to figure out the puzzle because the actual puzzle and solution were never figured out, you just figure out a puzzle that has several things that can be tried and DCs for learning things about how the puzzle works based on what they try and then you eventually lead to saying, "you've figured out what the proper sequence is".
Frugal 07-26-07, 01:47 PM	3.x is aimed at younger audiences. either due to a relaxed view of RPGs and D&D itself, or the rules have been, and i use this term extremely loosely, siimplified for younger audiences to understand. by simplified i mean THAC0 removed to always have bigger numebrs rather than smaller numbers even though it promotes the concept that "bigger is better" that isn't always true. 3.x removes the 2nd grade educational level required to subtract negative numbers. what are the age ranges printed on 3.x vs older editoins? What I find funny is that it does seem like they're skewing younger with their products (although personally I think that's more due to tone and marketing than it is mechanics) but yet if you listen to interviews with many of the designers they all talk about being pretty young and exposed to D&D or other RPGs. So yeah, I think in some ways they're dumbing down too much since clearly a lot of people have gotten into the hobby at the exact age (or younger) that they're now aiming at. Now I don't think that simplifying rules is necessarily part of that, or if it is that it's a bad thing. As I mentioned in an earlier post, higher numbers always being good just makes for good internal consistency. Especially when you remove the unintuitive elements that 2ed and earlier editions had where +x modifiers (from magical items) actually subtracted from the respective number. That's just plain bad design. If low is good and lower is better then a magical item should be written as a -x item so that it's clear that you subtract. Instead, you get the designers making low numbers good in some cases yet falling into the "bigger is better" mindset in other situations and making higher numbers better items. Again, it's not a question of difficulty it's a question of intuitiveness and consistency. Inconsistent and unintuitive rules are not a good thing, they're examples of poor game design. Having a more consistent and intuitive rules set means that it's easier to learn the basics of the rules and allows you to build off of that to provide greater depth or breadth of rules (you can describe something in more detail or you can describe more things) rather than having to use up a lot of space because every rule is it's own self-contained piece that has little or no relation to how any other mechanic works.
Kursk 07-26-07, 02:27 PM	If you want to REALLY see the difference in complexity, try designing a char generation computer program for1st & 2nd Ed vs. 3.X, and one for combat resolution also... Nuff, said
shadzar 07-26-07, 02:32 PM	If you want to REALLY see the difference in complexity, try designing a char generation computer program for1st & 2nd Ed vs. 3.X, and one for combat resolution also... Nuff, said it only took me two weeks to make one for acrobat. but i didn't ever use acrobat javascript before that. also had a cgi generator on my website that only took me a few nights to do. recently converted to php with little to no effort. among a few other tools. i tried using an online character generator for 3.x and with cable, 1 gig ram, 2 gigs PC it took 4 minutes for the thing to load. not even getting to use it, but waiting for it to load into my browser! my 2nd ed acrobat file does it in less time than that!
Grand Theft Otto 07-26-07, 02:37 PM	Fair enough. And yes, I thought the idea roll mechanic in CoC was a great idea, as was the know roll, so you could represent what your character knew and fill in stuff the player might not. There are pitfalls though. Consider the player who's quite intelligent but playing a character with low INT, allowing him to use player knowledge to solve puzzles his character wouldn't isn't good RP. Similarly, having all the players playing characters that should be able to solve a problem all sitting around scratching their heads because the players can't figure it out isn't good RP either. We frequently have that player assist the player who's playing the 20+ Intelligence character (theres always at least one). Typically the smart character gets the credit for the smart player's input. Then again, my group is incredibly relaxed about that sort of thing. Its kind of always been the DM's job to fill int he holes for the players, be it stuff they experience with their senses, or stuff that their characters are aware of. This might include reminding them of stuff they experiencerd very early in the campaign, that would be more meaningful to their characters than the player who crawls into their skin once a week for a few hours.
Frugal 07-26-07, 02:41 PM	If you want to REALLY see the difference in complexity, try designing a char generation computer program for1st & 2nd Ed vs. 3.X, and one for combat resolution also... Nuff, said The issue with that is that 3.x adds far more options than 1st or 2nd ed ever had. The other issue is that none of them were designed with the mindset of electronic use. The big issue is that even in 3.x that new classes, prestige classes and feats can all introduce new mechanics to the game and most of these are still "exceptions-based". What I mean by that is that most of these mechanics provide exceptions to the rules, or flat out add new mechanics. This makes it exceptionally difficult to write a program that handles all of these because you not only have to make a system that includes all of the existing exceptions and is also flexible enough to handle any new exceptions. Now that doesn't necessarily have to mean the game is hard to learn, it just means it's poorly suited to electronic use. A good example of this is to look at some board games, look at the amount of computing power required to make a chess computer that's capable of beating the best human players. It's a massive undertaking and it's still not a "solved" problem (ie, where the computer can always win and always knows what the absolutely best move is without error), it's not due to the complexity of the game, it's due to the number of options and permutations. Checkers is a far simpler game in terms of rules mechanics and was only solved in the last couple weeks where a computer can always select the best move without error.
Frugal 07-26-07, 02:44 PM	i tried using an online character generator for 3.x and with cable, 1 gig ram, 2 gigs PC it took 4 minutes for the thing to load. not even getting to use it, but waiting for it to load into my browser! You do realise this could have nothing to do with the difficulty of coding the application or the complexity of the program right? Net congestion, slow web server, poor coding, etc, could all account for this and have absolutely nothing to do with the difficulty of the problem. Now don't get me wrong, 3.x is a ***** to support in a computer application, but that's because it's ill-suited for it. 2ed was ill-suited for computer use too but since there's so many fewer rules to code for it's less work to develop something for it.
Kursk 07-26-07, 02:48 PM	The other issue is that none of them were designed with the mindset of electronic use.... Now that doesn't necessarily have to mean the game is hard to learn, it just means it's poorly suited to electronic use. No. Chess movement rules are SIMPLE to program. Programming strategy to WIN is difficult. Apples & oranges in the extreme. 1st & 2nd Ed wasn't designed for "electronic use" so your argument falls to pieces on many levels. It's more difficult to program because of the rules complexity, nothing else.
Frugal 07-26-07, 02:59 PM	No. Chess movement rules are SIMPLE to program. Programming strategy to WIN is difficult. Apples & oranges in the extreme. 1st & 2nd Ed wasn't designed for "electronic use" so your argument falls to pieces on many levels. It's more difficult to program because of the rules complexity, nothing else. True, with chess it's an AI situation. But it does illustrate how more options does add complexity. Take the case of a random NPC generator, there are any number of poor selections the computer could make and "teaching" it how to avoid these would be extremely difficult. And I did agree in a later post that 1st and 2nd ed were also not well designed for electronic use but since they have far fewer rules they are easier to develop programs for. My point is that 3.x is a far more consistent system and the rules are, individually, less complicated than earlier editions. However, there's a far larger quantity of rules. This means that while the rules in earlier editions are more complicated, it's still easier to code them because there's far less work to do whereas in 3.x there's far more work to do. The rules are simpler in terms of mechanics but the quantity of them makes it more work to implement the entire rules set (especially if you're including all supplements). Don't confuse quantity with complexity.
shadzar 07-26-07, 03:00 PM	You do realise this could have nothing to do with the difficulty of coding the application or the complexity of the program right? Net congestion, slow web server, poor coding, etc, could all account for this and have absolutely nothing to do with the difficulty of the problem. Now don't get me wrong, 3.x is a ***** to support in a computer application, but that's because it's ill-suited for it. 2ed was ill-suited for computer use too but since there's so many fewer rules to code for it's less work to develop something for it. sadly i know how to check the ping of other sites, my browser cache, my downstream rataes, the other sites upstream rates, etc. the things was just that big. ~pause while i find it. will be back in about 5 minutes...~ 3.5 megs HTML that includes both the actual page output and the javascript to handle BASIC character generation. my PDF 2nd character sheet + generator is only 500+k, and it includes the actual character sheet from 2nd edition in JPG format. it is unfinished just like the 3.5 one i found online, but does about the same % of the work. took 30 seconds for my sheet to henerate a random character for player use of use as an NPC. the online 3.5 thing doesn't even include that function in its 7 times the filesize!
Kursk 07-26-07, 03:11 PM	Take the case of a random NPC generator, there are any number of poor selections the computer could make and "teaching" ... I was speaking to a manual generator. FORGET about a random generator in 3.5. My point is that 3.x is a far more consistent system and the rules are, individually, less complicated than earlier editions. However, there's a far larger quantity of rules. This means that while the rules in earlier editions are more complicated, it's still easier to code them because there's far less work to do whereas in 3.x there's far more work to do. The rules are simpler in terms of mechanics but the quantity of them makes it more work to implement the entire rules set (especially if you're including all supplements). Don't confuse quantity with complexity. Yes, individually simpler. However when you play you have to combine them and figure out the interactions thereof. This is why the quantity ups the complexity to heights never dreamed of (or should I use a nightmare analogy?) in previous editions... And, this is only considering Core.
Frugal 07-26-07, 03:17 PM	3.5 megs HTML that includes both the actual page output and the javascript to handle BASIC character generation. my PDF 2nd character sheet + generator is only 500+k, and it includes the actual character sheet from 2nd edition in JPG format. it is unfinished just like the 3.5 one i found online, but does about the same % of the work. took 30 seconds for my sheet to henerate a random character for player use of use as an NPC. the online 3.5 thing doesn't even include that function in its 7 times the filesize! I don't deny that there's more rules in 3.x, that would be silly. And obviously more rules means more coding because you have to write the code that covers how all of them works. It's a lot of tedious work also because every feat has it's own set of prerequisites that need to be coded in, so obviously it's going to take more code to make a 3.x generator work, that doesn't reflect in any way though in how the system plays for humans, it just illustrates what I meant about it not being designed for electronic use. 2ed also wasn't designed for electronic use but with there being so many fewer options it's an easier job to code them all in, even if the rules themselves are more complicated and less consistent. For instance, I've already talked about the lack of consistency in 2ed with when high numbers are good and when low numbers are good and with subtracting positive modifiers. Well yes that's all less consistent and less desirable from a game design perspective but it's not exactly much work to say, "$total_ac = $armour_ac - $ac_magic_bonus" instead of, "$total_ac = $armour_ac + $ac_magic_bonus". 2ed's rule might be unintuitive but if you do understand the math involved it's no more work to code, less in fact because 2ed has fewer rules and fewer modifiers.
Kursk 07-26-07, 03:23 PM	so obviously it's going to take more code to make a 3.x generator work, that doesn't reflect in any way though in how the system plays for humans, Um, no. Equivalent combat with similar party and monsters, 3.5 combat takes a lot more time to resolve, period. It is what it is. I like the 3.5 rules better than previous editions but it is FAR more complex with many more choices and repercussions as a result.
High Octane 07-26-07, 03:26 PM	Um, no. Equivalent combat with similar party and monsters, 3.5 combat takes a lot more time to resolve, period. It is what it is. I like the 3.5 rules better than previous editions but it is FAR more complex with many more choices and repercussions as a result. Thats the side effect of having a more diverse system.
Kursk 07-26-07, 03:43 PM	Thats the side effect of having a more diverse system. Exactly. But to say it is simpler to master the 3.x rule set than 2nd Ed with it's limited rules is ridiculous.
shadzar 07-26-07, 03:49 PM	that doesn't reflect in any way though in how the system plays for humans,~~~~ OH yes it does! it takes longer to calculate all this extrra crap that isn't even need while playing, and the "easier combat system" is rendered pointless when it it more time consuming. it isnt always a matter of looking something up, writing the modifiers on your sheet, and jsut adding then when the time comes. things that affect multiple or nearly every other stat must be computated on a per use basis. im sorry i would rather play the game as a player than wait for a bookkeepper to figure my to-hit number. as a DM i would only use small creatures with no abilities so i wouldn't have to deal with pointless modifiers, just because they give the appearance of more choices to players. these "choices" i keep hearing people say are so numerous in 3.x are only things written in the book you could have done in previous editions, but were to stupid to imagine the possibility for yourself. :banghead: seems like people want to play D&D via multiple choice, rathern than the skies the limit with options. 2nd had many more options than 3.x because that exact fact. it purposefully stated it was not a complete ruleset and was impossible to make one because the imaginations of people playing is limitless. DM: you want to a door what do you want to do?DM: you want to a door what do you want to do? DM: a) try to bash down the door b) try to listen at the door c) try to pick the lock d) try to open the door the books nor DM should have to tell players how to think. bah im going for more whiskey. these threads this week have made me want to drink again! :ahem:
DaidojiTaidoru 07-26-07, 05:01 PM	Tell me, can you see green with those glasses on? DM: you want to a door what do you want to do? DM: you want to a door what do you want to do? That's right. It's the same things regardless of Edition. Anything the players think of can be attempted. The fun comes after the players give the answer. Lets go through them 1 by 1. a - Player: I try to bash down the door! 2nd ED DM: Roll on this strange % chart based on your strength score to see if you break the door down. 3rd ED DM: Strength check DC 25. b - Player: I try to listen at the door! 2nd ED DM: Are you a Thief? Then roll your Detect Noise %. If not? Well um.... Let me think.... 3rd ED DM: Listen DC 20. c - I try to pick the lock! 2nd ED DM: Roll Open Lock %. 3rd ED DM: Open Lock DC 25. (Note: This part doesn't truly display the stupidity of 2nd ed. So just as a note, at 3rd level the 2nd ED thief had a 95% chance to open any lock. Ever.) d - I try to open the door! 2nd ED DM: It's locked. 3rd ED DM: It's locked. Now lets try another other fun one. e - I blast the door with magic! 2nd ED DM: Er... Where are the item saving throw tables. Oh and if it fails does the spell area change?.... 3rd ED DM: Hardness 5, HP 50. What element is the blast?
Kursk 07-26-07, 05:05 PM	a - Player: I try to bash down the door! 2nd ED DM: Roll on this strange % chart based on your strength score to see if you break the door down. 3rd ED DM: Strength check DC 25. From what I remember; 2nd Ed DM. "Roll your open doors score or higher that's next to your Str score on the Character sheet..." Had to stop there.
Ph0eNiX 07-26-07, 05:06 PM	i love the MMC, but it seems many people dont for some reason. i always found it easier to carry only what monsters you needed rather than lug around many books. Simple solution here: index cards! Not only are they easy to carry, and can be stored in any which sort of order you want, but then you can write the monster stats in whichever format is easiest for you to process (and thus have we solved both the hardcover book problem, AND neatly resolved the fact that some folks don't like the current monster stat layout that WotC is using). And forgive me if this idea has been suggested in this thread... I was trying to read through the whole thing, but several of the posts... well... sickened me. I had to stop before the urge to gouge out my eyes reached critical mass.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-26-07, 05:09 PM	DM: you want to a door what do you want to do? DM: you want to a door what do you want to do? DM: a) try to bash down the door b) try to listen at the door c) try to pick the lock d) try to open the door Okay, I am going to assume that "open" or "get through" is meant to exist between the words "to" and "a" in these examples. Still, the example is "bollocks." The options one has are precisely the same in both editions, the only difference is that more of the options have been calculated out before hand an rules designed to cover them in 3e rather than forcing the DM to ad lib solutions each time.
High Octane 07-26-07, 05:22 PM	Exactly. But to say it is simpler to master the 3.x rule set than 2nd Ed with it's limited rules is ridiculous. Perhaps. But understanding the d20 system is a lot easier than the 2nd edition system. 3.x just has a myriad of modifiers.
Frugal 07-26-07, 05:27 PM	Exactly. But to say it is simpler to master the 3.x rule set than 2nd Ed with it's limited rules is ridiculous. "Roll a d20 and add modifiers, see if you beat his AC" is far quicker and easier to explain to a newbie than explaining, "roll a d20, add the opponent's AC and see if the number is higher than this 'THAC0' box on your sheet". Note, I said easier to explain, not resolve, explain. This is especially true because it's exactly the same thing as all the other basic mechanics in 3.x D&D. If you've already explained the concept of DC then you can just say, "attacks are handled like any other check, the DC is the target's AC". There's no, "wait a minute, a lower AC is better?" or "does this work like non-weapon proficiencies where I want to roll below that number but the higher I roll without going better the better I do?" I wish people would grasp that I'm talking about the basic mechanics of the game. In 3.x you have 1 core mechanic that drives just about everything in the game, roll a d20 and try to beat a DC. There's some slight variations with this with opposed checks but that's still pretty similar, the static DC is replaced with someone else's check. It takes very little time to explain this basic mechanic to a new player and then they can pick up most of the other rules by applying that 1 mechanic. This is good consistent design. Now you'll notice that a lot of the rules that 3.x players complain about are ones that don't follow this core mechanic (like turning) or which add in a number of extra complexities (like grappling). I'm not saying 3.5 is perfect, I'm saying that at it's base it's a very consistent mechanic, they could have done a better job applying this across the board but they didn't. I'd also agree that they seem to have gone a little overboard (okay, more than a little in some cases) with piling on options and modifiers. I suspect 2 things are at work there, first is the obvious that they want to pump out lots of supplements to keep making money. The other reason is that I think it's easy to fall into the trap that since that core mechanic is so easily understood that you can pile on rules for every feasible situation and add on tons of options which makes things very rules heavy. But at the very least, at least they mostly still work on that basic concept so if you can't remember the exact rules it's really easy to wing it by coming up with a quick DC for the situation and making people roll against it. it takes longer to calculate all this extrra crap that isn't even need while playing, and the "easier combat system" is rendered pointless when it it more time consuming. That should be no problem for you, I thought you were a smart player who has no problem with doing math? it isnt always a matter of looking something up, writing the modifiers on your sheet, and jsut adding then when the time comes. things that affect multiple or nearly every other stat must be computated on a per use basis. No they don't. I seriously doubt you've played 3.x very much, certainly not enough to get comfortable with the system it seems. If we're talking about combat you mainly need to concern yourself with a very small number of modifiers, usually just attack bonus, damage and your saves. It's incredibly easy to keep track of those things. As someone else pointed out, one of the best ways to do it is to just keep a running tally of what your total modifiers are on a separate sheet and adjust as needed. If you get a +1 to certain saves from somewhere just add your tally, when it wears off subtract 1, gee that was hard. Very rarely to modifiers change to the extent you make it out to be in the middle of combat, it's far more often that things are relatively fixed and then someone casts a buff on you and it adds one modifier, which changes very few things. Let's see, STR changes will affect to-hit with melee and damage, CON will affect fort saves and hp, dex will affect AC reflex saves and to-hit ranged, INT will have little to no combat effect, WIS will boost your will saves and CHA will have little to no combat effect. So at the most, changing a stat will affect 3 things. Yes, it can effect skills but guess what you do? You take that same handy tally sheet and make a note "+x to all INT based skills" just in case you need to make a skill roll in combat. This isn't rocket science, and for someone who speaks so much about them dumbing done the game and seems to be so elitist about who should be playing D&D I'm quite surprised that you'd make such a claim. To further expedite things, I tend to have modifiers for common buffs worked out in advance. It doesn't take that many encounters to figure out what effects you're usually under so work them out in advance and write them down. these "choices" i keep hearing people say are so numerous in 3.x are only things written in the book you could have done in previous editions, but were to stupid to imagine the possibility for yourself. :banghead: seems like people want to play D&D via multiple choice, rathern than the skies the limit with options. 2nd had many more options than 3.x because that exact fact. it purposefully stated it was not a complete ruleset and was impossible to make one because the imaginations of people playing is limitless. the books nor DM should have to tell players how to think. We're not dealing with homebrew, we're talking about the systems themselves. Saying, "well I could just homebrew all that in 2ed" is silly because I can just as easily homebrew stuff for 3.x, and guess what? I have more classes, PrC's, feats, etc, to compare to in order to get an idea of how to balance it. With 2ed you could homebrew all you wanted but then you had to do a lot more judgment calls (without other references) to figure out if it worked or not. Now I'm very much against people who just look at the options given and think that's all they can do, but I'll point out that for those people 2ed is even worse because the fewer options presented is just going to put them up to a bigger roadblock. The sky may be the limit but if they only see what choices are presented then it doesn't matter, they've put a glass ceiling in place and for that type of player it's a hell of a lot lower in 2ed than 3.x. For instance, 2ed had very limited class selections and they were further limited by your race (and there were level caps), for a lot of people they just see that as meaning that they have to play one of a very small number of stereotypes and that's it. With 3.x's plethora of classes at least that presents these players with a wider selection of stereotypes to play, plus workable multiclassing does mean that if you do come up with a concept that's not covered by a single class you can actually make it and not feel as if your hands are being tied by the system. Now as I've mentioned several times before, I think the biggest issue for you is that you've come to 3.x with a prejudiced point of view, you expect that the options just make it multiple choice so that's how you play it. You feel that too much is defined and not left to the DM's creativity so you artificially limit your creativity. That's not the system doing that, that's your preconceived notions and your unwillingness to evaluate the system critically and make it work for you instead of working against the system.
Frugal 07-26-07, 05:35 PM	c - I try to pick the lock! 2nd ED DM: Roll Open Lock %. 3rd ED DM: Open Lock DC 25. Didn't you have to be a thief in 2ed to get that % too? That's the thing that drove me nuts about earlier editions, the concept that if you wanted to be good at listening you had to be a certain class (or probably an elf), if you wanted to open a lock you had to be a certain class (or probably a halfling, or probably an elf too because elves are the best at everything right?) you want to be able to spot stuff you have to be a thief (or an elf, best remember?) and so on. People talk about all the "freedom" that 2ed had by not nailing down the rules but what I see is that so many of the rules that are there are incredibly restrictive. So how do you handle it if you're not the proper class? If you're lucky you have a good DM who comes up with a reasonable way to figure it out (but that's time taken away from the game and you still have to figure out if it's actually a good ruling that's fair), if you're unlucky you have a DM who says, "sorry, you need to be a thief to do that". Gee, that's fun.
Kursk 07-26-07, 05:42 PM	"Roll a d20 and add modifiers, see if you beat his AC" is far quicker and easier to explain to a newbie than explaining, "roll a d20, add the opponent's AC and see if the number is higher than this 'THAC0' box on your sheet". Ya don't or won't "get it". I can't keep explaining it. It is too tedious when a person purposely "misunderstands.
DaidojiTaidoru 07-26-07, 05:45 PM	Didn't you have to be a thief in 2ed to get that % too? Yep. Unless you allowed kits. But that was asking to have what little game balance 2nd ed had to be thrown out the window. My personal favorite was the Bardbuckler but I recall there being many things of similar BS.
shadzar 07-26-07, 06:32 PM	~wierd stuff with DC 25 all in it.~ why is every "check" a DC 25? no matter what the door is it is always the same? and what about doors that can't be smashed, etc. the main thing was there shouldn't be so many "choices" presented in the books, the players should be able to think for themselves, not need to look up in a book what to do, or be told by the DM what they can or can't do. because they can do ANYTHING that wish to try. 3.x just has so many things it looks like it list all you can try, wherein 2nd pretty much said you can try anything you can think of. the way it is presented is what i have problems with.
shadzar 07-26-07, 06:34 PM	Simple solution here: index cards! Not only are they easy to carry, and can be stored in any which sort of order you want, but then you can write the monster stats in whichever format is easiest for you to process (and thus have we solved both the hardcover book problem, AND neatly resolved the fact that some folks don't like the current monster stat layout that WotC is using). And forgive me if this idea has been suggested in this thread... I was trying to read through the whole thing, but several of the posts... well... sickened me. I had to stop before the urge to gouge out my eyes reached critical mass. not mentioned here before but i have heard and tried it many times. sadly when you can't read your own handwriting it doesn't help much. :embarrass
shadzar 07-26-07, 06:36 PM	Okay, I am going to assume that "open" or "get through" is meant to exist between the words "to" and "a" in these examples. Still, the example is "bollocks." The options one has are precisely the same in both editions, the only difference is that more of the options have been calculated out before hand an rules designed to cover them in 3e rather than forcing the DM to ad lib solutions each time. actually the first want should be walk... you walk to a door what do you want to do. and if a DM can't adlib then he better be ready ro railroad players into the situations he has already prepared.
shadzar 07-26-07, 06:41 PM	That should be no problem for you, I thought you were a smart player who has no problem with doing math? i don't enjoy it while i am the player. i do it as the DM because i am responsible for all the players to have fun. therefore i won't DM 3.x because i don't like it. i would prefer to play where all the number crunching was left for the DM and the players used their intellects to do things. but that is impossible in this day and age because of the lack of DM-player trust. the players feel they are getting shafted throughout the game because they trust a video game type AI system, more than a live person to run their games.
shadzar 07-26-07, 06:43 PM	Didn't you have to be a thief in 2ed to get that % too? That's the thing that drove me nuts about earlier editions, the concept that if you wanted to be good at listening you had to be a certain class (or probably an elf), if you wanted to open a lock you had to be a certain class (or probably a halfling, or probably an elf too because elves are the best at everything right?) you want to be able to spot stuff you have to be a thief (or an elf, best remember?) and so on. the class restrictions for some skills were counter-productive, but it showed that certain class were most commonly used for certain jobs, and it made the party work together. with 3.x you could have a group of fighters do everything. also promoted multiclassing or dualclassing and learning how to use the classes abilities. which i think grew some pretty strong roleplayers.
Werral 07-26-07, 06:50 PM	What I like 3E: It's a consistent system. Polearms finally make sense. Feats. Skills. The Complete Scoundrel mentions Blackadder 3E What I don't like: Magic Mart "Oh Iìll have one of those adamantite bastard swords and if you don't mind I'd like to make it flaming, drowbane and I'll have it with pastrami to go." Assigned treasure: A 12th level fighter should have X amount of gold and blah blah blah. People who talki about their "builds" No abstract combat rules (if I want to play combat without miniatures, counters and just describe the action then how do you resolve AoOs?) Pandering to powergamers: There have always been powergamers and always will be. There's nothing wreong with making a hard as nails paladin or mighty wizard but when someone talks about their "holy-warrior" build and weird feat combos and books like Save Species offer NO guidance on how playing a monster can be an experience but pages of maths to work out and the Complete Warrior talks about Power Attack solely on a metagame level then I think that sucks. Too many alignment damage weapons/powers (Smite Evil/Good/Law/Chaos), Holy/Unholy Word, ALignment based DR all that bollox. Concealment Misschance rule - totally outside the system and a weird thing since in 2E it was simply a to hit penalty. Maybe they elt 3E was becoming TOO consistent or something. 2E What I like: Magic items are special - you either steal 'em, get them as rewards, make them (which is an adventure in itself) or do without them. Lots of roleplaying/storytelling emphasis in DMG and supplements. Lot's of optional rules (people often complain that Death from Massive damage is a hangover from 2E, actually it was an obscure optional rule in 2E that no-one ever used and 3E made it core as a nod to realism at high levels). Very free-wheeling. Experience for stuff other than combat (such as using skills, researching spells etc...) Weapon Speeds and Casting times. 2E What I don't like Everything used a different system and things didn't interact (an elf or halfling could automatically move silently and surpirse in light armour, a thief had to roll, so an elf/halfling thief?) But since I use the stuff I like from 2E anyway I'd rather play 3E but play it my way.
DaidojiTaidoru 07-26-07, 06:51 PM	why is every "check" a DC 25? no matter what the door is it is always the same? ...... I was making numbers up to give an example, not quoting verbatim. If you want suggested numbers for common doors there's a place you can look it up. (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html) And yes, every door is the same. In 2nd ED. In 3rd they have different DCs. [Note: I think actually there were 2 values for breaking down doors. I do know it wasn't as variable as having a DC that the GM could set] and what about doors that can't be smashed, etc. No such object. the main thing was there shouldn't be so many "choices" presented in the books, the players should be able to think for themselves, not need to look up in a book what to do, or be told by the DM what they can or can't do. Yeah, having rules and choices are horrible.... :rolleyes: Especially for things as commonly encountered as doors. because they can do ANYTHING that wish to try. 3.x just has so many things it looks like it list all you can try, wherein 2nd pretty much said you can try anything you can think of. the way it is presented is what i have problems with. I'm not a psychologist so I can't help you there. It's cool if the only reason you have for liking 2nd ED is you feel like it. But don't expect such fuzzy logic to bring over any converts.
shadzar 07-26-07, 07:01 PM	and what about doors that can't be smashed, etc. No such object. oh how wrong you are. think about it for a while and you will realize their are doors that can't be smashed, bashed, bent, folded, spindled, or mutilated. ;)
DaidojiTaidoru 07-26-07, 07:09 PM	oh how wrong you are. think about it for a while and you will realize their are doors that can't be smashed, bashed, bent, folded, spindled, or mutilated. ;) Nonsense. I refuse to accept the idea of an immovable object. There are Doors the Players can't smash. This is because they haven't got enough Divine Ranks yet or some such.
Kursk 07-26-07, 07:18 PM	There are Doors the Players can't smash. This is because they haven't got enough Divine Ranks yet or some such. Um, ya, I think we are referring to players here.
Kesthol 07-26-07, 07:28 PM	Nonsense. I refuse to accept the idea of an immovable object. There are Doors the Players can't smash. This is because they haven't got enough Divine Ranks yet or some such. You apparently have never run into some of the posters on these boards. DC to move them is N+1 for sufficiently large N (ie, greater than you could possibly ever roll, even with all the positive modifiers on your side and all the negative modifiers on theirs). :rolleyes:
ArcTan 07-26-07, 07:30 PM	3.x is aimed at younger audiences. either due to a relaxed view of RPGs and D&D itself, or the rules have been, and i use this term extremely loosely, siimplified for younger audiences to understand. by simplified i mean THAC0 removed to always have bigger numebrs rather than smaller numbers even though it promotes the concept that "bigger is better" that isn't always true. 3.x removes the 2nd grade educational level required to subtract negative numbers. *sigh* Just because I have the education to do something doesn't mean I feel the need to constantly test myself on it to prove that I'm smart enough. That's a stupid reason to design anything. The engineer who *refuses* to simplify something because he himself is smart enough to use it without simplification is a crappy engineer. (Indeed, any level of complexity that doesn't have a reason to be there is bad design.) Besides, you keep weaving back and forth. First 3e is crap because it's dumbed-down for the little kiddies to understand while you big strong manly men with your big strong manly noggins have the brainpower to use negative numbers (Gasp! Shock! Awe!). *Then* 3e is too complicated and annoying and it sucks having to add up numbers to get the ECL of a character and it's so confusing and horrible to have to add up a list of different modifiers and whine whine whine. Well, which is it? Is 2e good because it's complicated (I'm sorry, "flavorful" and "interesting") and 3e bad because it's simple (I'm sorry, "boring" and "dumbed down for kids")? Or is it the other way around? *I'm* confused now. Must be all that public schooling. what are the age ranges printed on 3.x vs older editoins? There isn't one, as far as I can tell. But I find it hilarious that 3e is being painted as the one "for kids". Which incarnation of D&D had that children's cartoon made based on it again? (By Gary Gygax himself, no less?) Which one had the cartoony illustrations and lame puns in the text?
tuffn00gies 07-26-07, 07:31 PM	Hrrmmm... for some reason I was under the impression that quicken made a spell a free action. Free actions are not counted against your immediate/swift actions this is how I understand it. BICBW Frugal, I have checked the SRD and you are correct. It is swift. I would go so far as to say that it is easier to do in 3.x, not only that but you can do it ealier, with fewer resources expended. While at the same time having more resources than in previous editions. IIRC, before they came up with swift actions, Quicken Spell let you cast as a free action, but they still limited you to one quickened spell/round. That's probably the source of your misremembering.
Grand Theft Otto 07-26-07, 07:44 PM	Concealment Misschance rule - totally outside the system and a weird thing since in 2E it was simply a to hit penalty. Maybe they elt 3E was becoming TOO consistent or something. I'm fairly sure the displacer beast had conceal in 2nd edition. We simplified Conceal, Fortification, Incorporeal etc to be in line with DDM. So Blur, which grants 20% miss chance becomes Conceal 5 and you have to roll a 5 or better after a hit. I'm not sure why they kept it a %. Like I said, 3.5 isnt perfect, but I'm at least getting more value out of my books mechanics wise.
GhostStepper 07-26-07, 08:04 PM	with 3.x you could have a group of fighters do everything. A. No. Not remotely. B. Assuming that were true, you say it like its a bad thing. Actually having multiple characters of the same class have different abilities is a great thing and one of the reasons that 3E's character customization is better than 2E (i do miss old skool cleric spheres though). With all the to do about saga edition and 4E, i hope the forward trend continues and in the next edition 2 characters of the same class can vary even more. also promoted multiclassing or dualclassing and learning how to use the classes abilities. which i think grew some pretty strong roleplayers. Figuring out how to multiclass doesnt make you a better roleplayer.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 08:44 PM	I'm fairly sure the displacer beast had conceal in 2nd edition. We simplified Conceal, Fortification, Incorporeal etc to be in line with DDM. So Blur, which grants 20% miss chance becomes Conceal 5 and you have to roll a 5 or better after a hit. I'm not sure why they kept it a %. Like I said, 3.5 isnt perfect, but I'm at least getting more value out of my books mechanics wise. Concealment is interesting since, because it separates from normal attack-vs-AC mechanics, you have to deal with it by different means. There are ways to twink a character so he almost never misses except on a natural 1. Concealment disrupts this by making your attack roll irrelevant -- no matter what your % to hit normally is, it adds a 50% miss chance on it that you can't get rid of except by getting rid of concealment. It creates a problem with a different solution -- one you can't solve simply by adding more +'s to your attack modifier -- and in that way makes your game more interesting. It's like the purpose of save-or-dies -- phantasmal killer, for instance, means that the uber-Fighter who has a very high AC and very high HP still fears something more than the Wizard with low AC and low HP but a high Will save does.
Alex_P 07-26-07, 08:49 PM	The idea in DDM, I believe, is to change d% rolls into equivalent d20 rolls (25% becomes 5 on a d20). I think the concealment mechanic is still separate from standard armor mechanics, though. Just expressed with a different die.
shadzar 07-26-07, 09:10 PM	There isn't one, as far as I can tell. But I find it hilarious that 3e is being painted as the one "for kids". Which incarnation of D&D had that children's cartoon made based on it again? (By Gary Gygax himself, no less?) Which one had the cartoony illustrations and lame puns in the text? actually there are age ranges for them, i just can't seem to find them ATM. also why is it the idiot brigade always thinks that because something is animated means it is for kids? and Gygax did not have final say in what the station would allow to be aired, likewise you see all sorts of programs label on the TV as: "this program has been edited for content and compressed to fit into the alloted time" OMG least we not forget the banned pokemon episodes, one where pikachu was accused of causing potential causing siezures while it was some other pokemon, and one where James dressed in drag in a bikini....yet buggs bunny who rns around nude all the time and puts on a dress is ok... :rolleyes: oh and mind you he also had such a large budget for live action special effects also...NOT, thus cartoon was the only medium to get the effects in and at that time had the technology for a reasonable price. the broadcasting station like i said were stupid and thought carttons were only for children so that is the market it was targeted to and made to follow. cause we all know the very first cartoons (which were pornography if you didn't know) was most definately intended for children right? :rolleyes:
ArcTan 07-26-07, 09:24 PM	actually there are age ranges for them, i just can't seem to find them ATM. also why is it the idiot brigade always thinks that because something is animated means it is for kids? I don't think it was for kids because it was animated. I think it was for kids because it was for kids. (It was labeled "children's programming", the characters were all kids, the violence was all sanitized and there was always a moral at the end). and Gygax did not have final say in what the station would allow to be aired That's not the point. The point is that a cartoon show for kids based on D&D was his idea. Hell, he gave up the fight for control over the actual D&D RPG from TSR so he could do that show. OMG least we not forget the banned pokemon episodes, one where pikachu was accused of causing potential causing siezures while it was some other pokemon, and one where James dressed in drag in a bikini....yet buggs bunny who rns around nude all the time and puts on a dress is ok... :rolleyes: ...Are we still talking about the D&D cartoon? What does this have to do with anything? The differences in cultural standards of propriety between Japan and the USA notwithstanding, Pokemon is very, very obviously a cartoon for kids, for exactly the same reasons that Dungeons & Dragons was. (Cutesy format, simple plots with formulaic, moralistic endings, etc.) oh and mind you he also had such a large budget for live action special effects also...NOT, thus cartoon was the only medium to get the effects in and at that time had the technology for a reasonable price. He didn't have to do a D&D TV series at all. the broadcasting station like i said were stupid and thought carttons were only for children so that is the market it was targeted to and made to follow. ...And Gary Gygax, who was not an idiot, surely foresaw this. It's not like he came up with a concept for a gritty, hardcore low-budget action TV series for adults and then suddenly smacked himself on the forehead and shouted "Goodness gracious! They've turned it into a children's program!" Look, when Gygax pitched the idea of "Let's do a spinoff that'll be an animated TV series", he knew it was going to be for kids. He *intended* it to be for kids or he wouldn't have gone along with it. If anyone had ever had any strong feeling that the series wasn't to be for kids they would've jumped ship long before it even got into pre-production, because it was a children's TV project from beginning to end. The program *existed* in the first place because people thought of D&D as being for children at the time. Including Gary Gygax. (This, to be fair, was a departure from the very olden days of D&D 1e, which, with its Courtesan Table and boobies in the art, wasn't for children. Then again, it wasn't for most adults either. It was for the handful of college-aged males who were already into the wargaming subculture. The *very* original OD&D even referred you to other people's wargames for crucial rules. But it was all a different ball game when you got to the TSR era.) cause we all know the very first cartoons (which were pornography if you didn't know) was most definately intended for children right? :rolleyes: ...Pretty sure that's an urban myth, dude. The first ever animation on film is Humorous Phases of Funny Faces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorous_Phases_of_Funny_Faces), which hardly sounds porny. Early, unsophisticated animation is a highly unlikely medium for porn, given the very limited realism of detail and range of motion they could show. It seems to mainly have been humorous shorts, sometimes satirical (certainly not all aimed at children) but more of a novelty than anything else.
Alex_P 07-26-07, 11:23 PM	i would prefer to play where all the number crunching was left for the DM and the players used their intellects to do things.But, why bother with the "number crunching" at all? It won't be any less of a pointless waste of time if you concentrate it all into one player. If you think "crunching" sucks (I do), get rid of it altogether -- it's completely unnecessary unless you actually like it for its own sake. -- Alex
Alex_P 07-26-07, 11:25 PM	Werral, I disagree with your list of things that are special about 2e. Specifically: Magic items are special - you either steal 'em, get them as rewards, make them (which is an adventure in itself) or do without them.It's more random, sure, but that's hardly "special" in my mind. At best, D&D magic items are like Frodo's sword (a trinket that almost qualifies as a minor plot point). Rather than, say, Stormbringer (a title character). They're a big deal in the game, mechanically, but don't really contribute much to the storyline. The only ones that players do notice, frankly, are the ones set up as rule-breaking MacGuffins. That +2 sword is yawn-worthy no matter how you got it. Lots of roleplaying/storytelling emphasis in DMG and supplements.It's a very non-participatory kind of "storytelling," though. Which is, well, not storytelling. The emphasis is more on story-spectating. The standard D&D "roleplaying" paradigm is that everyone is acting like their characters and the GM is making some stuff happen that they occasionally react to -- it's certainly interactive, but the players aren't participating in the bulk of the "storytelling" directly. Both 2e and 3e are kind of item-heavy and story-less. -- Alex
Vaelan 07-27-07, 12:03 AM	the only difference is that more of the options have been calculated out before hand an rules designed to cover them in 3e rather than forcing the DM to ad lib solutions each time. Actually, all three options that need any mechanical basis were covered in the 2e rules. I played with no fewer than four long-time DMs who had absolutely no idea that the Detect Noise table for non-Thieves existed, though. 3E What I don't like: Magic Mart "Oh Iìll have one of those adamantite bastard swords and if you don't mind I'd like to make it flaming, drowbane and I'll have it with pastrami to go." Believe it or not, that has nothing to do with the edition and everything to do with how a group chooses to play. Assigned treasure: A 12th level fighter should have X amount of gold and blah blah blah. Yes, having optional guidelines is so terrible. So much worse than having none at all... People who talki about their "builds" Also has nothing to do with 3E. You can't even say that the concept originated from 3E, since Skills & Powers lead the way there. No abstract combat rules (if I want to play combat without miniatures, counters and just describe the action then how do you resolve AoOs?) Through the use of basic spatial reasoning. Three simple questions: Is there room to go around people? Can you move fast enough to go around people and still get where you want to go this round? If not, do you want to sacrifice speed for safety? Pandering to powergamers This entire argument is crap. The books don't provide flavor? Do it yourself. The alternative is to waste limited printing space on something that most people would either not care about or just rewrite anyway so that a small portion of the fanbase can be spoon-fed what amounts to a basic responsibility. Concealment Misschance rule - totally outside the system and a weird thing since in 2E it was simply a to hit penalty. Maybe they elt 3E was becoming TOO consistent or something. Making it a miss chance makes it a useful tactical tool. An AC bonus would be worthless as they're largely meaningless at higher levels. Magic items are special I like that too. It isn't too hard to do with 3E, though. Making simple mechanic-based magic items easy to obtain and real magic items (ones that let you do new stuff, rather than old stuff better) more rare is simple. Lots of roleplaying/storytelling emphasis in DMG and supplements. I disagree, having read and owned all of them. Experience for stuff other than combat (such as using skills, researching spells etc...) Those rules were crap. At their best, they fall well short of the simple idea of awarding XP for challenges overcome. At their worst, nobody ever used them because they were quite blatantly worthless and broken.
MerlintheTuna 07-27-07, 12:29 AM	http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/MerlintheTuna/Random%20Images/fez3.jpg Oh, how I wish to return to the glory days of roleplaying. *Cough*
Alex_P 07-27-07, 12:34 AM	Oh, how I wish to return to the glory days of roleplaying.This one's better (http://forum.rpg.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13688&stc=1&d=1141414082). ;)
Stormonu 07-27-07, 01:37 AM	Those rules were crap. At their best, they fall well short of the simple idea of awarding XP for challenges overcome. At their worst, nobody ever used them because they were quite blatantly worthless and broken. I have to disagree with this; I used those extra XP tables all the time in 2nd edition, to help speed up advancement - the table for "use of class abilities" as well as story & rp rewards. I did, however, end up halving the XP rogues got for gold. *Hey, is that "Angry Wizard" Elminster, sitting in Ed's kitchen and having a brew while he waits for Dalamar and Mordenkainen to show up?*
High Octane 07-27-07, 02:12 AM	The D&D cartoon was, actually, given the time, rather risque for a kids show. Remember, this is the time of He-Man and Skeletor. D&D the cartoon had skeletons, zombies, and some fairly intense violence, not to mention some magical implications which Im sure werent liked by the conservative christian audience. At one point the Ranger gets hit in the face with a blast and it actually looks like his face is melting for a few seconds. Of course the show is still ridiculous (the tiny unicorn is proof enough of that) and the main characters manage to somehow survive a world that is trying to kill them without slaying or even trying to kill a thing. The use of good and evil are cartoony and exaggerated even by D&D's standards. Deus Ex Machinas abound, and Dungeon Master is always spouting some "the lesson is" sort of stuff.
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 06:20 AM	I would rather play a 1st edition campaign than a 2nd edition. Even though I've played the most 2nd edition out of all the editions, it always seemed like it kept a lot of the crap rules from 1st edition, but none of the vibe. 2nd edition's strong point was campaign settings – I still think Al-Qadim is the coolest, most elegant campaign setting ever.
Hlethvagi 07-27-07, 06:35 AM	I never want to sat an Ont of veer then again. Sorry! 2e isn't the best of D&D, but it has great things that I miss. Box adventures I loved to read, then run for a group of players who understood what the rules were. Caps for AC and stats. I love the fact, that once you rolled up your stats, they pretty much stayed the same for the rest of your carrer as an adventurer. Capping AC at -10 also made it very possible for mid to mid-high level chars to hit even the most unhittable monsters. No uber chars. It took a long time for a wiz to become Uber, but when that happened, the Fighter and Rogue were equally as powerful. There is no Saving Throw to avoid an attack by a fighter or rogue. Thus fighters and rogues were on par with wizards and clerics. I miss also that fighters were the only ones who could specialize in weapons. Weapon specialization in 3e is no big deal, but in 2e it was uber! +1 to hit and +2 to damage, with extra attacks made the fighter a much needed class in a four member balanced team. I've seen many posts writing about the brokenness of many Kits, but I can't remember any Kit giving a great bonus. RP aside. Kits were designed for a member of a class to really gain an advantage when it came to something that that character wanted to excel at. It didn't give any bonuses to all combat, but sometimes it gave a combat bonus with attacks made with a certain kind of weapon. Those weapons were rarely optimal. just my thoughts. Hlethvagi
shadzar 07-27-07, 07:30 AM	I don't think it was for kids because it was animated. quick explain then back to read rest of this and other posts. i was calling the idiots who list all cartoons as a childrens program when they air as idiots. ie the TV people. hopefulyl parents and other people today outside of the TV industry have realized they are not. maybe even some of the TV people have learned it also, but to most i am sure an animated program is automatically seen as a childrens program.
shadzar 07-27-07, 07:35 AM	But, why bother with the "number crunching" at all? It won't be any less of a pointless waste of time if you concentrate it all into one player. If you think "crunching" sucks (I do), get rid of it altogether -- it's completely unnecessary unless you actually like it for its own sake. -- Alex im just saying for some players they don't want to play because of it. it doesn't mean they can't be good D&D players, but they either just dont like the number crunching or cant do it. i have once played with just pencil and scratch paper with a list of items and a character concept and the DM took care of all the numebr crunching. must faster than i could even. and it used the actual rules. this meant evereything went much quicker. even fighting was sped up because the DM didn't have to wait for the players to look up things, he alreayd had the "character sheets" in front of him to look up quicker and just announced hits or misses and which dice to roll while the players could worry jsut about the strategy. it was a lot better than the downtime of the number crunching from lengthy or consecutive fighting.
shadzar 07-27-07, 07:39 AM	Werral, I disagree with your list of things that are special about 2e. Specifically: It's more random, sure, but that's hardly "special" in my mind. At best, D&D magic items are like Frodo's sword (a trinket that almost qualifies as a minor plot point). Rather than, say, Stormbringer (a title character). They're a big deal in the game, mechanically, but don't really contribute much to the storyline. The only ones that players do notice, frankly, are the ones set up as rule-breaking MacGuffins. That +2 sword is yawn-worthy no matter how you got it. i think the magic items are special bit was geared more to the fact that in thrid a first level character can buy them or any character can for that matter at character creation while in 2nd they were earned and weren't so aimlesly laying around and always available and in such abundant quantities. in 2nd a magic item was something to cherish because the players got so few. while now you can just buy a couple bags of holding, and hewards handy haversacks, and portable holes, +X weapons, etc. that is who i feel about it, and read the statement to mean this way also. Believe it or not, that has nothing to do with the edition and everything to do with how a group chooses to play. Those rules were crap. At their best, they fall well short of the simple idea of awarding XP for challenges overcome. At their worst, nobody ever used them because they were quite blatantly worthless and broken. Magic Mart actually the magic mart thing is right in the core rules for 3.x just look at the PHB page 122. Masterwork weapons: Wielding it provides a +1 enchancement bonus to attack rolls. well is that aint allowing players to jsut buy mart ala carte then what is. in previous editions they actually had to be enchanted, the bonus for having a better made weapon was that it would break less often, and was worth more money. now it automatically has magic properties and is able to hit those older mosters that could only be damaged/hit by weapons requiring a +1 enchancement. :rolleyes: XP fell short? so you only saw challenges to be combat? XP was a measure of character growth. obstacles could be simply getting out os something, like talking your way out of something via roleplaying, avoiding a trap by disarming, etc are overcoming challenges. not that i went with the idea every trap disarmed gives the rogue bonus XP, but when done cleverly, or a trap set cleverly i do. also you can't say nobody used them because i sure did. i awarded XP for more than just combat. the game isn't about fighting only so why not award XP for roleplaying. that multitude of elements means that you SHOULD award some XP for each type of element at varying times. XP is really a measure of not a simple number showing how many kills a character has, but how much he has learned and how others around him see him.
Frugal 07-27-07, 07:52 AM	i think the magic items are special bit was geared more to the fact that in thrid a first level character can buy them or any character can for that matter at character creation while in 2nd they were earned and weren't so aimlesly laying around and always available and in such abundant quantities. Now, they can't. Starting gold and wealth by level guidelines aside (both of which make you too poor at 1st level to buy anything), this is only an issue if the DM lets the players buy magic items at 1st level. The exact same problem exists in 2ed except there's also no guidelines for what is appropriate 1st level player wealth to discourage it.
Anaxander 07-27-07, 07:56 AM	Shadzar, I think it's remarkable that you ignore most of ArcTan's interesting post and only comment on the cartoon issue (which wasn't a dispute to begin with since you both seem to agree). Could you please give your opinion on this: Besides, you keep weaving back and forth. First 3e is crap because it's dumbed-down for the little kiddies to understand while you big strong manly men with your big strong manly noggins have the brainpower to use negative numbers (Gasp! Shock! Awe!). *Then* 3e is too complicated and annoying and it sucks having to add up numbers to get the ECL of a character and it's so confusing and horrible to have to add up a list of different modifiers and whine whine whine. Well, which is it? Is 2e good because it's complicated (I'm sorry, "flavorful" and "interesting") and 3e bad because it's simple (I'm sorry, "boring" and "dumbed down for kids")? Or is it the other way around? *I'm* confused now. Must be all that public schooling. Thanks :)
shadzar 07-27-07, 07:58 AM	Now, they can't. Starting gold and wealth by level guidelines aside (both of which make you too poor at 1st level to buy anything), this is only an issue if the DM lets the players buy magic items at 1st level. The exact same problem exists in 2ed except there's also no guidelines for what is appropriate 1st level player wealth to discourage it. again look at masterwork weapons mentioned above. and it doesn't mean solely for 1st level, but any level a player could buy something. they can most likely find the "magic" +1 weapon anywhere now, where items didn't have an automatic enhancement in previous editions.
shadzar 07-27-07, 08:07 AM	Shadzar, I think it's remarkable that you ignore most of ArcTan's interesting post and only comment on the cartoon issue (which wasn't a dispute to begin with since you both seem to agree). Could you please give your opinion on this: Thanks :) it is the way the company presents it to be "simpler" not my view that it is. they convoluted the existing rules, with more rules for things. this is what makes it more complicated in an effort to make it simpler. same thing they did with Magic. where cards used to say Summon Prodigal Sorcerer, now it says Creature — Human Wizard. why? because they wanted to unify the terms (ok not such a bad reason), but wanted to create cards that have effects based on how many wizards were in play and needed to figure out what cards were wizards, and same type thing for humans. so the company deems the rules simpler because they give "definitave rulings" and certain things. but the additional RULES make it more complicated to play because of rules lawyers which seem to have grown in numbers BECAUSE of 3.x. yeah you had to accept something because the DM said so in older editions, but that gave the DM more freedom to create his own world. now its like its WotC world and the DM is just allowed to check some chart, or just there to look up rules, kind of playing the part of the banker in monopoly without actually having a shoe or iron of his own to play arond the board with. 2nd edition gave people more freedom because they could decide thigns for themselves rather than being forcefed someone else house rules. now if you don't like what would have been a house rule for how something works in 2nd in 3.x environment you find it is the same thing since it is "written in stone" as some would have you believe in every game because it is in the "core" also i ignonre any post or thread or parts thereof that i dont wish to respond to. that is why this is an open forum. free for people to discuss what they want, but they are not required to discuss what they dont want. which is why i stay out of the 3.x rules discussions since i don't like nor know 3.x rules. i can look them up but disagree with them as a whole so see no point in stepping into specifics rules concepts for 3.x
Frugal 07-27-07, 08:08 AM	again look at masterwork weapons mentioned above. and it doesn't mean solely for 1st level, but any level a player could buy something. they can most likely find the "magic" +1 weapon anywhere now, where items didn't have an automatic enhancement in previous editions. Masterwork weapons aren't magical. I'm still trying to figure out if you've ever actually played 3.x or if you're just being deliberately dense in order to troll. Yes, at higher levels there is an assumption that a starting character will have some magical equipment but you also have to consider that a higher level character got to that higher level somehow, so it's reasonable to expect he's collected some equipment. Now I'd like you to post me a page reference anywhere in the 3.5 rulebooks that say magic shops should, or do, exist.
shadzar 07-27-07, 08:23 AM	Masterwork weapons aren't magical. I'm still trying to figure out if you've ever actually played 3.x or if you're just being deliberately dense in order to troll. Yes, at higher levels there is an assumption that a starting character will have some magical equipment but you also have to consider that a higher level character got to that higher level somehow, so it's reasonable to expect he's collected some equipment. Now I'd like you to post me a page reference anywhere in the 3.5 rulebooks that say magic shops should, or do, exist. yes unfortunately i have played 3.x, both 3.0 and 3.5 actually in this year. i didn't like all the crap required on the character sheet, to create the charcter. all the excess crap that i could care less aobut from character creation also made me enjoy playing the character less when having to deal with it. waiting during battle for people to have to add up so many things, and these are people with calculators and not very good with math mind you; put me to sleep on many occasions, and the story premise, plot hook, whatever have you was really interesting to me so i stook it out as long as i could stand the rules set. but finally quit when among other things i got tired of the rules. also when creating higher level characters in any editoin how does that character get his magical equipment? 3.x has grown to price everything, as if it were a sotre, and the new players that happen to own the DMG and want magic items won't shut up because they think they should be able to buy them like in a video game. again it is the way the books present some subjects about the game. players coming form video game backgrounds read the books and think they are rules written in stone rather that listening to the DM. this is because the rules are more and more trying to emulate a video game. which is funny.... D&D RPG -> video games -> D&D RPG video games fashion after D&D then D&D was in turned created with video games players in mind. and the vast number of video game players was most definately a target market for WotC to get playing so they added the elemnts either because the creator were themselves video gamer, or just cause they wanted to capitalize on the video gamer "bulging" wallets. :rolleyes:
shadzar 07-27-07, 08:29 AM	I've seen many posts writing about the brokenness of many Kits, but I can't remember any Kit giving a great bonus. how about simply that if one player chose a kit while another or the others didn't it unbalance that characters base class. been so long since i actually used any of the kits i don't remember what i didn't like about them. let me dig through all 15 brown books and the few blue books that had kit type things in them and i will get back to you on that...
Frugal 07-27-07, 08:37 AM	yes unfortunately i have played 3.x, both 3.0 and 3.5 actually in this year. i didn't like all the crap required on the character sheet, to create the charcter. all the excess crap that i could care less aobut from character creation also made me enjoy playing the character less when having to deal with it. waiting during battle for people to have to add up so many things, and these are people with calculators and not very good with math mind you; put me to sleep on many occasions, and the story premise, plot hook, whatever have you was really interesting to me so i stook it out as long as i could stand the rules set. but finally quit when among other things i got tired of the rules. So basically, you played 3.0 and 3.5 for a very short period of time with other people who also clearly didn't know the rules either and didn't have the patience for them (and you) to learn the system so things ran smoothly. You do realise that you're being completely hypocritical here because all your claims about 2ed running smoothly are due to your familiarity with the system yet you're not willing to make the effort for 3.x? And if you start at 1st level it's not like there's that many bonuses to worry about (this is a recommendation I'd make for any edition for new players, and I'm also against campaigns starting at higher level anyway because I like seeing characters develop from 1st level rather than starting at much higher levels without the history and attachment by the player). also when creating higher level characters in any editoin how does that character get his magical equipment? Gee, I don't know, perhaps it's answered by when creating higher level characters in any edition how did that character get his experience? 3.x has grown to price everything, as if it were a sotre, and the new players that happen to own the DMG and want magic items won't shut up because they think they should be able to buy them like in a video game. Yes, but having prices just means it's easy to determine character wealth. It's also somewhat necessary for crafting rules. Plus, at some point you might want to sell some of your equipment and you need to know how much you'll get. There's a number of valid reasons for including a price/cost that have nothing to do with actually being able to buy the item. So again, where in the rulebooks does it say that magic shops are prevalent? and the vast number of video game players was most definately a target market for WotC to get playing so they added the elemnts either because the creator were themselves video gamer, or just cause they wanted to capitalize on the video gamer "bulging" wallets. :rolleyes: I do agree that it seems like their focus is going too video game and I've stated on other threads that I think this is a bad move because then they end up directly competing with MMORPGs like WoW whereas offering a roleplay product that differentiates itself from those products and offers clear advantages (like increased depth of story and roleplay) is the better way to go.
DrowBattlemind 07-27-07, 09:01 AM	i think the magic items are special bit was geared more to the fact that in thrid a first level character can buy them or any character can for that matter at character creation while in 2nd they were earned and weren't so aimlesly laying around and always available and in such abundant quantities. Buy them? In whose frikkin' campaign? The only campaign I've seen where there are established magic item shops was in Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms (esp. the Waterdeep Boxed set), which was the world setting for WHAT rules edition???? (wait for it, wait for it...) 2ND Ed. AD&D! Unless your world, too, has shops like Aurora's Realms Shop, you can't BUY magic items, GP costs in the DMG are for TWO purposes: 1)Suggested (base) price for selling said item (costs tend to go up in your favor if it's a local noble and you roll well haggling) (or down if it's your leige lord, who may not deem to pay you for it at all), or 2) the (combined) cost of commisioning said item (and you may have to adventure to get all the items needed, above and beyond the cost of the 'masterwork' base item) from a great and powerful wizard (who may just turn you into a bullywug for interrupting his study time unless he already owes you a fovor or two) to craft... after all, not ALL magic items are part of some ancient dragon's horde, SOMEONE has to be making the darn things, or else all the magic items in the game world would've already been claimed by adventurers (whose families would probably have attained noble status, meaning that Lord Whatisname already HAS the +2 shortsword you would have found in that moldy dungeon, so mark it off of your module's list...)
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 09:26 AM	Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms (esp. the Waterdeep Boxed set), which was the world setting for WHAT rules edition???? (wait for it, wait for it...) 2ND Ed. AD&D! The original Forgotten Realms boxed set was a 1st edition AD&D product…
Frugal 07-27-07, 09:43 AM	been so long since i actually used any of the kits i don't remember what i didn't like about them. let me dig through all 15 brown books and the few blue books that had kit type things in them and i will get back to you on that... So wait, it's okay for you to remove elements you don't like from 2ed and that's nothing against 2ed as a system but yet we're not allowed to tell you to remove things from 3.x (like magic shops, which aren't even suggested in the rules) and it's an inherent problem with the system?
Alex_P 07-27-07, 09:55 AM	The original Forgotten Realms boxed set was a 1st edition AD&D product…The bulk of the craziness, though, is in 2nd Edition products. I think the Waterdeep book the previous poster was referring to is 2e. I remember one Spelljammer accessory went so far as to say that Evermeet, the FR elves' big special island, was encircled by tons and tons of flying invisible enemy-seeking spheres of annihilation. Hopefully that part never made it into FR products proper. -- Alex
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 09:58 AM	I remember one Spelljammer accessory went so far as to say that Evermeet, the FR elves' big special island, was encircled by tons and tons of flying invisible enemy-seeking spheres of annihilation. No, it was their Star Wars Program.
Frugal 07-27-07, 10:07 AM	The bulk of the craziness, though, is in 2nd Edition products. I think the Waterdeep book the previous poster was referring to is 2e. I remember one Spelljammer accessory went so far as to say that Evermeet, the FR elves' big special island, was encircled by tons and tons of flying invisible enemy-seeking spheres of annihilation. Hopefully that part never made it into FR products proper. -- Alex Oh, but that's all "stupid stuff" that shadzar ignores. Haven't you realised yet that anything shadzar doesn't like about 2ed can just be ignored but anything he doesn't like in 3.x is "written in stone"?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 10:11 AM	actually the first want should be walk... you walk to a door what do you want to do. and if a DM can't adlib then he better be ready ro railroad players into the situations he has already prepared. It is nothing to do with "can't" ad lib, but I for one prefer a rules system that doesn't force me to ad lib rules for mundane occurrences like opening a door. There is no perfect rules system and there never will be. To me the biggest indicator of how effective the rules are for running a game is how many house-rules I to accompany it it: in 2e I had a binder full of house rules, for 3e I have a single page.
Frugal 07-27-07, 10:45 AM	It is nothing to do with "can't" ad lib, but I for one prefer a rules system that doesn't force me to ad lib rules for mundane occurrences like opening a door. Exactly, having rules that cover situations that are likely to come up isn't a bad thing. Yes, you can make up rules to cover things that aren't covered in 2ed, but I'd rather not have to. I don't want to be in the middle of a gaming session and have the player come up with something not covered by the rules (and the more common the thing is the more annoying it would be) and then have to stop the gameplay to come up with a way to resolve it that's fair and balanced. I'm not saying I can't do it, but I'm saying that I'm much rather be putting my creativity to work on coming up with a rich world, NPC ideas, adventure hooks, plot lines and so on, than having to come up with mechanics that the designers were too lazy to develop.
DrowBattlemind 07-27-07, 10:52 AM	The bulk of the craziness, though, is in 2nd Edition products. I think the Waterdeep book the previous poster was referring to is 2e. Indeed, it was from the 2nd Ed AD&D Forgotten Realms: City of Splendors boxed set, which covered the city of Waterdeep. To be precise, the Campaign Guide booklet. And the Forgotten Realms was the OFFICIAL game setting for 2nd ed AD&D. No, it was their Star Wars Program. Maybe it started out as Star Wars, but the flavor was definitely TOS Star Trek, without the adventurous flair. The players asked for Star Wars style adventure, what they got was several boxed sets about commerce and trade (*yawn*) Oh, you meant Reagan's 'laser umbrella' idea...
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 10:56 AM	Maybe it started out as Star Wars, but the flavor was definitely TOS Star Trek, without the adventurous flair. The players asked for Star Wars style adventure, what they got was several boxed sets about commerce and trade (*yawn*) I'm not talking about that Star Wars; I was talking about the American Defence Program.
Grand Theft Otto 07-27-07, 11:01 AM	Concealment is interesting since, because it separates from normal attack-vs-AC mechanics, you have to deal with it by different means. There are ways to twink a character so he almost never misses except on a natural 1. Concealment disrupts this by making your attack roll irrelevant -- no matter what your % to hit normally is, it adds a 50% miss chance on it that you can't get rid of except by getting rid of concealment. It creates a problem with a different solution -- one you can't solve simply by adding more +'s to your attack modifier -- and in that way makes your game more interesting. I'm totally down with conceal. I'm just not sure why it was left % rather than a d20 roll (since the conceal % are in incremenets of 5 anyways). We just changed it to rolla 2nd d20 after the attack for conceal or incorp (or fortification inc ase of a crit), with the conceal, incorp, or fort rating being what you need to meet.
DrowBattlemind 07-27-07, 11:01 AM	Yeah, realized that after you already started to post, hence the edit i did on my post.
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 11:05 AM	Yeah, realized that after you already started to post, hence the edit i did on my post. Right on.
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 11:07 AM	I'm totally down with conceal. I'm just not sure why it was left % rather than a d20 roll (since the conceal % are in incremenets of 5 anyways). Yeah, that and the turning rules seem to reek of earlier editions.
shadzar 07-27-07, 11:07 AM	So basically, you played 3.0 and 3.5 for a very short period of time with other people who also clearly didn't know the rules either and didn't have the patience for them (and you) to learn the system so things ran smoothly. You do realise that you're being completely hypocritical here because all your claims about 2ed running smoothly are due to your familiarity with the system yet you're not willing to make the effort for 3.x? no half of them have been playing since 3.0 came out. you assume too much. you assume i am the only one new to 3.x. you assume others i played with even knew what 2nd edition was. etc.
Grand Theft Otto 07-27-07, 11:14 AM	but the additional RULES make it more complicated to play because of rules lawyers which seem to have grown in numbers BECAUSE of 3.x. You're ruight. In 1st/2nd edition, you had little to no defense against a ****** DM, because there were few written rules. I dont know about you, but if I'm playing "kiss the DM's ass" in order to have a chance of doing anything, why am I paying 20 bucks a book? The older I get, the less "because I said so" is an acceptable response. In the 80's, where gamers had less self esteem, I gues sthat was acceptable. Thank god those sad basement dwellers are slowly dying off (and not reproducing). yeah you had to accept something because the DM said so in older editions, but that gave the DM more freedom to create his own world. now its like its WotC world and the DM is just allowed to check some chart, or just there to look up rules, kind of playing the part of the banker in monopoly without actually having a shoe or iron of his own to play arond the board with. I refer you to numerous metaplot and campaign changing moduls of 2nd edition. Vecna Lives. Rary the Traitor. From the Ashes. The ****ing god awful poop on a page trilogy of error where Darkon/Azalin is replaced with Necropolis/Death. Lets not forget Faction Wars, which completely trashed Planescape as an enjoyable setting by removing the factions from the city. No, by far 2nd edition was the wrost, most railroady edition yet. They made it abundantly clear than their story was cannon. Its why Eberron's timeline is frozen. 2nd edition gave people more freedom because they could decide thigns for themselves rather than being forcefed someone else house rules. So l;et me get this straight. 2nd edition was better because you had to make everything up for yourself? As opposed to 3rd, where you can reference a rule written down in a book, OR make it up yourself? also i ignonre any post or thread or parts thereof that i dont wish to respond to. that is why this is an open forum. free for people to discuss what they want, but they are not required to discuss what they dont want. Excellent troll defense. Someone beats your point you bury your head in the sand. If anyone else wishess to waste time and effort with this fool, feel free.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 11:26 AM	Now, having said all that I have on this topic, there are times when the rules get in the way. This is not intrinsic to the rules per se, but rather I find that the more rules there are the more stringently some DMs adhere to them. Modern DMs needs to learn to say "**** it", to toss the rules aside when they get in the way and just go with it. THIS (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235) illustrates what I mean: http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr122a.jpg http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr122b.jpg http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr122c.jpg This really does seem to be how you’re supposed to fight huge epic foes: Stand underneath them and jab their toes until they die. Sure, you could use a bunch of feats to climb up onto the thing, Shadow of the Colossus style, but there wouldn’t be any advantage to do so. It would be hard, you’d have to roll the dice a dozen times, and in the end you’d just be doing the exact same damage, only higher off the ground.
Mark Thorson 07-27-07, 11:30 AM	no half of them have been playing since 3.0 came out. you assume too much. you assume i am the only one new to 3.x. you assume others i played with even knew what 2nd edition was. etc. and this is why people like myself are called elitist for liking older edition cause those who play newer editoins are stuck up asses that think the odler ediotns are now worthless just because a newer edition was printed. so as far as i am concerned D&D died when 3.0 was created and those who play it and want to berate those who prefer other editions shouldn't even beconsiderd D&D cause they have no respect for older editions and that people could still possibly prefer then and assume the only reason they don't want to play is that familization to the older "rules" overrides willingness to try the newer. i tried the newr and they are worthless as ****. i don't like them, i don't care for them, i wouldn't even wipe my ass with the pages from the game books. and you have cemented my feelings on the subject. so now anyone that plays 3.x in my mind is not a D&D player but some video game refugee trying to be popular by playing a game that used to be decent, but has been completely ruined for munchkin style gaming only and is no longer D&D. it didn't grow, it didn't expand, it didn't do anything but become worthless. Your offended at being called "elitist" and then you throw that stuff out there?:confused:
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 11:33 AM	Excellent troll defense. Someone beats your point you bury your head in the sand. If anyone else wishess to waste time and effort with this fool, feel free. Nah, I'm good.
Frugal 07-27-07, 11:38 AM	no half of them have been playing since 3.0 came out. you assume too much. you assume i am the only one new to 3.x. you assume others i played with even knew what 2nd edition was. Yes, I did assume that if they'd been playing the game for any length of time they'd be familiar with how the mechanics work. Don't blame issues with your play group on the system. Yes, I have a player in my group who's been playing for years (I'm pretty sure she was in the group in 2ed, definitely since they were playing 3.0) who still doesn't know the rules. Is that a problem with the rules? No, it's an issue with the fact that she has no interest in learning them. How do we handle it? We have another player actively help her out and make sure the stuff on her sheet is correct, she's not interested in mechanics at all but she adds a lot to the RP experience so it works well. and this is why people like myself are called elitist for liking older edition cause those who play newer editoins are stuck up asses that think the odler ediotns are now worthless just because a newer edition was printed. And how many times have I mentioned that there are things I appreciate that were in 2ed, such as much richer flavour, that was lost in 3.x? How many times have I suggested that you find ways to incorporate that into your play? How many times have I said that a lot of the issue comes down to preference and/or level of comfort? I've called you elitist because whenever someone's criticised systems like THAC0 you belittle their intelligence for not being able to figure it out (but apparently 3.x is allowed to be too hard for people to add up numbers), you've belittled the public education system, you've made racist comments on this thread, and so on. All of this reeks of elitism where you think that D&D needs to be reserved for a very select group of privileged individuals and if you can't hack 2ed then that's proof that you don't belong. so as far as i am concerned D&D died when 3.0 was created and those who play it and want to berate those who prefer other editions shouldn't even beconsiderd D&D cause they have no respect for older editions and that people could still possibly prefer then and assume the only reason they don't want to play is that familization to the older "rules" overrides willingness to try the newer. Again, screams of elitism. And my comments about your level of knowledge of the rules in 3.x have come from your posts that betray a complete lack of knowledge about how the basic mechanics work (like asking if the DC for bashing a door is always 25), this tells me that you're either very unfamiliar with the rules in 3.x and haven't given yourself a chance to become accustomed to the rules so that you can make a more objective assessment on how the game plays rather than a gut reaction based on things not running smoothly because you weren't familiar with the rules. Or, again, you're deliberately playing dumb about the rules in order to troll. And yes, as far as I can tell you've come to 3.x with a preconceived notion that you wouldn't like it, which biased things from the beginning and makes any objective assessment about the rules as a system. i tried the newr and they are worthless as ****. i don't like them, i don't care for them, i wouldn't even wipe my ass with the pages from the game books. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it but I'd like to actually see some legitimate arguments about what's wrong with the system. Most of what you've posted as issues with the system come down to play style, not the system. I've taken the time to post specific examples about issues with the 2ed mechanics and how (I believe) the 3.x mechanics are more consistent or intuitive, you haven't countered any of them or provided any examples of your own with issues with the 3.x system. and you have cemented my feelings on the subject. so now anyone that plays 3.x in my mind is not a D&D player but some video game refugee trying to be popular by playing a game that used to be decent, but has been completely ruined for munchkin style gaming only and is no longer D&D. Ah, well I guess it's a good thing I don't play 3.x then. Bet you didn't see that coming did you? I played 3.x for awhile but ran into too many things that I hate about the system, but guess what? They're concepts that I've hated about D&D ever since I played the red box basic set back when I was 7 or 8. I never liked D&D, I hate the style of play but that's what my gaming group was playing so I gave 3.5 a try. I found that it had improved on a lot of things and I thought about running a campaign in it, I bought some books and began designing, in the meantime our DM left town and I wasn't ready to start up my campaign so we played some d20 Call of Cthulhu because someone wanted to try it out. That was fun but I"d played Chaosium's CoC and liked their system a lot better, this helped cement some of the things I didn't like about the d20 system and WOTC's approach to game design. So then another player wanted to run a GURPS Supers campaign and that's what we're playing now, and I'm now shifting my campaign world ideas over to that system because I like the way it plays far more than D&D. So the borrow your expression, "you assume too much".
DrowBattlemind 07-27-07, 11:47 AM	Now, having said all that I have on this topic, there are times when the rules get in the way. This is not intrinsic to the rules per se, but rather I find that the more rules there are the more stringently some DMs adhere to them. Modern DMs needs to learn to say "**** it", to toss the rules aside when they get in the way and just go with it. okay, this I agree with you on... THIS illustrates what I mean: This really does seem to be how you’re supposed to fight huge epic foes: Stand underneath them and jab their toes until they die. Sure, you could use a bunch of feats to climb up onto the thing, Shadow of the Colossus style, but there wouldn’t be any advantage to do so. It would be hard, you’d have to roll the dice a dozen times, and in the end you’d just be doing the exact same damage, only higher off the ground. However, there I disagree. The climb would be one roll, IMHO, severing the straps would be another, then getting the frack off (a la a dramatic Orlando Bloom surfer-slide) would be another. Three rolls. Anything more (except attack rolls against the howdah crew) would be a**l-retentive and detrimental to the scene. And I've seen many 1st and 2nd ed DM's who're exactly that a**l, sadly. Nah, I'm good. hey, I've tried...
shadzar 07-27-07, 11:48 AM	Your offended at being called "elitist" and then you throw that stuff out there?:confused: nope. not offended at all being called elitist. i don't play bad games. therefore i don't play: yugioh pokemon or any WotC made wannabe D&D simulation play bad games, become a bad gamer. ;)
Reinforcements 07-27-07, 11:52 AM	Now, having said all that I have on this topic, there are times when the rules get in the way. This is not intrinsic to the rules per se, but rather I find that the more rules there are the more stringently some DMs adhere to them. Modern DMs needs to learn to say "**** it", to toss the rules aside when they get in the way and just go with it. THIS (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235) illustrates what I mean: This really does seem to be how you’re supposed to fight huge epic foes: Stand underneath them and jab their toes until they die. Sure, you could use a bunch of feats to climb up onto the thing, Shadow of the Colossus style, but there wouldn’t be any advantage to do so. It would be hard, you’d have to roll the dice a dozen times, and in the end you’d just be doing the exact same damage, only higher off the ground. That's a problem with all editions of D&D, though - although honestly, I'd say it's less of a problem in 3rd Ed. Most of what Legolas wants to do is pretty easy - Climb check, Balance checks, killing the guys and cutting the harness are all easy. The ultimate problem is killing the mumak with one shot to the head - but again, that's always been a problem, that the balance of D&D's combat relies on hit points, which tend to be unrealistic and un-cinematic (but easy to use and balance). If it were me as the DM I might actually allow that - it would depend on how important the mumak fight is supposed to be. I'll say this too - nothing in the game in any edition has contributed to making melee combat fun, interesting and versatile like Tome of Battle. [edit] - Because DrowBattlemind's post made me think I should touch on it, here's how I would probably run what Legolas wants to do: Climb check, probably pretty easy assuming the mumak's skin is a pretty good climbing surface, made a bit harder by the fact that it's a moving creature. Say, DC 15-18. Balance checks every round to stay up, unless he takes a standard action to just hunker down and hold on. DC 10-15. Killing the guys is easy enough, as they're probably peons and Legolas is certainly at least level 12. He should drop them in one round. Cutting the harness is just an attack against an object, no trick there. I haven't DMed in a while so I'm not familiar enough with item HP and hardness to say off the top of my head what they should be. Then we get to killing the thing, and this really depends. I'd at least give him a big bonus to hit, and might go as far as allow a coup-de-grace. Again, it depends on how important the mumak is. So there you have it. I have that taking about three rounds, maybe four. Not too bad, and nothing too tricky about it. Note that it would be much worse in previous editions, as I'd be completely making up almost everything he does.
Mark Thorson 07-27-07, 11:52 AM	nope. not offended at all being called elitist. i don't play bad games. therefore i don't play: yugioh pokemon or any WotC made wannabe D&D simulation play bad games, become a bad gamer. ;) It's good that you're not offended, because a lot of your posts smack of elitism.:P
aotrscommander 07-27-07, 12:00 PM	That's a problem with all editions of D&D, though - although honestly, I'd say it's less of a problem in 3rd Ed. Most of what Legolas wants to do is pretty easy - Climb check, Balance checks, killing the guys and cutting the harness are all easy. The ultimate problem is killing the mumak with one shot to the head - but again, that's always been a problem, that the balance of D&D's combat relies on hit points, which tend to be unrealistic and un-cinematic (but easy to use and balance). If it were me as the DM I might actually allow that - it would depend on how important the mumak fight is supposed to be. I'll say this too - nothing in the game in any edition has contributed to making melee combat fun, interesting and versatile like Tome of Battle. Ironically, you could probably do it quite easily at mid-levels in Rolemaster... Come to think off it, if you did an attack roll in the low 400s - as I've seen on occasion in Rolemaster - that's the sort of thing I might have given the player for free in all possiblity. (I assume here, that had ICE done Lords of Middle Earth after the films, Legolas would not have merely been 8th level, either!)
tankschmidt 07-27-07, 12:03 PM	Ah, well I guess it's a good thing I don't play 3.x then. Bet you didn't see that coming did you? Aha! The twist! Actually, Frugal has a great point. If you don't like a game, try something else. In some ways 3.x was an improvement over 2nd edition, and it some ways, it strayed pretty far off course. And what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. So now Frugal plays GURPS. Me? I like C&C as a compromise between the old and new (A)D&D's. I don't think we can say that one game is better than another. How do you measure it? It's easier for wargamers - if the rules don't allow for real world strategies to work (Wooden Ships and Iron Men comes to mind) - then maybe the game isn't so great. But for fantasy roleplaying, the drive to recreate realism is often minimal. Is fun then the only thing we can measure? Well that's useless - fun is different for everyone. It's just a question of taste. My advice to the original poster remains, as always, try something new (or old in this case) and have a good time with it.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 12:03 PM	play bad games, become a bad gamer. Play old bad games, become an elitist bad gamer.
Frugal 07-27-07, 12:32 PM	Aha! The twist! Actually, Frugal has a great point. If you don't like a game, try something else. In some ways 3.x was an improvement over 2nd edition, and it some ways, it strayed pretty far off course. And what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. So now Frugal plays GURPS. Me? I like C&C as a compromise between the old and new (A)D&D's. I don't think we can say that one game is better than another. How do you measure it? It's easier for wargamers - if the rules don't allow for real world strategies to work (Wooden Ships and Iron Men comes to mind) - then maybe the game isn't so great. But for fantasy roleplaying, the drive to recreate realism is often minimal. Is fun then the only thing we can measure? Well that's useless - fun is different for everyone. It's just a question of taste. My advice to the original poster remains, as always, try something new (or old in this case) and have a good time with it. Thanks, like I said, I tried 3.5, I found it improved on a lot of things in D&D but I still don't like the "feel" of the game, that's a personal preference, I just don't like it. But I do have a strong interest in game design, own a number of different RPGs (back from the days when every single company put out their own system) and have looked at them all and asked what works, what doesn't and why. So I don't like the feel of D&D, I can still comment on how the mechanics work as a system, and I happen to prefer both the feel, and the ssytem, of GURPS, because I feel it offers me more of what I like in roleplaying games and I prefer the versatility of point's based systems to class-based systems. Now I also own a bunch of 3.5 books now and I fully intend to rip off material from them, be it flavour, monster ideas, trap ideas, plots, etc, etc. Some might be wholesale conversions, some might be inspiration.
DaidojiTaidoru 07-27-07, 12:48 PM	I've seen many posts writing about the brokenness of many Kits, but I can't remember any Kit giving a great bonus. RP aside. Kits were designed for a member of a class to really gain an advantage when it came to something that that character wanted to excel at. It didn't give any bonuses to all combat, but sometimes it gave a combat bonus with attacks made with a certain kind of weapon. Those weapons were rarely optimal. As I've stated before the one that immediately comes to mind is a Bard with the Swashbuckler kit. Fighter Thac0, Mage casting, Thief Level advancement and some skills for fun. And what horrendous penalty did you suffer for this? The adventure centered around you. Someone wanted to start a bar fight with the group? He'd pick you. Damsel in distress runs towards the party? She clings to you. So not only are you more powerful then everyone else, but the DM is told to have the plot revolve around you as well.
DrowBattlemind 07-27-07, 12:50 PM	C&C, Hackmaster, GURPS, True20, all have their good points and their bad points, just like 3rd/3.5, or any OTHER game out there for that matter. If you like 'em, play 'em, I say. Me, I like 3.5, Star Wars Saga, D20 Modern, and Cyberpunk (both 2.0.2.0. / Interlock version, and the 3.0 / Fuzion edition). Just because I like these best doesn't mean the others are necessarily bad. That being said, there's a reason that AD&D ceased to be and D20 and C&C were created. (and no, it wasn't greed, as some others have howled to the moon.) Flavor has little to do with game mechanics, and everything to do with setting. Use whatever game system you want, and combine that with the setting you want, but don't confuse the two.
aotrscommander 07-27-07, 02:14 PM	As I've stated before the one that immediately comes to mind is a Bard with the Swashbuckler kit. *snip* So not only are you more powerful then everyone else, but the DM is told to have the plot revolve around you as well. I always did like that kit!
Frugal 07-27-07, 02:31 PM	C&C, Hackmaster, GURPS, True20, all have their good points and their bad points, just like 3rd/3.5, or any OTHER game out there for that matter. If you like 'em, play 'em, I say. Me, I like 3.5, Star Wars Saga, D20 Modern, and Cyberpunk (both 2.0.2.0. / Interlock version, and the 3.0 / Fuzion edition). Just because I like these best doesn't mean the others are necessarily bad. Yep, you'll note that I didn't say anything about 3.5 sucking, I said I dislike playing it. But that's an opinion and has very little to do with the quality of the game mechanics. For instance, I find the power curve too steep, I think that characters level too quickly and the difference between levels too great. That's a personal preference, I'm not going to come on here and say that the mechanics of the XP system "suck" or that they're "stupid", it's just a question of me generally not liking class/level systems and disliking the power curve. I prefer a much flatter power curve where the players advance but don't become that much more powerful than when they started, or they do so over a great deal of time. I also like the idea of being able to still throw, say a group of orcs, at the party and have it remain a credible threat rather than a dice rolling exercise. Again, personal preference and one that has nothing to do with whether the rules in 3.5 work well as a system.
cloudstrife2500 07-27-07, 02:32 PM	I still don't understand the THAC0 system lol.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:35 PM	3.x has grown to price everything, as if it were a sotre, and the new players that happen to own the DMG and want magic items won't shut up because they think they should be able to buy them like in a video game. You know, people keep saying this, but I've never played a CRPG where there was a store that sold every item available in the game. Usually it's the exact opposite, in fact -- part of the struggle of the game is grinding through monster-killing because the good items only drop from monsters and only sucky items actually appear in the shop in town. (Diablo II, for instance.)
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:42 PM	This really does seem to be how you’re supposed to fight huge epic foes: Stand underneath them and jab their toes until they die. Sure, you could use a bunch of feats to climb up onto the thing, Shadow of the Colossus style, but there wouldn’t be any advantage to do so. It would be hard, you’d have to roll the dice a dozen times, and in the end you’d just be doing the exact same damage, only higher off the ground. Standing next to a Large creature and making attack rolls against it doesn't *have* to be narrated as "stabbing it in the toe". You can flavor it any way you want, especially if you're using ranged weapons and such. The thing is, that what Legolas did in the film *was* ridiculous from any perspective that even sort of kind of tries to maintain realism. It's one of the parts of the movie that is most widely panned as being, well, ridiculous. It's no more necessary to make sure the system can handle this kind of nonsense *by default* than necessary to make sure that the system can handle becoming an expert fighter using your arrows as daggers.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:47 PM	Magic Mart actually the magic mart thing is right in the core rules for 3.x just look at the PHB page 122. Masterwork weapons: Wielding it provides a +1 enchancement bonus to attack rolls. well is that aint allowing players to jsut buy mart ala carte then what is. in previous editions they actually had to be enchanted, the bonus for having a better made weapon was that it would break less often, and was worth more money. now it automatically has magic properties and is able to hit those older mosters that could only be damaged/hit by weapons requiring a +1 enchancement. Er, no. This is just a different way to represent what "masterwork" means. You may not agree with it, but it doesn't imply what you think it does. Masterwork weapons *only* get a +1 to attack, not a +1 to attack and damage, and they are non-magical and incapable of overcoming DR/magic. And there's no stipulation that you can automatically find masterwork items lying around in your local store any more than you can with magic items. The DM can still finagle that any way he wants. (It is my *opinion* that being a jerk about finding magic items is, well, a jerky thing to do when so much of the game balance is dependent on what magic items a character does and doesn't have, and campaigns where magic items really were dependent on the luck of the draw were campaigns where a character who rolled lucky on the treasure charts could end up dominating the game for no good reason. But that's a different discussion.) XP fell short? so you only saw challenges to be combat? XP was a measure of character growth. obstacles could be simply getting out os something, like talking your way out of something via roleplaying, avoiding a trap by disarming, etc are overcoming challenges. not that i went with the idea every trap disarmed gives the rogue bonus XP, but when done cleverly, or a trap set cleverly i do. also you can't say nobody used them because i sure did. i awarded XP for more than just combat. the game isn't about fighting only so why not award XP for roleplaying. that multitude of elements means that you SHOULD award some XP for each type of element at varying times. XP is really a measure of not a simple number showing how many kills a character has, but how much he has learned and how others around him see him. ...And how does 3e contradict this?
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:50 PM	quick explain then back to read rest of this and other posts. i was calling the idiots who list all cartoons as a childrens program when they air as idiots. ie the TV people. hopefulyl parents and other people today outside of the TV industry have realized they are not. maybe even some of the TV people have learned it also, but to most i am sure an animated program is automatically seen as a childrens program. ...This has nothing to do with the fact that the D&D TV show was a show for kids, and that much of 2e's marketing assumed that the target audience was juvenile.
shadzar 07-27-07, 02:55 PM	You know, people keep saying this, but I've never played a CRPG where there was a store that sold every item available in the game. Usually it's the exact opposite, in fact -- part of the struggle of the game is grinding through monster-killing because the good items only drop from monsters and only sucky items actually appear in the shop in town. (Diablo II, for instance.) good items only drop from monsters item drops MMO's in action here! i frist heard this kind of thing in EverQuest. where you camp a monster for the item dorp. :rolleyes: D&D =/= a video game
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:59 PM	good items only drop from monsters item drops MMO's in action here! i frist heard this kind of thing in EverQuest. where you camp a monster for the item dorp. :rolleyes: D&D =/= a video game ...Did you actually read what I said? I said that having to camp for item drops in a game like EverQuest or WoW is in *contrast* to a game of D&D where you can buy any item in the DMG once you can afford it. MMORPGs are balanced largely by the fact that expensive magic items are rare and you have to grind to get them. Whether or not you actually run D&D by the "If it's in the Magic Item Compendium, you can buy it" rule, that rule bears no resemblance to CRPGs or "video game" play, because I've never seen a video game where every item in the game exists in a store where you can buy it. And, really, "magic-mart" is an unfair way of putting it. As MIC says, the reality is that in a world where magic is relatively common and part of the way the world works, if you have enough money and spend enough time walking through a big city like Waterdeep poking through the different antique stores and wizards' homes, the chances are good that after a few days' legwork you *will* find the magic item you want, or someone who can make it for you. The old-school philosophy that good items *only* exist in monsters' "hoards" and that you can *only* get them by killing monsters is actually much, much closer to a World of Warcraft philosophy -- something designed to make the game feel more like a game and encourage you to go out fighting for no reason -- than it is a "realistic" factor of the game.
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:01 PM	I still don't understand the THAC0 system lol. here you go. copy and paste this into a text editor and save it as something.HTML <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <title> THAC0 Calculators </title> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"> <!-- function calculate() { document.getElementById('wd20').innerHTM L = "<td id='wd20'><b>"+(document.getElementById('wl').value-document.getElementById('wAC').value-document.getElementById('wS').value-document.getElementById('wD').value-document.getElementById('wW').value-document.getElementById('wo').value)+"<\/b><\/td>"; document.getElementById('pd20').innerHTM L = "<td id='pd20'><b>"+(document.getElementById('pl').value-document.getElementById('pAC').value-document.getElementById('pS').value-document.getElementById('pD').value-document.getElementById('pW').value-document.getElementById('po').value)+"<\/b><\/td>"; document.getElementById('rd20').innerHTM L = "<td id='rd20'><b>"+(document.getElementById('rl').value-document.getElementById('rAC').value-document.getElementById('rS').value-document.getElementById('rD').value-document.getElementById('rW').value-document.getElementById('ro').value)+"<\/b><\/td>"; document.getElementById('wzd20').innerHT ML = "<td id='wzd20'><b>"+(document.getElementById('wzl').value-document.getElementById('wzAC').value-document.getElementById('wzS').value-document.getElementById('wzD').value-document.getElementById('wzW').value-document.getElementById('wzo').value)+"<\/b><\/td>"; } function clr() { document.getElementById('wd20').innerHTM L = "<td id='wd20'>&nbsp;<\/td>"; document.getElementById('pd20').innerHTM L = "<td id='pd20'>&nbsp;<\/td>"; document.getElementById('rd20').innerHTM L = "<td id='rd20'>&nbsp;<\/td>"; document.getElementById('wzd20').innerHT ML = "<td id='wzd20'>&nbsp;<\/td>"; } // --></script> </head> <body> <table border="1"> <tr align="center"><th colspan="7">Warrior</th></tr> <tr align="center"><td>Level</td><td>Enemy AC</td><td>Hit Prob.</td><td>Missile Adj.</td><td>Weapon Bonus</td><td>Other</td><td>d20 Roll</td></tr> <tr align="center"> <td><select id="wl"> <option value="20">1</option> <option value="19">2</option> <option value="18">3</option> <option value="17">4</option> <option value="16">5</option> <option value="15">6</option> <option value="14">7</option> <option value="13">8</option> <option value="12">9</option> <option value="11">10</option> <option value="10">11</option> <option value="9">12</option> <option value="8">13</option> <option value="7">14</option> <option value="6">15</option> <option value="5">16</option> <option value="4">17</option> <option value="3">18</option> <option value="2">19</option> <option value="1">20</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wAC"> <option value="-10">-10</option> <option value="-9">-9</option> <option value="-8">-8</option> <option value="-7">-7</option> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">1</option> <option value="2">2</option> <option value="3">3</option> <option value="4">4</option> <option value="5">5</option> <option value="6">6</option> <option value="7">7</option> <option value="8">8</option> <option value="9">9</option> <option value="10">10</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wS"> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>Normal</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> <option value="6">+6</option> <option value="7">+7</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wD"> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wW"> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wo"> <option value="-10">-10</option> <option value="-9">-9</option> <option value="-8">-8</option> <option value="-7">-7</option> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> <option value="6">+6</option> <option value="7">+7</option> <option value="8">+8</option> <option value="9">+9</option> <option value="10">+10</option> </select></td> <td id="wd20">&nbsp;<td><tr> <tr align="center"><th colspan="7">Priest</th></tr> <tr align="center"><td>Level</td><td>Enemy AC</td><td>Hit Prob.</td><td>Missile Adj.</td><td>Weapon Bonus</td><td>Other</td><td>d20 Roll</td></tr> <tr align="center"> <td><select id="pl"> <option value="20">1</option> <option value="20">2</option> <option value="20">3</option> <option value="18">4</option> <option value="18">5</option> <option value="18">6</option> <option value="16">7</option> <option value="16">8</option> <option value="16">9</option> <option value="14">10</option> <option value="14">11</option> <option value="14">12</option> <option value="12">13</option> <option value="12">14</option> <option value="12">15</option> <option value="10">16</option> <option value="10">17</option> <option value="10">18</option> <option value="8">19</option> <option value="8">20</option> </select></td> <td><select id="pAC"> <option value="-10">-10</option> <option value="-9">-9</option> <option value="-8">-8</option> <option value="-7">-7</option> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">1</option> <option value="2">2</option> <option value="3">3</option> <option value="4">4</option> <option value="5">5</option> <option value="6">6</option> <option value="7">7</option> <option value="8">8</option> <option value="9">9</option> <option value="10">10</option> </select></td> <td><select id="pS"> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>Normal</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> <option value="6">+6</option> <option value="7">+7</option> </select></td> <td><select id="pD"> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> </select></td> <td><select id="pW"> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> </select></td> <td><select id="po"> <option value="-10">-10</option> <option value="-9">-9</option> <option value="-8">-8</option> <option value="-7">-7</option> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> <option value="6">+6</option> <option value="7">+7</option> <option value="8">+8</option> <option value="9">+9</option> <option value="10">+10</option> </select></td> <td id="pd20">&nbsp;<td><tr> <tr align="center"><th colspan="7">Rogue</th></tr> <tr align="center"><td>Level</td><td>Enemy AC</td><td>Hit Prob.</td><td>Missile Adj.</td><td>Weapon Bonus</td><td>Other</td><td>d20 Roll</td></tr> <tr align="center"> <td><select id="rl"> <option value="20">1</option> <option value="20">2</option> <option value="19">3</option> <option value="19">4</option> <option value="18">5</option> <option value="18">6</option> <option value="17">7</option> <option value="17">8</option> <option value="16">9</option> <option value="16">10</option> <option value="15">11</option> <option value="15">12</option> <option value="14">13</option> <option value="14">14</option> <option value="13">15</option> <option value="13">16</option> <option value="12">17</option> <option value="12">18</option> <option value="11">19</option> <option value="11">20</option> </select></td> <td><select id="rAC"> <option value="-10">-10</option> <option value="-9">-9</option> <option value="-8">-8</option> <option value="-7">-7</option> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">1</option> <option value="2">2</option> <option value="3">3</option> <option value="4">4</option> <option value="5">5</option> <option value="6">6</option> <option value="7">7</option> <option value="8">8</option> <option value="9">9</option> <option value="10">10</option> </select></td> <td><select id="rS"> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>Normal</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> <option value="6">+6</option> <option value="7">+7</option> </select></td> <td><select id="rD"> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> </select></td> <td><select id="rW"> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> </select></td> <td><select id="ro"> <option value="-10">-10</option> <option value="-9">-9</option> <option value="-8">-8</option> <option value="-7">-7</option> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> <option value="6">+6</option> <option value="7">+7</option> <option value="8">+8</option> <option value="9">+9</option> <option value="10">+10</option> </select></td> <td id="rd20">&nbsp;<td><tr> <tr align="center"><th colspan="7">Wizard</th></tr> <tr align="center"><td>Level</td><td>Enemy AC</td><td>Hit Prob.</td><td>Missile Adj.</td><td>Weapon Bonus</td><td>Other</td><td>d20 Roll</td></tr> <tr align="center"> <td><select id="wzl"> <option value="20">1</option> <option value="20">2</option> <option value="20">3</option> <option value="19">4</option> <option value="19">5</option> <option value="19">6</option> <option value="18">7</option> <option value="18">8</option> <option value="18">9</option> <option value="17">10</option> <option value="17">11</option> <option value="17">12</option> <option value="16">13</option> <option value="16">14</option> <option value="16">15</option> <option value="15">16</option> <option value="15">17</option> <option value="15">18</option> <option value="14">19</option> <option value="14">20</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wzAC"> <option value="-10">-10</option> <option value="-9">-9</option> <option value="-8">-8</option> <option value="-7">-7</option> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">1</option> <option value="2">2</option> <option value="3">3</option> <option value="4">4</option> <option value="5">5</option> <option value="6">6</option> <option value="7">7</option> <option value="8">8</option> <option value="9">9</option> <option value="10">10</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wzS"> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>Normal</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> <option value="6">+6</option> <option value="7">+7</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wzD"> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wzW"> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> </select></td> <td><select id="wzo"> <option value="-10">-10</option> <option value="-9">-9</option> <option value="-8">-8</option> <option value="-7">-7</option> <option value="-6">-6</option> <option value="-5">-5</option> <option value="-4">-4</option> <option value="-3">-3</option> <option value="-2">-2</option> <option value="-1">-1</option> <option value="0" selected>0</option> <option value="1">+1</option> <option value="2">+2</option> <option value="3">+3</option> <option value="4">+4</option> <option value="5">+5</option> <option value="6">+6</option> <option value="7">+7</option> <option value="8">+8</option> <option value="9">+9</option> <option value="10">+10</option> </select></td> <td id="wzd20">&nbsp;<td><tr> </table> <button onclick="calculate();">Calculate</button>&nbsp;<button onclick="clr();">Clear</button><hr> Choose the stats above and press [Calculate] to tell you the number needed to be rolled on a d20 to hit an opponent. Other is for any modifiers not listed that may be present. Just add the modifiers and choose the result. </body> </html>
Mark Thorson 07-27-07, 03:02 PM	I think that characters level too quickly I agree. That and and the turning mechanic are my only real gripes with 3.5. I think there's an alternate turning method in Complete Divine I wanna check out and the XP chart can be adjusted.
Frugal 07-27-07, 03:03 PM	good items only drop from monsters item drops MMO's in action here! i frist heard this kind of thing in EverQuest. where you camp a monster for the item dorp. :rolleyes: D&D =/= a video game Wait, so first you complain that 3.x encourages "magic marts" when people say that it doesn't all of a sudden we have item drops and it's MMORPG style? Which is it? Can you buy the best items or do you have to find the best items. If it's that you have to find the best items then isn't this exactly what you said was "good" about 2ed? I guess 2ed is more video game than 3.x (by your own arguments) and that you're just a video game refugee player for liking it. Some internal consistency to your arguments would be nice.
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:03 PM	Standing next to a Large creature and making attack rolls against it doesn't *have* to be narrated as "stabbing it in the toe". You can flavor it any way you want, especially if you're using ranged weapons and such. to target specific locations on an enemy is called a called shot, or at least used to be. "if you say it you do it." PC: i shoot the orcs eye with my bow. DM: add these negative modifiers to your attack roll for trying to hit a specific area on the creature.
Stormonu 07-27-07, 03:04 PM	I'm totally down with conceal. I'm just not sure why it was left % rather than a d20 roll (since the conceal % are in incremenets of 5 anyways). We just changed it to rolla 2nd d20 after the attack for conceal or incorp (or fortification inc ase of a crit), with the conceal, incorp, or fort rating being what you need to meet. Actually, there have been times I've reduced it down to one roll (especially with NPC rolls, to make things go faster). On a 50% miss chance, an odd roll is a miss (correlating with a "1" is always a miss) and on an even number, it is a hit - if you rolled high enough to get hit the creatures AC (again, correlating with "20" always being a hit). I used to use this back in 1E/2E as well. Masterwork weapons: Wielding it provides a +1 enchancement bonus to attack rolls. well is that aint allowing players to jsut buy mart ala carte then what is. in previous editions they actually had to be enchanted, the bonus for having a better made weapon was that it would break less often, and was worth more money. now it automatically has magic properties and is able to hit those older mosters that could only be damaged/hit by weapons requiring a +1 enchancement. EXCUSE ME, masterwork weapons exist in 2E too. And masterwork weapons do NOT count as being enchanted in 3E.:rolleyes: Check your 2E DMG p37 - Weapon Quality (see below) "Careful craftmanship and high quality give a weapon a bonus on the chance to hit or a bonus to damage. The bonus should be never more than +1....Thus weapons of quality cost from 5 to 20 times more than normal" Note that 3E Masterwork weapons only provide +1 to hit and NEVER provide a bonus to damage and ALWAYS cost an extra 300 gp. That 302 gp masterwork dagger in 3E may only cost 20 gp in 2E.
Holy_Beholder 07-27-07, 03:06 PM	i don't want that. nor do i care about these other silly systems like the diceless one, or whatever it is you mention. i LARPed VtM, WtA, and MtA with rock-paper-scissors as the determining factor and i now amny other ways to assign probabilites of failure and success than just dice. i was just saying that that method as an aproach might drive away some of the video gaming concept that currently exists in "tabletop" RPGs, by bringing back the roleplaying and attempting to remove the meta/powergaming based on the statistical data and evaulation of it to create and play characters. Huh? I can't read this, I tried, but the spelling doesn't work. For instance what is amny supposed to be. Also FUDGE uses dice, but its impossible to powergame, because it makes second edition seem rule heavy. You have to figure out disarms, sunders, everything, and it has so many variant rules you can't keep track of it all. On the bright side, combat is fast. Anyways, the roleplaying depends on the person not the system, I have played diceless and FUDGE where you can't powergame, and the good roleplayers still roleplayed well, and the bad roleplayers still couldn't roleplay. The system is only slightly related to roleplaying.
Reinforcements 07-27-07, 03:06 PM	to target specific locations on an enemy is called a called shot, or at least used to be. "if you say it you do it." PC: i shoot the orcs eye with my bow. DM: add these negative modifiers to your attack roll for trying to hit a specific area on the creature. Ugh, called shots are and were a terrible idea. There's virtually no way to make it balanced. Again, another unrealistic byproduct of the hp system.
Frugal 07-27-07, 03:10 PM	I agree. That and and the turning mechanic are my only real gripes with 3.5. I think there's an alternate turning method in Complete Divine I wanna check out and the XP chart can be adjusted. Yep, I keep meaning to check out that alternate rule. As for the XP chart, it's not simply a matter of how quickly they level, but also with the amount of power they get from levelling that bothers me. A level 20 character is so ridiculously more powerful than a 1st that it's not even funny, but even a 4th or 5th level character is vastly more powerful than that 1st level character. Now this is purely a matter of "feel", I know some people like the idea of growing into being an extremely powerful epic character, I don't like that style of play, and that's the big reason why I'm not playing D&D any more, I prefer a grittier "low level" style of fantasy play and I'm able to achieve that much better with GURPS. Doesn't mean that the levelling mechanic is "bad", just not my style.
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:11 PM	...Did you actually read what I said? I said that having to camp for item drops in a game like EverQuest or WoW is in *contrast* to a game of D&D where you can buy any item in the DMG once you can afford it. MMORPGs are balanced largely by the fact that expensive magic items are rare and you have to grind to get them. the problem is in MMOs you don't have to fight all that much to get them. gather something someone wants, book over to the Nexus, walk into the Bazaar, sell your useless stuff that you spent time collecting that others didn't have time to kill the weak little things that have them. then take your mountain of platinum and buy ANYthing you want. Epic items were non-tradable so therefore had to be earned via the epic quest, but anything else could easily be bought in the Bazaat once you had the Plane of Knowledge expansion. and i think other MMOs have this same kind of market ability to them. so no magic is not at all rare in them, unless you are the first group of people to accumulate them on the server. that is where the idea of buying magic items comes from MMOs and video games. dang when i agree that the video game concept is right there about buying numerous magic item you want to argue with me on it. is it just that you want to argue with me whether we agree on a point or not?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 03:14 PM	i frist heard this kind of thing in EverQuest. where you camp a monster for the item dorp. :rolleyes: What's a dorp? ;) D&D =/= a video game Hating MMOs does not make you better, you know. Video games have borrowed many terms from D&D (hit points, armor class, xp, "rolling" a PC, etc.) cos those terms work. That the process can work in both directions and D&D can likewise borrow some terms some from video games does not mean that those who do so view D&D as a video game. Please drop the high-horse elitist crap. It does nothing to foster constructive discussion.
Stormonu 07-27-07, 03:17 PM	Ugh, called shots are and were a terrible idea. There's virtually no way to make it balanced. Again, another unrealistic byproduct of the hp system. Well....they can work if you can express the results in hp damage or effects with saves - and the effects aren't outrageously unbalanced. For example, the shot to the eye... -8 to hit. On a successful hit, the victim makes a DC save (DC 13, same as a basic blindness/deafness spell). On a failure, the victim is blinded in the eye for one minute (a grazing shot, -2 to the orc's to-hit for the duration). A heal check (DC 15) will negate the blindness. No automatic critical damage, nothing like that. "But I shot him in the eye!" Yeah, but until the orc's out of hit points, he's turned the potentially killing shot into a grazing or glancing blow. Such is the way the hp system is supposed to work.
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:18 PM	Wait, so first you complain that 3.x encourages "magic marts" when people say that it doesn't all of a sudden we have item drops and it's MMORPG style? Which is it? Can you buy the best items or do you have to find the best items. If it's that you have to find the best items then isn't this exactly what you said was "good" about 2ed? I guess 2ed is more video game than 3.x (by your own arguments) and that you're just a video game refugee player for liking it. Some internal consistency to your arguments would be nice. spawn rates in MMos are finite. therefore you can "camp" a certain item by waiting for the monster to spawn in the same location it was yesterday, last hour, etc. and take turns collecting this item. just because you "defeat" an NPC in a battle in D&D doesn't mean you get all his possesion if the way you defeated them was to make them evade you. also you could just be given an item from someone that is beter than the standard things you find in killed monster treasures. or you just come across the item in an abandoned building with no monster around, you just have to figure out where this "uber" item is. that was my point about "item drop" in MMOs vs getting items in D&D. granted the dragon hoard can contain really good treasure, but it can also be found other places; and rarely is abundant enough to be in shops like the Bazaar of EQ that are easy to get to. a store might have a single magic item in D&D and then it may or may not be for sale.
Mark Thorson 07-27-07, 03:19 PM	Yep, I keep meaning to check out that alternate rule. As for the XP chart, it's not simply a matter of how quickly they level, but also with the amount of power they get from levelling that bothers me. A level 20 character is so ridiculously more powerful than a 1st that it's not even funny, but even a 4th or 5th level character is vastly more powerful than that 1st level character. Now this is purely a matter of "feel", I know some people like the idea of growing into being an extremely powerful epic character, I don't like that style of play, and that's the big reason why I'm not playing D&D any more, I prefer a grittier "low level" style of fantasy play and I'm able to achieve that much better with GURPS. Doesn't mean that the levelling mechanic is "bad", just not my style. I can definitely understand that perspective. My favorite levels to play are probably between 5-8. Maybe 10. My favorite fantasy settings are more Tolkien-esque, where there's not a ton of magic around. There's a book called Iron Lore, I think, from Monte Cook's company that deals with lower magic campaigns. I ordered one from work and I'm looking forward to seeing some of the alternate classes and such. I'm hoping I can build a suitable campaign from it.
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:23 PM	EXCUSE ME, masterwork weapons exist in 2E too. And masterwork weapons do NOT count as being enchanted in 3E.:rolleyes: Check your 2E DMG p37 - Weapon Quality (see below) Note that 3E Masterwork weapons only provide +1 to hit and NEVER provide a bonus to damage and ALWAYS cost an extra 300 gp. That 302 gp masterwork dagger in 3E may only cost 20 gp in 2E. where is "masterwork" weapons in 2nd edition that is a non-magical weapon that gets a +1 to hit bonus? it doesn't mater if the +1 is for damage or not. some creature can only be hit by weapons with a +1 bonus to hit. where in that sentence does it say damage? :confused:
aotrscommander 07-27-07, 03:23 PM	I think that characters level too quickly Yeah, i thought that too. So our group generally only awars half XP for combat encounters (unless the DM thinks they've earned (i.e. been nealry TPK'd!) and sprinkle some roleplaying/quest XP. On the flip side, I thought AD&D (and Rolemaster too, for that matter) levelled too slow. Baldur's Gate 1, for example, was painfully slow! I think the later games got the practical balance right (closer to our table-top games). It's worth noting though, the highest level characters we'd ever had since I starting playing until the release of 3.0 was about 8-10 (and that was for my Bard!); even our Spacemaster/Rolemaster party is only broaching 11th level, and we've been playing that group on and off for...um...probably over ten years... And I'm just finishing writing the first campaign I've ever run that involves 20th level characters when it's done in 3.5 - and that is starting at level 14 after the end of the last adventure!
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:29 PM	What's a dorp? ;) Hating MMOs does not make you better, you know. Video games have borrowed many terms from D&D (hit points, armor class, xp, "rolling" a PC, etc.) cos those terms work. That the process can work in both directions and D&D can likewise borrow some terms some from video games does not mean that those who do so view D&D as a video game. Please drop the high-horse elitist crap. It does nothing to foster constructive discussion. then why can't other card games use the term "tap" for when a card is turned sideways. because someone wanted the term for themselves only. some elitist group that thought they could profit by preventing other people from using the term and in turn preventing competition for their card game. who was that again? i guess i am just as elitist as they are huh? for those that don't know who "tap"s a card to turn it sideways, it is a mechanic in Magic the Gathering made by WotC. :eek: stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
DaidojiTaidoru 07-27-07, 03:30 PM	*total lack of knowledge about 3.5 mechanics* First there's nothing that requires a +1 weapon to damage anymore. Things have DR/magic. Which means that the non magic +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls from masterwork means nothing to said DR. If you didn't read the rules please don't complain about them. DR is one of the things that should have blatantly stood out as having changed from 2nd to 3rd. The fact that you didn't catch that means you didn't read the books thoroughly.
Holy_Beholder 07-27-07, 03:32 PM	where is "masterwork" weapons in 2nd edition that is a non-magical weapon that gets a +1 to hit bonus? it doesn't mater if the +1 is for damage or not. where in that sentence does it say damage? :confused: Masterwork Items in 3.5 also only give a bonus to hit. Damage isn't affected, so it doesn't have to say it. EDIT: Also there is a shift key on your keyboard to the left of z. You might also want to try the spell check feature on Firefox for some of your other posts.
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:33 PM	Yeah, i thought that too. So our group generally only award half XP for combat encounters (unless the DM thinks they've earned (i.e. been nealry TPK'd!) and sprinkle some roleplaying/quest XP. On the flip side, I thought AD&D (and Rolemaster too, for that matter) levelled too slow. Baldur's Gate 1, for example, was painfully slow! I think the later games got the practical balance right (closer to our table-top games). that may very well be where the non-combat XP comes into play with AD&D. granted an optional rule, but useful when the group feels they are not getting anywhere, or can be left out if people prefer the slower advancement and more time "growing" their character up.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:34 PM	to target specific locations on an enemy is called a called shot, or at least used to be. "if you say it you do it." PC: i shoot the orcs eye with my bow. DM: add these negative modifiers to your attack roll for trying to hit a specific area on the creature. There's a very good reason they dropped the idea of called shots like a bad habit in 3e. Mainly it requires you to make up rules for a billion and one things that there aren't rules for (So what exactly happens if someone gets shot in the kidney? Better or worse than being shot in the liver? Is someone stabbed in the hand one-handed from then on or only reduced in the function of the one hand? How much damage do you have to do to someone's eye to permanently blind them?). And mainly a lot of those rules will make single attacks way more powerful than it's possible to balance. If you really do decide that "shot in the eye" or "stabbed in the throat" means instakill, then after a certain point it's the only thing characters will try to do, once they get their attack bonus high enough to make it possible. The main reason I remember people not trying called shots in 2e games was that they didn't want to open that can of worms, *not* that it was impossible to ever make called shots.
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:36 PM	First there's nothing that requires a +1 weapon to damage anymore. Things have DR/magic. Which means that the non magic +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls from masterwork means nothing to said DR. If you didn't read the rules please don't complain about them. DR is one of the things that should have blatantly stood out as having changed from 2nd to 3rd. The fact that you didn't catch that means you didn't read the books thoroughly. no just one of the things i didn't like about the system. "damage reduction" is in part what the armor or armor class does. so it shouldnt need two numbers. a race with a DR should already have that adjusted into its armor class. if the DR is from some specific type of attack, then that is a throwback to the 5 types of saves from barious sources in other editions, but the 3 saves in 3.x doesn't cover them completely. so they added a generic save type that could stand for anything...aka save vs spells.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:36 PM	then why can't other card games use the term "tap" for when a card is turned sideways. because someone wanted the term for themselves only. some elitist group that thought they could profit by preventing other people from using the term and in turn preventing competition for their card game. who was that again? i guess i am just as elitist as they are huh? The fact that WotC were, at one point in time, jerks about the intellectual property related to Magic: the Gathering doesn't mean that everything they've ever done is bad. For example, in direct contrast, the way they've handled the OGL so far has been the least-jerk-ass way any D&D rightsholder has dealt with the phenomenon of 3rd-party D&D products.
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:42 PM	There's a very good reason they dropped the idea of called shots like a bad habit in 3e. Mainly it requires you to make up rules for a billion and one things that there aren't rules for and when i used my 3.5 stone shape or whatever spell it was in combat to form a cone coming out of the cieling at the monster my DM had to figure out what kind of damage the amount of material being thrust at the enemy was going to cause if it hit and was not evaded while this monster was unable to move out of the way due to its size vs the size of the room and its location therein. my DM had to make up rules then where none existed. likewise it could happen for any spell in 3.x, or was that spell not ever supposed to be used as a mode of attack because it doesn't list damage in the spell description? what if i had used the spell to open a punji pit beneath the monster. again damage from falling, plus being impaled with the spikes. none of which is in the spells description.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:44 PM	the problem is in MMOs you don't have to fight all that much to get them. gather something someone wants, book over to the Nexus, walk into the Bazaar, sell your useless stuff that you spent time collecting that others didn't have time to kill the weak little things that have them. then take your mountain of platinum and buy ANYthing you want. Epic items were non-tradable so therefore had to be earned via the epic quest, but anything else could easily be bought in the Bazaat once you had the Plane of Knowledge expansion. Are we talking about Everquest, still? I think this kind of bad decision is why it's no longer very popular. and i think other MMOs have this same kind of market ability to them. so no magic is not at all rare in them, unless you are the first group of people to accumulate them on the server. It's the kind of thing they try to tweak every so often, sure. Of course, the fact that after you get something you can sell it or trade it to others if you don't need it is a *realism* factor, not a "video game" factor. The good items are usually unavailable from NPC vendors, and you have to have PCs go out and get them and sell them to other PCs, which is not fundamentally different from D&D party members giving each other or crafting each other magic items (just that MMORPGs, as you can tell by the name, have many, many more players). In single-player CRPGs, I've never seen the really good items made available by default from an NPC vendor. At best, you have to find one of the higher-level vendors -- the Djinn who travels the planes selling rare and wondrous items -- late in the game to get the good stuff. that is where the idea of buying magic items comes from MMOs and video games. Please. DMs who wanted to had magic-marts as early as 1e. It was all a matter of philosophy, and how willing you were to metagame the idea of the items you wanted players to have just falling into their laps as opposed to making them go to some effort to buy them. dang when i agree that the video game concept is right there about buying numerous magic item you want to argue with me on it. I *disagreed*. Video games *emphasize* the idea of finding the good stuff as item drops after beating quests and crap like that. This is because video games are largely centered around the game as the central structure of the story -- the only thing you're supposed to be doing, after all, is killing monsters. An RPG with a more simulationistic bent is *more likely* to let you buy magic items, on the grounds that it makes no sense for the powerful NPCs to have been able to buy or otherwise obtain the magic items from somewhere but *you* can only get them by fighting. (Any system where you can only get good stuff by fighting makes no sense. In real life, even if I want something very, very expensive, it will still usually be easier for me to get it by paying for it than by finding and killing the person who has it. The fact that MMORPGs' economy is based entirely on fighting is why it often appears distorted and stupid and has no resemblance to a real-life economy.) is it just that you want to argue with me whether we agree on a point or not? It's that you don't seem to understand when I disagree with you on a point. I disagree that buying magic items is "video-gamey", very strongly. (I also disagree that the only reason the D&D cartoon was for kids is that cartoons were for kids at the time, as opposed to D&D being for kids at the time.)
shadzar 07-27-07, 03:45 PM	The fact that WotC were, at one point in time, jerks about the intellectual property related to Magic: the Gathering doesn't mean that everything they've ever done is bad. For example, in direct contrast, the way they've handled the OGL so far has been the least-jerk-ass way any D&D rightsholder has dealt with the phenomenon of 3rd-party D&D products. and yet they are pulling al their outstanding licenses to avoid competition with their products. or to just prevent other people from profitting from their IP. dragonlance, hackmaster (AD&D use), ravenloft, dragon/dungeon magazines.....
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:46 PM	and when i used my 3.5 stone shape or whatever spell it was in combat to form a cone coming out of the cieling at the monster my DM had to figure out what kind of damage the amount of material being thrust at the enemy was going to cause if it hit and was not evaded while this monster was unable to move out of the way due to its size vs the size of the room and its location therein. my DM had to make up rules then where none existed. likewise it could happen for any spell in 3.x, or was that spell not ever supposed to be used as a mode of attack because it doesn't list damage in the spell description? what if i had used the spell to open a punji pit beneath the monster. again damage from falling, plus being impaled with the spikes. none of which is in the spells description. This is always possible with a player who insists on trying it. It's just way easier in 2e than 3e, because the descriptions are much vaguer and still contain a lot of exceptions and edge cases that 3e purposely tried to close.
Holy_Beholder 07-27-07, 03:46 PM	Falling damage 1d6 per 10 feet, reflex save like any other spell of that level. As for spikes check the spiked pit trap, or pick a weapon. In 2nd Ed you would have to make up more than that.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:47 PM	and yet they are pulling al their outstanding licenses to avoid competition with their products. or to just prevent other people from profitting from their IP. dragonlance, hackmaster (AD&D use), ravenloft, dragon/dungeon magazines..... Yes, what they're doing right now gives me cause for concern. Maybe WotC got cold feet and decided they should be as draconian as TSR was or they'll lose all their profits. Doesn't change the fact that *at some point* they made D&D as open as it's ever likely to be (and that all the stuff that was made under the OGL will, legally, have to stay OGL forever).
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:50 PM	no just one of the things i didn't like about the system. "damage reduction" is in part what the armor or armor class does. so it shouldnt need two numbers. a race with a DR should already have that adjusted into its armor class. I don't disagree. I think Unearthed Arcana's Armor-as-DR variant makes a great deal of sense. The main reason I don't use it is, in fact, that people are so used to the old AC values for armor that go all the way back to 1e that it'd be a pain to re-teach people. (Ah, legacy.) A person's ability to dodge or avoid attacks entirely should be treated as entirely separate from a person's ability to get hit by an attack but not suffer damage. Of course, the fault for rolling the two together into one thing lies with Gary Gygax way back at the beginning. if the DR is from some specific type of attack, then that is a throwback to the 5 types of saves from barious sources in other editions, but the 3 saves in 3.x doesn't cover them completely. so they added a generic save type that could stand for anything...aka save vs spells. You're defending the save system now? Save-vs-spells was the most obvious kludge in the world and frequently made little sense. Trying to remember all the damn saves and which ones applied when was even more annoying than juggling negative numbers. C'mon. At the *very least*, tell me you can admit that Fort, Reflex, Will makes more sense than the old system.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 03:51 PM	then why can't other card games use the term "tap" for when a card is turned sideways. because someone wanted the term for themselves only. some elitist group that thought they could profit by preventing other people from using the term and in turn preventing competition for their card game. who was that again? i guess i am just as elitist as they are huh? What? That has precisely two thing to do with what I posted: "****" and "all". stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Based on that nonsensical tirade I think you've been smoking quite enough for the both of us, thank you very much.
aotrscommander 07-27-07, 03:54 PM	that may very well be where the non-combat XP comes into play with AD&D. granted an optional rule, but useful when the group feels they are not getting anywhere, or can be left out if people prefer the slower advancement and more time "growing" their character up. I think that it; in BG1 you got paff-all XP for quests (which is the CRPG roleplaying - and to be honest BG, Torment, KotOR and NWN have most other CRPGs else beat in that regard in terms of interaction). In tabletop, we always seemed to level up slowly though (though probly 'quicker' than BG1!) (Incidently, I use the BGs as example, since I only ran one AD&D campaign in anger - though I played in quite a few - before 3.0 came out and I never looked back. Ironically, just after I'd got all the Complele [class] books too; a number of my AD&D splats never will see use, but what the hey...) In Rolemaster, you started at 10, 000 XP at level 1 and level 2 was 20k; it becomes +15K starting at level 5 and skips up every so often. By comparison, you got precious little XP from combat (like 1 XP per hit point inflicted and maybe a couple of hundred for a good crit), so in reality most of your XP comes from quests or roleplaying. I just gave up in the end (it wasn't even worth keeping track of RPG XP, criticals inflicted or given); as we play Rolemaster mainly on day games, I just add a set amount of XP (about 15K, given the party's current level) at the end of the day nowadays (which equates to about half to a level).
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 04:00 PM	and yet they are pulling al their outstanding licenses to avoid competition with their products. or to just prevent other people from profitting from their IP. Unless you are privy to insider WotC management decisions then you have no idea why they are not renewing - not "pulling" - these licenses. To claim otherwise is just talking out your ass. You clearly have a hate-on for the company that saved D&D. Why is that?
shadzar 07-27-07, 04:04 PM	Falling damage 1d6 per 10 feet, reflex save like any other spell of that level. As for spikes check the spiked pit trap, or pick a weapon. In 2nd Ed you would have to make up more than that. the point was that even for things that could be looked up (pole arm for spikes damage in 2e), the spell itself does not have damage listed for various modes of use that may cause damage. meaning the DM must make something up outside of the rules, or rule the spell can not be used to do damage sicne it doesn't have damage listed.
shadzar 07-27-07, 04:12 PM	Yes, what they're doing right now gives me cause for concern. Maybe WotC got cold feet and decided they should be as draconian as TSR was or they'll lose all their profits. Doesn't change the fact that *at some point* they made D&D as open as it's ever likely to be (and that all the stuff that was made under the OGL will, legally, have to stay OGL forever). and i don't like the 3.x editions that are covered in the OGL or the d20 system so it isnt really all that "open" now is it? if the OGL allowed for AD&D adventures to be written and ditributed with a price then i would be happy to use the OGL. which makes me question how goodman games is producing g1-3 i think it was or something from AD&D to come out later this year or next. maybe the OGL is gong to include AD&D and maybe those license were pulled so WotC could release the core books for AD&D and try to regain those "elitists" of use who don't like 3.x, want to play D&D rather than C&C, and like the core mechanics of AD&D or older editions. or the industry could be completely collapsing. sadly they wont ever tell any of these reasons, same as we dont know why K&C was allowed to use AD&D for 7 years, but i guess the end of that time was when WotC planned to pull the others as well but HAD to allow K&C to use AD&D so milked the other things for that time until they COULD return all the licenses home to either use themselves, or throw them into a vault for some lucky adventurers in the year 3010 to uncover as a treasure. :D this would mean no product says D&D unless WotC makes it giving them all the money. a prelude to 4th edition which may not be included in any OGL, so that the newest edition of D&D will be solely the property of WotC and of course WotC will stop publishing 3.x books making the OGL harder to use just like people wanting to play or convert player to AD&D2E find it hard to get books for their players unless they have them stored in boxes in mass quantities, or go searching eBay or other online or local used book stores to find them. only time will tell what this mystery resolves as.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 04:12 PM	the point was that even for things that could be looked up (pole arm for spikes damage in 2e), the spell itself does not have damage listed for various modes of use that may cause damage. meaning the DM must make something up outside of the rules, or rule the spell can not be used to do damage sicne it doesn't have damage listed. Which is part of the DM's job. What is your point? :confused:
ArcTan 07-27-07, 04:17 PM	the point was that even for things that could be looked up (pole arm for spikes damage in 2e), the spell itself does not have damage listed for various modes of use that may cause damage. meaning the DM must make something up outside of the rules, or rule the spell can not be used to do damage sicne it doesn't have damage listed. That always happens with open-ended magic. The only solution would be to make magic completely closed-ended, which would annoy a lot of people who like using it "creatively". The difference is, again, that you have to look up a lot more crap and make up a lot more crap in 2e.
shadzar 07-27-07, 04:17 PM	You're defending the save system now? Save-vs-spells was the most obvious kludge in the world and frequently made little sense. Trying to remember all the damn saves and which ones applied when was even more annoying than juggling negative numbers. C'mon. At the *very least*, tell me you can admit that Fort, Reflex, Will makes more sense than the old system. i like the 5 saves no more or less than the 3 saves as they were bred from 2e players options. i don't feel they properly convey the correct things with just 3 saves, but the 5 are a bit confusing to me as to why petrification/polymorh has something different than spells or breath weapons, when those two could be the effects of a spell or breath weapon. i have yet to find a save system other than DM roll a d20 and player roll a d20 and the one with the highest number wins to see if whomever was trying to save did save or not. but that still isn't all that fun. but a heck of a lot more sense than any other save system i have seen. i do know the 5 saves by heart however from my DM screen for each class and each level. sad isn't it. :(
ArcTan 07-27-07, 04:21 PM	i have yet to find a save system other than DM roll a d20 and player roll a d20 and the one with the highest number wins to see if whomever was trying to save did save or not. ...In other words, everyone has exactly a 50% chance to save against anything, no matter how powerful you are, no matter how powerful the thing you're saving against is, and no matter what *kind* of power you have vs. the kind of power the other guy has. Yeah, that sounds satisfying and fun, and makes total sense. (A 1st-level Commoner has the exact same chance to avoid being petrified as a 20th-level Wizard! Awesome!)
shadzar 07-27-07, 04:27 PM	Unless you are privy to insider WotC management decisions then you have no idea why they are not renewing - not "pulling" - these licenses. To claim otherwise is just talking out your ass. You clearly have a hate-on for the company that saved D&D. Why is that? well if my opinions come out of my ass then so do yours. oddly the "company that saved D&D" as you call it no longer exists. richard garfields WotC was gone prior to the Hasbro take over. i have no doubt that Hasbro does have say in what WotC produces. and i am sure the stockholders worry about the christians, purists, Nancy Grace's, whomever dstill feels that D&D is a game for cultists or whatever that they would have an organization attack Hasbro for it, not only WotC. on a side note i think it would be rather interesting to play D&D with these people who think it is for cultists, ans satanists, etc; because i feel their imaginations are far beyond my own abilities to make things up. but they would probably be hack'n'slash players since they like to attack things. :evillaugh
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 04:30 PM	well if my opinions come out of my ass then so do yours. "they are pulling al their outstanding licenses to avoid competition with their products. or to just prevent other people from profitting from their IP" The words "they are" indicate you are stating it as fact, not opinion.
shadzar 07-27-07, 04:32 PM	Which is part of the DM's job. What is your point? :confused: Falling damage 1d6 per 10 feet, reflex save like any other spell of that level. As for spikes check the spiked pit trap, or pick a weapon. In 2nd Ed you would have to make up more than that. editions dont matter with how much a DM has to make up on the spot was my point. falling damage reflex save spike damage falling damage dex check spike damage looks like the same number of things to do for a pit trap created from a stone shape spell, no more for 2nd than for 3.x
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 04:37 PM	editions dont matter with how much a DM has to make up on the spot was my point. Then you point is wrong. Editions do matter as to how much the DM has to make up on the spot, but no edition precludes him having to do so. The flipside is that an edition with more comprehensive rules that do not require the DM to make up as much on the spot can potentially lead to more time looking for an extant rule. However, 3e is overall much better organized so finding said rule is generally much faster and easier than in previous editions. These are the reasons why I maintain one of the greatest skills for any DM, regardless of preferred system of edition, is to know when to say "sod the rules" and just go with it. Remember: when in doubt, everything has a 50% chance.
protonik 07-27-07, 04:39 PM	ITYM 3.5 is something that should have simply come out as 3e. The fact that WotC put out a fatally flawed game system isn't good. However, the fact that they were willing to step up and fix it despite the major inconvenience it would mean for them *and* their customers is a good thing, at least compared to the alternative (still having to put up with 3.0 haste). I am sorry but NOTHING was fatally flawed in 3e. 3e was perfectly fine and played just fine. There are not enough significant changes in 3.5 to ever justify the idea that 3e was fatally flawed. Heck, most of the changes in 3.5 were unnecessary like nerfing the buff spells, the myriad polymorphs (anybody else remember when it was the DM's job to actually, y'know, adjudicate things in D&D) etc. About the only thing I can think of that needed a change was the weakness of the Ranger class and the Sorceror. Everything else worked just fine.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 04:46 PM	I am sorry but NOTHING was fatally flawed in 3e. 3e was perfectly fine and played just fine. There are not enough significant changes in 3.5 to ever justify the idea that 3e was fatally flawed. Heck, most of the changes in 3.5 were unnecessary like nerfing the buff spells, the myriad polymorphs (anybody else remember when it was the DM's job to actually, y'know, adjudicate things in D&D) etc. About the only thing I can think of that needed a change was the weakness of the Ranger class and the Sorceror. Everything else worked just fine. ...Haste was fine? Empowering bull's strength was fine?
ArcTan 07-27-07, 04:48 PM	well if my opinions come out of my ass then so do yours. oddly the "company that saved D&D" as you call it no longer exists. richard garfields WotC was gone prior to the Hasbro take over. Please. The majority of the people who helped make 3.0 were still around when they made 3.5. Acting as though Hasbro was the Devil That Changed Everything is a blatant distortion of the facts.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-27-07, 05:00 PM	...Haste was fine? Empowering bull's strength was fine? Some flaws ≠ fatal flaws. Please. The majority of the people who helped make 3.0 were still around when they made 3.5. Acting as though Hasbro was the Devil That Changed Everything is bull**** Fixed it for ya. ;)
shadzar 07-27-07, 05:30 PM	However, 3e is overall much better organized so finding said rule is generally much faster and easier than in previous editions. i sat both my books out and starting looking for things in them. it was easier to look things up in my 2E book than 3.5 PHB. maybe the fact things don't wrap around pictures that don't belong in the middle of text unless your reading a kids book that needs a picture per page... maybe because 3.5 isnt that much better organized that the atrocious 1e AD&D books compelte lack of organization. maybe there is just too much pointless crap to sift through to find what you are looking for.
Solik 07-27-07, 05:58 PM	Just want to throw this out there. "DR" is a replacement for "immunity." Consider a werewolf, which, according to stories, can only be harmed by silver weapons (and in D&D, the addition of magical weapons). Okay, fine. The werewolf creature is immune to damage except for that from silver or magical weapons. But wait... what if said werewolf is exposed to something that would deal massive amounts of damage to other creatures? Say, for instance, that a building falls on top of it, or a titan steps on it, or a nonmagical ballista bolt slams it (siege weapon through the heart...). Yes, one choice would be to say that the werewolf is immune to all those things, and when the smoke clears, it is completely unharmed. For 3rd edition, it was decided that this isn't the desired flavor. These creatures shouldn't be completely immune to these other types of damage, but it should take massive amounts of it before they start to feel anything. Enter DR. DR makes it very difficult to harm creatures with the incorrect types of attacks, and indeed, low-level warriors and commoners often don't stand a chance of doing damage. This preserves the lore while adding some common sense. It also promotes playability -- in most cases, players aren't totally boned if they happen not to have the correct weapon available to them. They're in for a tougher time, but it's not impossible. But couldn't these things still just be added to AC, so that it's really really hard to hit those creatures with the wrong weapons? Not really. Consider a monster with DR that's been hit by hold monster. A PC then uses a coup-de-grace on it. Using the AC mechanism, monster takes full damage from the attack. This, of course, is just one example out of many where AC just doesn't really work well to simulate full or partial immunities. AC is good for exoskeletons, tough skin, and the like, and you'll find that it's really used for this (natural armor bonuses). DR is used primarily for "immunities" when blanket immunities don't actually make a whole lot of sense.
aotrscommander 07-27-07, 06:29 PM	i sat both my books out and starting looking for things in them. it was easier to look things up in my 2E book than 3.5 PHB. maybe the fact things don't wrap around pictures that don't belong in the middle of text unless your reading a kids book that needs a picture per page... maybe because 3.5 isnt that much better organized that the atrocious 1e AD&D books compelte lack of organization. maybe there is just too much pointless crap to sift through to find what you are looking for. Out of curiousity, did you use the index? 3.5 (core only, admittedly) is one of the better indexed rules. Heck, they even have a glossary which is damn useful.
shadzar 07-27-07, 07:16 PM	Out of curiousity, did you use the index? 3.5 (core only, admittedly) is one of the better indexed rules. Heck, they even have a glossary which is damn useful. sadly i can't read the writing on those pages such as the indeces and the first page of every chapter. the color choices for the words and background make it too painful to try to read with my eyesight. :( oh and 2nd has a glossary also BTW.
Stormonu 07-27-07, 07:45 PM	I only find the 3.5 DMG confusing in trying to find things. I don't like its organization. I don't have any problem with the 3.5 PHB. Course, I tend to use my electronic SRD a lot and I can find things in a jiffy in it. 2E, I memorized all the important pages where I'd need to find stuff. 3.5, I generally know what chapter I'm look for, but not the exact page of stuff.
aotrscommander 07-27-07, 07:55 PM	sadly i can't read the writing on those pages such as the indeces and the first page of every chapter. the color choices for the words and background make it too painful to try to read with my eyesight. :( oh and 2nd has a glossary also BTW. I wasn't being facetious. I'm just surprised, given how I never struggled finding the rules in 3.5, thanks to the index. I never found AD&D index/glossary quite as useful. Still unlike certain other systems (Warhammer, looking at you) it had an index. Mind you, once you learn to navigate Rolemaster's twenty-odd books (most of which don't have an index!) 3.5 was kind of bobbins by comparison!
shadzar 07-27-07, 08:01 PM	I wasn't being facetious. I'm just surprised, given how I never struggled finding the rules in 3.5. I never found AD&D index/glossary quite as useful. Still unlike certain other systems (Warhammer, looking at you) it had an index. Mind you, once you learn to navigate Rolemaster's twenty-odd books (most of which don't have an index!) 3.5 was kind of bobbins by comparison! ok a new british slang term for me to learn here....bobbins? things you put thread on to put into a sewing machine, ro a spindle used to wind yarn on in the textile plants? oh i don't even want to tell you how i was yelled at for saying a girl sat on her "fanny" all day somewhere i worked. only to find out the fanny moves from the back to the front apparently when you travel across the ocean. :eek: yeah.... so what does bobbins mean?
High Octane 07-27-07, 08:11 PM	Deleted, misread.
aotrscommander 07-27-07, 08:12 PM	ok a new british slang term for me to learn here....bobbins? things you put thread on to put into a sewing machine, ro a spindle used to wind yarn on in the textile plants? Um...yeah, sort of that. In that context, meaning 'very little to nothing'. No idea where it came from. Heck, it's entirely possible I just started using it randomly at some point, but I probably picked it up somewhere...I make up and pick up all sorts of linguistic crap, you know. I mean, my latest exclamation is 'crapsicles'. No, I don't have any clue how I came up with that... oh i don't even want to tell you how i was yelled at for saying a girl sat on her "fanny" all day somewhere i worked. only to find out the fanny moves from the back to the front apparently when you travel across the ocean. :eek: Well, you try making a perfectly sensible to borrow someone's rubber at the gaming table in America or call something 'cheap'...(My Dad did the latter once, whereuon he was told in a frosty tone "you mean 'inexpensive.'") Not to mention the amount of times we British cripple ourselves laughing when someone says 'bugger' on American children's television (or 'wanker' in Buffy). Sometimes I think some people across the pond have no idea what those words mean...
ArcTan 07-27-07, 08:14 PM	Well, you try making a perfectly sensible to borrow someone's rubber at the gaming table in America or call something 'cheap'...(My Dad did the latter once, whereuon he was told in a frosty tone "you mean 'inexpensive.'") Not to mention the amount of times we British cripple ourselves laughing when someone says 'bugger' on American children's television (or 'wanker' in Buffy). Sometimes I think some people across the pond have no idea what those words mean... We know what they mean, when we use them. We use them because they're foreign, so that the old folks watching won't know what we mean. It's like the Chinese swear words on Firefly.
aotrscommander 07-27-07, 08:15 PM	We know what they mean, when we use them. We use them because they're foreign, so that the old folks watching won't know what we mean. It's like the Chinese swear words on Firefly. Or 'smeg' on Red Dwarf... Seriously though, I once heard 'bugger' used on Dexter's Laboratory! I swear that somebody somewhere along the line must not have known what it meant! Crap, I'm derailing the thread again, aren't I? You have to watch me, you know, when it gets close to time for me to meditate to regain my spells, I start spouting all sorts of crap. Not at all like the crap I spout at all other times...
High Octane 07-27-07, 08:21 PM	Or 'smeg' on Red Dwarf... Or "Frell" on Farscape
shadzar 07-27-07, 08:31 PM	Well, you try making a perfectly sensible to borrow someone's rubber at the gaming table in America or call something 'cheap'...(My Dad did the latter once, whereuon he was told in a frosty tone "you mean 'inexpensive.'") Not to mention the amount of times we British cripple ourselves laughing when someone says 'bugger' on American children's television (or 'wanker' in Buffy). Sometimes I think some people across the pond have no idea what those words mean... yeah asking to borrow a rubber at a gaming table might halt the entire game where i live. but most of the erasers are on the pencil and not easily removed either. ;) actually i find most things that are inexpensive are pretty cheap, and crappy too. bugger i can't recall right now, but wanker meant exactly what you thought it meant in Buffy. oh wait... bugger off....i think i know what it mean now. my biggest problem is biscuits. i would be afraid to go across the pond and order biscuits and gravy, or a sausage biscuit...oops i mean a banger biscuit maybe?? anyway i don't want no cookie with gravy or sausage! :yuck: but i do like some crisps while watching TV and yes at McDonalds i do want chips with that. ;) (unless i just screwed up the last one i think i know what i just said)
Frugal 07-27-07, 08:52 PM	editions dont matter with how much a DM has to make up on the spot was my point. looks like the same number of things to do for a pit trap created from a stone shape spell, no more for 2nd than for 3.x Again, your lack of knowledge of 3.x rules betrays you. Falling damage is described in the 3.x rules, as is what the reflex check to avoid falling should be, and you're then taking something else in the rules (a spiked trap) and applying it to the situation, so 2 things that are given in the rules and 1 case of applying the rules for something that's almost completely analogous to the situation. I don't know 2ed rules well enough to know how well they were detailed in there.
Frugal 07-27-07, 08:54 PM	Out of curiousity, did you use the index? 3.5 (core only, admittedly) is one of the better indexed rules. Heck, they even have a glossary which is damn useful. I always found the indexes for them really useless. I'm still getting used to being able to find the rules I'm looking for in the GURPS indexes (as in, I check the index still expecting to not find anything useful, as in D&D, and am shocked to find exactly what I'm looking for).
ArcTan 07-27-07, 08:59 PM	Or "Frell" on Farscape ...The difference being that "frell" is entirely made up, while "smeg" is a real word for a real bodily secretion.
Solaris 07-28-07, 12:26 AM	...The difference being that "frell" is entirely made up, while "smeg" is based on a real word for a real bodily secretion. Fixed that for ya. The writers have always maintained that they invented that word, and were unaware of the real word, but I don't think anyone believes them.
DrowBattlemind 07-28-07, 01:58 AM	yeah asking to borrow a rubber at a gaming table might halt the entire game where i live. but most of the erasers are on the pencil and not easily removed either. ;) actually i find most things that are inexpensive are pretty cheap, and crappy too. bugger i can't recall right now, but wanker meant exactly what you thought it meant in Buffy. oh wait... bugger off....i think i know what it mean now. Or the good ol' favorite, "Get bent", another variation on "bugger off" (or "Bugger this!") To quote Spike (and my Welsh nana Christine would blanche at hearing me say any of this) : "Sodding, knickers, bugger... oh god, I'm British too!" (To which Giles added "Welcome to the 'Nancy' tribe.")
Neutronium_Dragon 07-28-07, 02:35 AM	> ...The difference being that "frell" is entirely made up, while "smeg" is a real > word for a real bodily secretion. It actually isn't. "smegma" is, but "smeg" by itself is meaningless - it's just similar enough to sound dirty (which is why they used it).
Araciel 07-28-07, 02:40 AM	Good gods. My brother-in-law wants to revert to AD&D 2E when we start the next campaign. Though I'm starved for D&D I will never take a step back to that ruleset. 3E seems so much more intuitive to me now, and we don't use a lot of splatbooks or even PrCs, so really we keep it pretty simple as it is anyway. If it comes down to it, I'm going to take charge and make it my game so I can have my 3.0/3.5.
ArcTan 07-28-07, 02:15 PM	> ...The difference being that "frell" is entirely made up, while "smeg" is a real > word for a real bodily secretion. It actually isn't. "smegma" is, but "smeg" by itself is meaningless - it's just similar enough to sound dirty (which is why they used it). ...No. "Smeg" as a slang term, short for "smegma", was in regular use (if obscure) long before it ever appeared on Red Dwarf. It's just an example of people who are up on their obscure dirty slang pulling one over on people who aren't (like the Daily Show segment about "taint").
shadzar 07-28-07, 03:58 PM	Again, your lack of knowledge of 3.x rules betrays you. Falling damage is described in the 3.x rules, as is what the reflex check to avoid falling should be, and you're then taking something else in the rules (a spiked trap) and applying it to the situation, so 2 things that are given in the rules and 1 case of applying the rules for something that's almost completely analogous to the situation. I don't know 2ed rules well enough to know how well they were detailed in there. either way 3=3. falling, reflex/dex check, and the damage from the spikes in the trap no matter what edition. please put the crack pipe down first next time. 3 things to determine what happens in either edition means there is NOT more in 2nd to figure out, nor less in 3rd to figure out.
aotrscommander 07-28-07, 05:25 PM	Or the good ol' favorite, "Get bent", another variation on "bugger off" (or "Bugger this!") To quote Spike (and my Welsh nana Christine would blanche at hearing me say any of this) : "Sodding, knickers, bugger... oh god, I'm British too!" (To which Giles added "Welcome to the 'Nancy' tribe.") Buffy rocked... [Further derail]My good friend has forever altered Turning when he last played a Cleric: Cleric: I turn the skeletons. *raises hand in turning motion* [gregorian chant]Geeeet beent![/gregorian chant] Sadly, the medium of text cannot accuractly depict his exact tone, but the monks in Monty Python were of a close tone. The game stopped for several minutes while we recovered.[/Further derail]
Holy_Beholder 07-28-07, 06:11 PM	either way 3=3. falling, reflex/dex check, and the damage from the spikes in the trap no matter what edition. please put the crack pipe down first next time. 3 things to determine what happens in either edition means there is NOT more in 2nd to figure out, nor less in 3rd to figure out. Yes, but falling damage is always the same, the save is predetermined by level, and spikes in the trap almost always do d6. Also what do you mean reflex/dex check in either edition, in 2nd none of the saves fit very well into it, and a dex check doesn't fit because it isn't a save.
shadzar 07-28-07, 06:26 PM	Yes, but falling damage is always the same, the save is predetermined by level, and spikes in the trap almost always do d6. Also what do you mean reflex/dex check in either edition, in 2nd none of the saves fit very well into it, and a dex check doesn't fit because it isn't a save. if i am correct the reflex save is based on the dexterity. dexterity is how nibmle the character is. in order to find out IF you fall in the pit or avoid it completely woudl require a Dex check in 2nd. i asume falling and such in 3.x requires a Reflex save or dex check since it involves the same physics and natural concept. ie if you have the reflexes enough to catch yourself when you first start to fall, or actualy hit the ground or whatever is under you when you start to fall. first check to see if said things falls. then check to see if you can prevent any damage from the spikes in time. then take falling damage from hitting the ground if you lived through the spikes.
Frugal 07-28-07, 09:54 PM	either way 3=3. falling, reflex/dex check, and the damage from the spikes in the trap no matter what edition. please put the crack pipe down first next time. 3 things to determine what happens in either edition means there is NOT more in 2nd to figure out, nor less in 3rd to figure out. No, 2 are clearly defined in the rules for 3.x, and the only "stretch" is saying, "oh, we'll make this like a spiked trap" for working out damage. Now I'll admit that my knowledge of 2ed is as woeful as yours of 3.x so I'm asking: Is there a defined set of rules for falling damage in 2ed? Is there a defined set of rules for making a roll to prevent yourself from falling? Is there an analogous rule you can use for the spikes damage? Or, to one-up 3.x, does the spell description include mechanics for this usage? The question is not how many things need to be determined, clearly that's the same, the question is how many of them are already given in the book vs. how many does the DM have to make up on the spot?
Holy_Beholder 07-28-07, 10:46 PM	if i am correct the reflex save is based on the dexterity. dexterity is how nibmle the character is. in order to find out IF you fall in the pit or avoid it completely woudl require a Dex check in 2nd. i asume falling and such in 3.x requires a Reflex save or dex check since it involves the same physics and natural concept. ie if you have the reflexes enough to catch yourself when you first start to fall, or actualy hit the ground or whatever is under you when you start to fall. first check to see if said things falls. then check to see if you can prevent any damage from the spikes in time. then take falling damage from hitting the ground if you lived through the spikes. Save is based on level, which makes a big difference. Also, have you ever played 3.5, you don't seem to know the mechanics very well. For instance, you said in another thread that you didn't know what CR was(then went around and called it stupid)
tuffn00gies 07-29-07, 12:25 AM	ok a new british slang term for me to learn here....bobbins? While you're at it, would you mind learning the rules of capitalization?
shadzar 07-29-07, 09:11 AM	Is there a defined set of rules for falling damage in 2ed? Is there a defined set of rules for making a roll to prevent yourself from falling? Is there an analogous rule you can use for the spikes damage? Or, to one-up 3.x, does the spell description include mechanics for this usage? The question is not how many things need to be determined, clearly that's the same, the question is how many of them are already given in the book vs. how many does the DM have to make up on the spot? yes falling damage does have gudelines (see my signature) as well as a dex check for ANYTHING that would "unbalance" your character so to speak. simply roll a d20 and anything <= to your Dex score means you pass the check and dont lose your balance or fall whatever. no the spell does not include damage in either priest or wizard versions but does illustrate that you could create for example a stone hammer or ther weapon fashion out of the stone, ie spikes at the bottom of the pit. therefore the DM for both edition would be required to check the falling damage, and create a damage matrix for the stone shape spell, basically like i said chekcing a pole arm or whatever type weapon fits the way the spikes are fashioned. and these are done if the character fails to remain stable and does fall into the pit of spikes no matter which edition. so falling damage (which i wont list), and the reflex/dex checks are simliar in they have "rules" and the DM in both editions is required to assign a damge value fromt he spikes in the running example of the pit trap. holy_b: no i don't fully know 3.5, and as i have stated before don't care to. i do not like the system in the least little bit. and any system that tells a DM what monster to place where is flawed. i can have a grop of kobolds for my level one PCs to fight, and just over the next hill is a group of hill giants that they would not even closely be able to win against. that just happens to be a time when the party should back away and not try to fight something they are clearly unable to go up against. the system shouldn't exist to prevent player stupidty. stupid players that try to fight something they can't win against deserve the forthcoming TPK. tuffn00gies: you don't like the way i type than i have but one thing to say to you, TOUGH NOOGIES! :cool: i know the rules of capitalization, but am also not writing a term paper in school, nor am i writing a novel or some other material to be published. i am typing on a forum where should i chose i could go back and edit anything i want. i am, unlike many people; limiting my abbreviations so that people who don't have a glossary of terms used on the forums at hand will better be able to know what i am talking about, and the abbreviations i do use seem to be common to all editions of D&D so mentioning Dex shouldn't be too confusing for osme people. you are free however to quote my posts and add "proper capitalization" to the and then click preview if it is so hard for you to read in all lower case letters. or you could just realize that forums such as these are an informal, well the best word is...forum for ideas to be shared. do you speak with proper capitalization? probably not and oddly i bet people still understand what you are saying. or if so inclined you can dig up e e cummings and gripe at him for hardly ever capitalizating his name. it just happens to be a choice in writing style, and i get REALLY sick of people who want to be english teachers in grade school. whle you are at it don't forget to go through every post on every forum on the internet and correct each misspelled word and fix the grammar for those post made by people with english as a primary language and also those with english not as their primary language that do not know any better or just struggle with the language in order to communicate with people in their own language on sites like this that dont really have a section for people that don't use english as their primary language. :rant: :banghead:
Optimator 07-29-07, 09:20 AM	Based on that nonsensical tirade I think you've been smoking quite enough for the both of us, thank you very much. Buuuurn! Wait, that was a pun too...
Frugal 07-29-07, 10:09 AM	holy_b: no i don't fully know 3.5, and as i have stated before don't care to. i do not like the system in the least little bit. and any system that tells a DM what monster to place where is flawed. i can have a grop of kobolds for my level one PCs to fight, and just over the next hill is a group of hill giants that they would not even closely be able to win against. that just happens to be a time when the party should back away and not try to fight something they are clearly unable to go up against. the system shouldn't exist to prevent player stupidty. stupid players that try to fight something they can't win against deserve the forthcoming TPK. It doesn't tell you where to place monsters, it tells you how to gauge how difficult the encounter will be. If you want to create situations that you know the PCs will have to run from that's fine, nowhere do the rules suggest otherwise (in fact they even suggest that there be a mixture of difficulty levels). What this does is help the DM know when something is appropriate and when something is going to be a TPK, if not avoided (or dealt with in a non-combat way). This is a great aid to DMing since it allows you to plan accordingly, so there's far less chance of accidentally placing something that was too powerful and not giving the players a way out. Or, avoiding the situation where you create what should be a dramatic encounter only to find out that the creatures involved were too weak and it was a total cake walk. Now I'm the first to admit that the Challenge Rating and Encounter Level system isn't perfect, and breaks down in a number of ways, but it's still nice to have some rough guidelines for what's going to be a reasonable challenge and what isn't.
shadzar 07-29-07, 10:21 AM	It doesn't tell you where to place monsters, it tells you how to gauge how difficult the encounter will be. If you want to create situations that you know the PCs will have to run from that's fine, nowhere do the rules suggest otherwise (in fact they even suggest that there be a mixture of difficulty levels). What this does is help the DM know when something is appropriate and when something is going to be a TPK, if not avoided (or dealt with in a non-combat way). This is a great aid to DMing since it allows you to plan accordingly, so there's far less chance of accidentally placing something that was too powerful and not giving the players a way out. Or, avoiding the situation where you create what should be a dramatic encounter only to find out that the creatures involved were too weak and it was a total cake walk. Now I'm the first to admit that the Challenge Rating and Encounter Level system isn't perfect, and breaks down in a number of ways, but it's still nice to have some rough guidelines for what's going to be a reasonable challenge and what isn't. oddly as a DM i check each encounter vs the PCs myself. i don't rely on the books to tell me is an encounter is to tough. i actually check the average damage per round each creature can do the the party and vice versa. then see how many rounds the party can survive, if played tactifully, without losing all party members based on monster and PC hitpoints. then i pit it close to a near death battle that the players should win unless some stragne dice rolls come about that corrupt the intended outcome of a near death experience. with or without this CR i think a DM should still do it, because the writers of the books have no idea how each individual player will react in a given situation unless they planned on people powergaming, metagaming, or minmaxing their characters. and the most challenging things about creating appropriate encounters for the party is how magic user uses his spells or which ones he has, look at the stone shape thing for example.... a pit that drops the single monster equal to the party ECL and CR however they are meant to be compard...the point is this monster that should be a good match for the party as a whole could easily be deafeted by a magic user being imaginative with his spells. frustrating as it is to have a battle go that way, but make me glad the players think of new ways to do things. and it tells me that the next fight must take into consideration my players are thinking outside of the box and to strengthen the enconter by adding stronger creatures or more weaker ones that would prevent a single creature from being circumvented so easily. does this CR really take into account things like rock to mud, then mud to rock to incapacitate monsters during an encouter? or is it soely based on raw strength and fighting to defeat the monster via death being the only winning condition to success?
tuffn00gies 07-29-07, 10:23 AM	tuffn00gies: you don't like the way i type than i have but one thing to say to you, TOUGH NOOGIES! :cool: i know the rules of capitalization, but am also not writing a term paper in school, nor am i writing a novel or some other material to be published. i am typing on a forum where should i chose i could go back and edit anything i want. i am, unlike many people; limiting my abbreviations so that people who don't have a glossary of terms used on the forums at hand will better be able to know what i am talking about, and the abbreviations i do use seem to be common to all editions of D&D so mentioning Dex shouldn't be too confusing for osme people. you are free however to quote my posts and add "proper capitalization" to the and then click preview if it is so hard for you to read in all lower case letters. or you could just realize that forums such as these are an informal, well the best word is...forum for ideas to be shared. do you speak with proper capitalization? probably not and oddly i bet people still understand what you are saying. or if so inclined you can dig up e e cummings and gripe at him for hardly ever capitalizating his name. it just happens to be a choice in writing style, and i get REALLY sick of people who want to be english teachers in grade school. whle you are at it don't forget to go through every post on every forum on the internet and correct each misspelled word and fix the grammar for those post made by people with english as a primary language and also those with english not as their primary language that do not know any better or just struggle with the language in order to communicate with people in their own language on sites like this that dont really have a section for people that don't use english as their primary language. :rant: :banghead: Fair enough. I guess you feel the same about hitting the Shift key as the rest of us feel about using THAC0 instead of BAB. It's not really too hard, just hard enough you don't feel like doing it, eh? No. You're not writing a term paper or anything else rather important, but it would lend your position more credibility if you could address your points proper English. Refusing to use capitals correctly reinforces the notion that you don't know what you're talking about. After all, if you can't be shown to have mastered those simple rules, who are you to be lecturing the rest of us on the differences between two complex role-playing game systems? Furthermore, since English is your primary language I think it's fair to expect you to use it correctly. Otherwise, allowances would be made.
shadzar 07-29-07, 10:36 AM	Fair enough. I guess you feel the same about hitting the Shift key as the rest of us feel about using THAC0 instead of BAB. It's not really too hard, just hard enough you don't feel like doing it, eh? No. You're not writing a term paper or anything else rather important, but it would lend your position more credibility if you could address your points proper English. Refusing to use capitals correctly reinforces the notion that you don't know what you're talking about. After all, if you can't be shown to have mastered those simple rules, who are you to be lecturing the rest of us on the differences between two complex role-playing game systems? Furthermore, since English is your primary language I think it's fair to expect you to use it correctly. Otherwise, allowances would be made. oh i am sorry, but "English" is not my primary language. i dont like on a large island off the coast of Europe. i happen to live in America, North to be more precise, and the United States thereof if you want to pinpoint it more respectively on a map. therefore i speak American. whatever joking about terms i may have made in whatever thread about bangers, fannies, bugger, and wankers, i just happen to know those terms and they are not part of MY native language. again if you are incapable of reading a post due to your case sensetive nature then feel free to go along correcting each one. the fact that i choose not to hit the shift key that often is for my own reasons and of no concern of yours, nor does it invalidate any of my thoughts or opinions. if you have something to dispute pertaining to the subject of this thread rather than harrassing someone over your reading hang-ups then please continue and present your case about the actual ropic of this thread, other wise i will not be responding to any further of your inadequacies to be civil and your preference to troll people, which if you didn't know your first post about the use of capitalization was nothing other than trolling. so i have my acid and fire next to me now to be rid of you. ;)
Roxlimn 07-29-07, 10:56 AM	shadzar: I think that what you don't like, isn't actually 3.5e, but what you THINK 3.5e is, but actually is rather far from it. Indeed, I'm now highly of the opinion that you don't know enough about the 3rd edition of D&D to even have a credible opinion of it, even accounting for taste. D&D doesn't tell you where to place monsters. IN FACT, D&D material highly suggests that you playtest all encounters for maximum predictability, allowing only that the CR estimate is a rough guideline to a monster's power, rather like HD was in 2e, only slightly better. 3e D&D combat doesn't take that long, and really isn't all that more complicated than 2e combat is. Seriously. I've played and DM'd in both, so I know how it is. If you compare statblocks between the editions, the differences are small. 3e D&D does NOT propose, nor has EVER proposed that magic shops exist in the default campaign assumptions. In fact, D&D books go through the rather tedious process of explaining to players and DMs that "buying" things off the charts is just an abstraction of something that's not all that exciting for everyone. IF you want to spend entire sessions experimenting with magical weapons or making a wand of lightning (which isn't more powerful in 2e anyway), then you CAN do it that way in 3e. So you may not like something, but whatever that something is has such little resemblance to 3e that you're only revealing your prejudices and lack of knowledge by saying so. PS. Is "American" even a language? Don't Americans speak English? I had thought that dictionaries and encyclopedias were accurate about that sort of thing...
Anaxander 07-29-07, 11:18 AM	PS. Is "American" even a language? It's a different edition :rolleyes:
shadzar 07-29-07, 11:53 AM	shadzar: I think that what you don't like, isn't actually 3.5e, but what you THINK 3.5e is, but actually is rather far from it. Indeed, I'm now highly of the opinion that you don't know enough about the 3rd edition of D&D to even have a credible opinion of it, even accounting for taste. D&D doesn't tell you where to place monsters. IN FACT, D&D material highly suggests that you playtest all encounters for maximum predictability, allowing only that the CR estimate is a rough guideline to a monster's power, rather like HD was in 2e, only slightly better. 3e D&D combat doesn't take that long, and really isn't all that more complicated than 2e combat is. Seriously. I've played and DM'd in both, so I know how it is. If you compare statblocks between the editions, the differences are small. 3e D&D does NOT propose, nor has EVER proposed that magic shops exist in the default campaign assumptions. In fact, D&D books go through the rather tedious process of explaining to players and DMs that "buying" things off the charts is just an abstraction of something that's not all that exciting for everyone. IF you want to spend entire sessions experimenting with magical weapons or making a wand of lightning (which isn't more powerful in 2e anyway), then you CAN do it that way in 3e. So you may not like something, but whatever that something is has such little resemblance to 3e that you're only revealing your prejudices and lack of knowledge by saying so. PS. Is "American" even a language? Don't Americans speak English? I had thought that dictionaries and encyclopedias were accurate about that sort of thing... i have played, and what i played was less enjoyable than 2E. the hoops you hap to leap through to do anything, the players with increased levels in rules lawyering, etc. and i have played 3.x under 4 different DMs that each run it different ways in 5 different games. as i told the first DM at 2006 D&D games day, i didn't quite care for half the new mechanics or they way they resolved and he invited me to his game which i cannot afford to travel to on any regular basis. the second was one of only 2 people i ever played in games for that i felt was a DM worthy of any style of gaming. and he forced through the things quick enough to keep me from really noticing any game mechanics outside of character creation type things since it was a pregened character that only needed to worry about the spells. still i dont like the potential of the ever climbing numebrs that makes things always out of reach of people with the mountain of modifiers for AC that can easily escape the potential to hit. the other DM in effectively two one shots since the long running game i couldnt play a few sessions after the first seeing i wasnt allowed into the city and was bluntly told there would be no way for me to enter it to continue with the party while inside, also did a pretty good job at running the game, but just the mechanics itself didn't feel right. the final was his first time Dming ever so i place some fault on being new and fearful, but those happen to every new DM. in all cases the DMs new and explained things quite well, however it just didn't suit my taste in any event. as i have stated somewhere before on these forums i would be happy to play ANY edition so long as the mechanics were handled by the DM and just left to make my choices and roll whatever dice i am told to roll for whatevr reason at the time, only keeping track of the few things i would need such as items, max/current HP, etc. you mistake not knowing the entire system forward and back, for not ever using or knowing anything about it. i can use a plastic restaurant knife to carve a pumpkin if i wanted, it doesn't mean it is my prefered tool for doing the job.
shadzar 07-29-07, 11:56 AM	It's a different edition :rolleyes: if you want to play silly-buggers about it all i have actually seen and held in my hands volume of an ebonics encyclopedia. not one on ebonics, but one written IN ebonics and the thing was actually marketed and sold.
Witch 07-29-07, 11:58 AM	Shadzar, you speak English. That's what Americans speak, regardless of silly comments. You should know that generally, you'll be taken more seriously if you actually use proper capitalisation and punctuation on a message board. There's no need to type like you're in a rush. It's far easier for people to read something that doesn't hurt their eyes.
Roxlimn 07-29-07, 12:14 PM	shadzar: That is a more considered response. Please try to avoid commenting on things you do not fully understand because it makes you appear uninformed, such as the unfortunate magic item shop incident. It also increases friction between posters and side topic commentary (such as this one) which detracts from the real discussion. You COULD say, "In my last 3e game, the DM instituted a Magic Shop economy and I didn't care for it," which would be great, since it's a nonfactual statement of dislike. That is something which leaves your credibility solid. Anyways... i have played, and what i played was less enjoyable than 2E. the hoops you hap to leap through to do anything, the players with increased levels in rules lawyering, etc. and i have played 3.x under 4 different DMs that each run it different ways in 5 different games. Every DM I've ever played under plays the game differently. This is not dependent on edition. In fact, 2e games varied more widely than 3e games tend to do, because a lot more of the rules were left to outright DM fabrication, not to mention that there were tons of contradictory rulings within the books themselves. I'm sure you know of them. I confess that I'm not familiar with these "hoops" that you have to jump through to do anything. We found 3e much more streamlined because the amount of hoop-jumping was reduced. Perhaps you can enlighten us on the "hoops" you've encountered. Aside from addition, of course. I can't help there. still i don't like the potential of the ever climbing numbers that makes things always out of reach of people with the mountain of modifiers for AC that can easily escape the potential to hit. Technically speaking, that is also possible in 2e. In fact, I HAVE made a 2e Paladin who was virtually invulnerable. It took a heck of a lot of magic items, but since there were no guidelines anyway... In truth, getting your AC up to the point where it takes level appropriate melee brutes only a 20 to hit you (and a 20 always hits, if you weren't aware) requires such a large investment of resources that you would probably suck somewhere else, usually damage dealing. By and large, players find it more expedient to simply not be around when the big brutes start swinging. Moving is less expensive than AC, after all. You don't have to take my word for it. Look up anyone or anything you like. I'm absolutely confident on this. as i have stated somewhere before on these forums i would be happy to play ANY edition so long as the mechanics were handled by the DM and just left to make my choices and roll whatever dice i am told to roll for whatevr reason at the time, only keeping track of the few things i would need such as items, max/current HP, etc. I run newbies like that. Eventually they want to try new stuff and it just naturally falls out of my hands. This is, again, not dependent on edition. There is no basis here for your saying that you enjoy 3e more than 2e. You simply don't seem to know the system enough to know any better. you mistake not knowing the entire system forward and back, for not ever using or knowing anything about it. i can use a plastic restaurant knife to carve a pumpkin if i wanted, it doesn't mean it is my prefered tool for doing the job. Not at all. You have posted on this thread objections to 3e that don't involve 3e elements at all. I don't need to know exactly how much you actually know about 3e. If you're complaining about 3e based on the "fact" that you build characters with points or that 3e involves 7 different save categories, then I know for a fact that you're barking up the wrong tree. It's really as simple as that.
shadzar 07-29-07, 12:44 PM	It's really as simple as that. you want it as simple as it is. the thread creator decided to share with people that he was going to try to get back involved with the older product. and that he was going to try to get a few players he knows to join it with him. tehre was some debate about 2E about things within itself with no mention of any negativity towards 3.x at all. the post #9 someone attacks the thread creators views of the game being more simpler. and stating that 3.x is better. and again in post #11, and it spiraled out of control from there. apparently against popular demand unless citations are noted, ANYTHING said by anyone on forums are a matter of personal opinion. just because i say 3.x is crud doesn't mean every has to agree, free willed people have the right to go and choose. likewise because the thread created said 2E was simpler than it doesnt mean everyone else has to agree. it is given that the statement was a matter of opinion because no citation where a documented set of trials proves which edition is "simpler" has ever been created is given. facts are only statements that can be proven. perception of those facts are a matter of personal opinion. so why not try to discourage this person from going back to an edition he/she may find fun which is what i see most of the 3.x players doing. mayhbe bored because they haven't had an edition war in a long time and foudn a thread to carry one out in, or jsut wanted to attack someones matter of opinion, because they dont udnerstand it is an opinion but feel that since ir is printed in some form of medium then it must be that the person is trying to claim it as a fact. for the original creator it may be a fact that 2E is simpler. throughout the entire thread some people have wanted to argue for arguements sake, wile others have actually agrued opinions for the sake of clearification and understanding other peoples views (frugal, not yoda, etc). and some have just trolled to argue things that have nothing to do with the threads topic. shall we get back on topic maybe or let a mod lock this thread down. i am all in favor of discussing differences in edition and peoples opinions on them, but i doubt this forum or site likes that much, and some people feel that they must "win" the thread by getting everyone else to see their way, or some peoples idea just cant be swayed to change. mine on a lot of things i admit.
Roxlimn 07-29-07, 01:09 PM	shadzar: just because i say 3.x is crud doesn't mean every has to agree, free willed people have the right to go and choose. likewise because the thread created said 2E was simpler than it doesnt mean everyone else has to agree. Opinion is opinion, but opinion put forth as facts are not the same. Furthermore, wrong facts cited about 3e are just that - wrong. I don't begrudge the right to choose the game you like for yourself. I only mean to see why you see it that way, when I see it the exact opposite way. You SAY 3rd edition is more complicated, but in fact it's simpler in any number of completely demonstrable ways. Surely, it must be something else that you don't like about it, or else you must not know 3e at all. so why not try to discourage this person from going back to an edition he/she may find fun which is what i see most of the 3.x players doing. Personally, I think that everyone should have their fun. I'm not trying to dissuade you (or anyone else, for that matter) from playing with negative AC if that's really what you like about 2e. After all, 3e definitely isn't that. Having said that, I'm don't want to see the OP or you or notYoda to dismiss the use you can get out of this new material just because you don't like parts of it. I don't like rather large parts of Dragon and Dungeon, but I still subscribe and I still get tons of use for those parts which I do like. You don't like magic shops? Great. 3e happens not to have them. You don't like combats breaking down in slow mo? Great! 3e combat is customizable to whatever level of speed you like. You don't like pre-packaged monster ratings? Great! 3e doesn't have those. What I see is a bunch of people grousing about things in 3e which aren't there. If such a group of people decide that they don't like 3e for nonexistent features, don't you think they'd be making a huge mistake? It's alright not to like pepperoni pizza because you don't like mozzarella. It's quite another thing to hate it because you don't like pineapples. One statement makes sense. The other is just plain nuts. i am all in favor of discussing differences in edition and peoples opinions on them, but i doubt this forum or site likes that much, and some people feel that they must "win" the thread by getting everyone else to see their way, or some peoples idea just cant be swayed to change. mine on a lot of things i admit. Well, I'm known to be rather persuasive. Perhaps I can change your mind? ;)
shadzar 07-29-07, 01:40 PM	Surely, it must be something else that you don't like about it, or else you must not know 3e at all. a fact you are trying to state that is proven to be entirely wrong. i don't know all of 3.x, but i dont know parts of it, have the boks, and have played in 4 games WITH it. just because i dont know enough of it to DM doesn't mean i "don't know 3.x at all". Well, I'm known to be rather persuasive. Perhaps I can change your mind? ;) unless you have $100 million USD you are willing to hand over to me, then no you wont change my mind to liking 3.x enough to play it again. unless it were a game that removes me knowing to know the "core" mechanics and allows me to roleplay with only having to keep track of things like i mentioned before such as gear, money, items, expenses, etc. if somehow i can purchase a +2 sword with some kind of other ehancements or commision someone to create one i don't care about the little costs of the prices, just the overall final price, because i dont buy stuff piecemeal nor pay installments in D&D. ;)
Roxlimn 07-29-07, 02:17 PM	shadzar: just because i dont know enough of it to DM doesn't mean i "don't know 3.x at all". If you see an elephant's trunk and conclude it's a snake, do you really know it at all? Of course not. You're basing your judgment on a couple adventures you didn't like and some facts you thought you knew but didn't. Yes, I would say that I'm very well founded in saying that you don't know it at all. unless it were a game that removes me knowing to know the "core" mechanics and allows me to roleplay with only having to keep track of things like i mentioned before such as gear, money, items, expenses, etc. 2e requires more bookkeeping than that. The only possible conclusion I can reach is that you like 2e better because you don't want to learn a new system. That's alright. Lots of players don't like 3e for that reason. if somehow i can purchase a +2 sword with some kind of other ehancements or commision someone to create one i don't care about the little costs of the prices, jsut the overall final price,, because i dont buy stull piecemeal nor pay installments in D&D. I cannot understand this statement at all. Perhaps you can word it better?
Steidas 07-29-07, 02:23 PM	Core AD&D is really good if all you want is a short adventure, no skill selecting bullcrap or character builds. What you see is what you get, fighter's hack n' slash, wizards suck at low levels and clerics... well, they're clerics. I liked the fact that in AD&D you don't really need to care about CRs. You can really throw anything against the PCs and they can try running away. That plus the whole grid thing just kinda sucks for imagination purposes.
tankschmidt 07-29-07, 02:41 PM	shadzar:D&D doesn't tell you where to place monsters. IN FACT, D&D material highly suggests that you playtest all encounters for maximum predictability, allowing only that the CR estimate is a rough guideline to a monster's power, rather like HD was in 2e, only slightly better. True, but 3.x comes up with a lot more guidelines on exactly how many encounters of a particular difficulty should be included in any given adventure. In my experience, sticking to these guidelines breeds the idea that PC's should be able to kick in the door and handle any fight face to face. If that is not the case, then the DM has "screwed up" by including an overpowering encounter. 3e D&D combat doesn't take that long, and really isn't all that more complicated than 2e combat is. Seriously. I've played and DM'd in both, so I know how it is. If you compare statblocks between the editions, the differences are small. I really have to disagree with you here. If you're not using the Combat and Tactics book -- which was probably the worst pre-3.x supplement ever produced for (A)D&D -- then combat in any of the older editions takes much less real time to resolve. This discrepancy becomes more pronounced at the higher levels of play. 3e D&D does NOT propose, nor has EVER proposed that magic shops exist in the default campaign assumptions. In fact, D&D books go through the rather tedious process of explaining to players and DMs that "buying" things off the charts is just an abstraction of something that's not all that exciting for everyone. IF you want to spend entire sessions experimenting with magical weapons or making a wand of lightning (which isn't more powerful in 2e anyway), then you CAN do it that way in 3e. The bottom line is that through wealth-by-level charts, item creation feats, and the relatively low price of magic items (a wand of cure light wounds is a prime example), 3.x gives the DM significantly less control over what magic items are available to the players. Sure one can argue that a DM still has final say over what items the party gets their hands on, but his role has changed from the sole provider to one who must veto those items he deems unsuitable. Whether this lack of control is an improvement or a step backwards is a matter of taste. Personally, I prefer how it was handled prior to the current editions. Certainly, one can make the argument that the guidelines for encounter difficulty or character wealth can be ignored -- as a houserule. But then we find ourselves back to the idea that if a certain edition of the game is so great, why are houserules necessary? And I think that that argument has already been beaten to death in this thread.
shadzar 07-29-07, 02:44 PM	Yes, I would say that I'm very well founded in saying that you don't know it at all. I cannot understand this statement at all. Perhaps you can word it better? if somehow i can purchase a +2 sword with some kind of other ehancements or commision someone to create one i don't care about the little costs of the prices, just the overall final price, because i dont buy stuff piecemeal nor pay installments in D&D. ;) and i would say your assumption is assinine no matter how "founded" you think it is. i have enough acid and fire here for you as well. ;)
EvilPheemy 07-29-07, 02:55 PM	Wow, this is like finding that Japanese soldier from the Second World War still hiding out in New Guinea having never heard the order for surrender. Except with the edition wars. It reminds me that in all editions of D&D trolls regenerate and keep fighting, except, when we're on the internet, they seem to be immune to flames. It's been 7 years folks, shouldn't we go forward and continue complaining about the future than fight over the past? Never mind that last comment, it's the internet, we'll argue about both!
Holy_Beholder 07-29-07, 03:02 PM	In my experience, sticking to these guidelines breeds the idea that PC's should be able to kick in the door and handle any fight face to face. If that is not the case, then the DM has "screwed up" by including an overpowering encounter. It says that 10% of the encounters should be nearly impossible for the players, another 20% should be really hard and nearly impossible if they aren't at full HP and spells. Thats 30% of the fights you should run away from. They can't handle them face to face, and it isn't a screw up. The rules say that 10% should be overpowering, they use that exact word. People still need to run away unless the DM is fudging rolls and being nice.
Roxlimn 07-29-07, 03:12 PM	This is GREAT!!!! Finally, a chance to dialogue in a reasonable forum with 2e fans. :) Steidas: Core AD&D is really good if all you want is a short adventure, no skill selecting bullcrap or character builds. What you see is what you get, fighter's hack n' slash, wizards suck at low levels and clerics... well, they're clerics. I would counter that by saying that 3e is better for a short adventure because it aims to balance PC power at each level. Therefore, no matter where you start and end at, you should expect everyone to contribute meaningfully and have fun! For a short adventure, you don't need detailed skills. Just pick up as many skills as you have SP for, and assume that it's all maxxed out. For Fighters, that's usually one or two skills. Not much different from picking a secondary skill, or NWP! For Rogues, it's more, but they'd have had to note down their Thief Skills anyway, so it's not favorable for AD&D that way. Character Build problems can be greatly reduced if you use the NPCs generated in the back of DMG as archetypes. Just pick one up and go! If you have Dragon or Dungeon, the DM can significantly increase his library of easy archetypes to choose from, without much additional effort on his part. For the player, well-titled archetypes are easy. It's usually easy to decide between "Archer" and "Swordsman" and you have a rather clear idea of what each is good at, without knowing the entire feat trees. I liked the fact that in AD&D you don't really need to care about CRs. You can really throw anything against the PCs and they can try running away. That plus the whole grid thing just kinda sucks for imagination purposes. CRs in 3e are like HD in 2e: they're a rough estimate of monster power. The DMG has suggested limits for newbies so that they don't inadvertently kill off their friend's PCs, but if you know what you're doing, there's nothing preventing you from fielding in an ECL+4 or ECL+5, even an ECL+10 encounter. tankschimdt: True, but 3.x comes up with a lot more guidelines on exactly how many encounters of a particular difficulty should be included in any given adventure. In my experience, sticking to these guidelines breeds the idea that PC's should be able to kick in the door and handle any fight face to face. If that is not the case, then the DM has "screwed up" by including an overpowering encounter. 3e gives you an estimate of what to expect when you pit a Mindflayer against a couple 4th level characters. It would be blatantly obvious to anyone who plays the game at all, but not everyone's a veteran, so some obvious instructions are necessary. That said, 3e doesn't come up with an exact anything as far as monsters are involved. That's why the monster building over at the monster threads are at least half "guesstimates" by experienced builders. Many well-crafted published adventures use at least 3-4 encounters with CRs well above party average, and indeed, it's highly advisable to vary monster strength from encounter to encounter, for a variety of reasons. The 4 CR-equivalent encounters per day the DMG talks about is just an estimate of monster to party power. You can do with that whatever you well please! I really have to disagree with you here. If you're not using the Combat and Tactics book -- which was probably the worst pre-3.x supplement ever produced for (A)D&D -- then combat in any of the older editions takes much less real time to resolve. This discrepancy becomes more pronounced at the higher levels of play. Not at all. 2e and 1e in particular, made use of ranges just as much as 3e does. Indeed, 1e ranges were in inches, so you can imagine how long that took without minis, and you can forget about combat speed once you start messing around with 1e weapon speed rules. 2e measured ranges in feet, but again, without a mat or minis, the DM kindof had to explain a little in detail every round where everyone was or people got really confused, and sometimes angry. "Was I in range of the fireball?" "Yeah" "But the enemy I'm fighting in melee isn't?" "Nope" "HEY!!!!" Moreover, 2e combat ROUNDS were somewhat faster, but the combat themselves were not, since they often took twice as long to resolve, and that's assuming no one ran and initiates a chase sequence. TWF was rampant in 2e, so you often had even low level Fighters getting two attacks each, often with modifiers like High Ground or Mounted or spell effect X or whatnot, not to mention situational modifiers you had to make up for whatever cockamamie idea your players come up with in combat. I contrast, 3e Fighters often focus on a single weapon, and they only get more than 2 attacks with that at level 10. As long as you don't let your modifiers and addition get in the way, 3e combat is FAST, both in real time, and in game time. The bottom line is that through wealth-by-level charts, item creation feats, and the relatively low price of magic items (a wand of cure light wounds is a prime example), 3.x gives the DM significantly less control over what magic items are available to the players. Sure one can argue that a DM still has final say over what items the party gets their hands on, but his role has changed from the sole provider to one who must veto those items he deems unsuitable. Whether this lack of control is an improvement or a step backwards is a matter of taste. Personally, I prefer how it was handled prior to the current editions. Personally, I find nothing different between those two roles! It's simply a matter of whether the glass is half empty or half full. Whether you grant magic or the players run it by you makes no difference to me, except that with the latter, I don't make a lovingly crafted magic weapon, only to see it languish in someone's backpack and later forgotten! Which magic items you want your players to have is YOUR decision. 3e is only making the rather sensible suggestion that your players will probably like their items more if they got to choose them. Certainly, one can make the argument that the guidelines for encounter difficulty or character wealth can be ignored -- as a houserule. But then we find ourselves back to the idea that if a certain edition of the game is so great, why are houserules necessary? And I think that that argument has already been beaten to death in this thread. I don't particularly subscribe to the theory that 2e is bad just because it required lots of houserules. It was good in its day, and I enjoyed it as far as I did. I still have fond memories of 2e. Having said that, the guidelines for both encounter difficulty and wealth are instruments for you to use. It would be foolhardy to ignore it because it's telling you something. You could consciously choose not to follow the guidelines, but that's not the same as ignoring them. Let me put it this way. When I see a "6 feet" sign in a pool, I don't necessarily stay away from that end of the pool. I might, but if I decide to go there, I'd know what I'm getting myself into.
Reinforcements 07-29-07, 03:15 PM	The bottom line is that through wealth-by-level charts, item creation feats, and the relatively low price of magic items (a wand of cure light wounds is a prime example), 3.x gives the DM significantly less control over what magic items are available to the players. Sure one can argue that a DM still has final say over what items the party gets their hands on, but his role has changed from the sole provider to one who must veto those items he deems unsuitable. Whether this lack of control is an improvement or a step backwards is a matter of taste. Personally, I prefer how it was handled prior to the current editions. Certainly, one can make the argument that the guidelines for encounter difficulty or character wealth can be ignored -- as a houserule. But then we find ourselves back to the idea that if a certain edition of the game is so great, why are houserules necessary? And I think that that argument has already been beaten to death in this thread. That's nonsense. The fact that magic items have prices doesn't somehow make that automatically available unless the DM goes out of his way to forbid them. The DMG says, in essence, "Item x is worth y gp." Nowhere does it say anything at all on whether or not these items can be bought (although I myself am of the opinion that IF you're giving your players gold you ought to give them a way to spend it). That would be crazy anyway - the existence and stock of magic item shops is very much a campaign world question.
Roxlimn 07-29-07, 03:17 PM	shadzar: and i would say your assumption is assinine no matter how "founded" you think it is. i have enough acid and fire here for you as well. That's not exactly a very winning argument. Was there anything else you wanted to discuss?
not Yoda 07-29-07, 03:37 PM	As far as 3.e goes, most of the complaints I see are. * Too many modifiers. * Too much prep time. * Poorly laid out books. As far as 2e goes, most complaints are. * Non-intuitive system. * Incomplete system. * Character lock from a multiclassing standpoint. Care to add anything for either side?
Roxlimn 07-29-07, 03:47 PM	2e: Not enough custom options and poor class mechanical balance This is my main sticking point with 2e, although the byzantine mechanics for everything are also rather annoying. The main problem is, with 2e, if you want to customize a class, you either had to grope in the dark, or follow badly laid out schemes and benchmarks, which was almost as bad or worse.
Stormonu 07-29-07, 05:18 PM	As an aside, the 1E DMG had "G.P. Sale Value" for all the magic items including artifacts. It was a bit of a pain that they were removed in 2E - I had a few occasions where I had PCs who wanted to sell items they had acquired they had no use for (like when the ranger wanted to get rid of his +1 sword when he got a +2 dragonslaying version). The problem with HIGH prices for magic items is not in the buying of them, its in the SELLING of them. For example, a potion of healing in 1E costs 400 gp. While it keeps said potion from being bought by a low-level PC, characters who run across it in an adventure can sell it for quite a bit of cash. 3E's prices, BTW, I think are much better than the system in 1E. 3E comes close to matching the low end of certain items (for example, in 1E, a +1 sword costs 2,000 gp), but is much more expensive at the high end (a 1E +5 sword is only 15,000 gp while a 3E +5 sword is at least 50,000 gp)
ArcTan 07-29-07, 05:19 PM	As far as 3.e goes, most of the complaints I see are. * Too many modifiers. * Too much prep time. * Poorly laid out books. As far as 2e goes, most complaints are. * Non-intuitive system. * Incomplete system. * Character lock from a multiclassing standpoint. Care to add anything for either side? "Poorly laid out books" belongs on the 2e side too.
ArcTan 07-29-07, 05:23 PM	oh i am sorry, but "English" is not my primary language. i dont like on a large island off the coast of Europe. i happen to live in America, North to be more precise, and the United States thereof if you want to pinpoint it more respectively on a map. therefore i speak American. whatever joking about terms i may have made in whatever thread about bangers, fannies, bugger, and wankers, i just happen to know those terms and they are not part of MY native language. ...I'm an American and I capitalize the beginnings of my sentences. It's not really that hard. They even teach you how to do it in America's failing public school system.
tuffn00gies 07-29-07, 05:54 PM	still i dont like the potential of the ever climbing numebrs that makes things always out of reach of people with the mountain of modifiers for AC that can easily escape the potential to hit. But this isn't a problem in 2E where *all* the modifiers stack, right?
shadzar 07-29-07, 07:26 PM	2e: Not enough custom options and poor class mechanical balance This is my main sticking point with 2e, although the byzantine mechanics for everything are also rather annoying. The main problem is, with 2e, if you want to customize a class, you either had to grope in the dark, or follow badly laid out schemes and benchmarks, which was almost as bad or worse. i will let you argue class balance in any edition with whomever you want. however the other one, "not enough custom options" is not something the book should give you. if you can't think and make things up without a premade list from the game producer, then why are you playing D&D? custom means pretty much houserules. ~acid at the ready in case needed~
ArcTan 07-29-07, 08:45 PM	i will let you argue class balance in any edition with whomever you want. however the other one, "not enough custom options" is not something the book should give you. if you can't think and make things up without a premade list from the game producer, then why are you playing D&D? ...If I have to think up all my own ideas without help from the game producer, then why am I paying them money?
GhostStepper 07-29-07, 09:11 PM	however the other one, "not enough custom options" is not something the book should give you. if you can't think and make things up without a premade list from the game producer, then why are you playing D&D? custom means pretty much houserules. Thats like claiming that your 1978 pinto is clearly superior to an f1 mc claren because you built your own rocket engine for it. Having no class customization options isnt a strength of 2E just because you can make up your own rules.
shadzar 07-29-07, 09:12 PM	...If I have to think up all my own ideas without help from the game producer, then why am I paying them money? do you expect them to tell you what to do at certain times during the game or do you make your own choices. that expands to the custom options....not all "options" are part of the game mechanics. i have no real idea why you buy or feel the need to buy any or every book they print, but you could just as easily buy a set of encyclopedia for "options" to play with. :uh-huh:
ArcTan 07-29-07, 09:28 PM	do you expect them to tell you what to do at certain times during the game or do you make your own choices. that expands to the custom options....not all "options" are part of the game mechanics. i have no real idea why you buy or feel the need to buy any or every book they print, but you could just as easily buy a set of encyclopedia for "options" to play with. :uh-huh: Once again, I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I have a set of pre-written options, then they make it a lot easier to see what the range of possibilities is (even beyond the range they give) and to use one option as a base to tweak it into something I want to do, if it isn't exactly what I want. From the mechanical side, not everyone has a natural feel for game balance or how mechanics work, and options can be really helpful for those people. From the flavor side, not everyone is a great and talented writer -- *or* a great and talented worldbuilder, when it comes to turning ideas into parts of a game world or storyline that make sense. The reason for there to be a *base* set of rules and a *base* campaign setting in the first place is to give people that foundation to jump off from. Why not add variants to increase what people can use? And of course I don't have to buy every book that comes out. I do prefer that every book I buy have something useful in it, though, and I don't object to books existing when they have something useful in them. I'm honestly kind of puzzled by the attitude that one should feel "overwhelmed" by too many options, when, as *you* say, no one can actually force you to take those options or even look at them. But having more options available for those who want them is always better.
Holy_Beholder 07-29-07, 11:47 PM	i will let you argue class balance in any edition with whomever you want. however the other one, "not enough custom options" is not something the book should give you. if you can't think and make things up without a premade list from the game producer, then why are you playing D&D? custom means pretty much houserules. ~acid at the ready in case needed~ The WoTC classes are more balanced and tested than a custom class you make up, therefore picking and choosing classes is better than making your own up in most circumstances because it is less likely to be horribly under or overpowered. Also, will you please capitalize your sentences. I'm 14, a teenager, the age at which most people text message the most, and I still capitalize my sentences. I'm also American so don't try that as an excuse. As an aside, we don't want to have our options picked for us, however having a few laid out helps. Lets take an example: A party reaches a door. The most likely thing they are going to do is: 1. Pick the lock 2. Break the door down 3. Break the wall around the door down 4. Do something else. Something else could include: Using spells like gaseous form to go through a crack or key hole, negotiating with things on the other side to open the door, tricking things on the other side to open the door(if it doesn't break to you, making rude comments about large monsters on the other side will probably work. Doors are not dragon proof) or find another way in. Having rules for 1-3 is very helpful, so you don't always have to wing it. In 2.0 all doors were the same in terms of breaking and locks, there were no rules to break walls down, and option 4 was the same. In 3, you can break through a door or burst it open, doors are different, some locks are harder than others, and you only rarely have to house rule stuff because most players will pick 1-3. Also, remember, please capitalize, and stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll.
High Octane 07-30-07, 02:33 AM	Unfortunatly, I can actually sympathize with many 2.0 players who have valid arguments to keep the old system. Not all of these I agree with, but nonetheless I respect. One of the concepts that I can see being true is that 3.5 does have a tendency of allowing players to tell the DM the rules, since they are there in black and white. Sure these rules are only guidelines in reality, but many DMs are reluctant to abandon them for fear of being tagged an unfair or railroading DM. I can definitely see this as a negative, but in reality this issue is more of a sign of an inexperienced DM with a lack of self-confidence. This is quite apparant with the CR guidelines that are given. In some older edition books there actually were some suggested level guidelines, but in most there were not. The fact is that this CR system is easily able to be criticized, pointing out that an equivelant CR encounter has little to no chance of killing a character, much less laying waste to the whole party. A more careful read states that the CRs are based on a group of 4 characters facing 4 of them a day, not 1 a day, which can make the system misleading to someone who doesnt read the DMG thoroughly. I like the idea that your average woodland encounter isnt going to wipe you out if you don't go all out. The close to death all out encounters should be rare, it makes them more special. A lot of DMs however are appalled by the CR system because it really does give a suggested limit to what kind of creature the group may face. However, I think this IS a good thing because it really makes a DM think twice about what he is sending at the party. If the DM has the real desire to have the party face that creature, he can overpower the doubt he had before. However if the DM decides to have the level 2 group face a mind flayer on a whim, he will see the CR and stop and think about whether the group should be facing the creature. At that point the DM decides to include it there, scrap it, or actually may instead decide to make that creature the BBEG. The 3.5 system does take away a lot of the whimsy of DMing that was found in 2nd edition, since it has hard and fast guidelines that, though not rules, many are reluctant to disobey. Though some of the whimsy is lost, I think the new edition is better on many more levels, and most of those who still use 2.0 do it out of nostalgia or the fact that they already know the system.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 02:36 AM	Even when you make up stuff wholecloth, having a reliable and steady benchmark from which to work from is a godsend to any custom class or mechanics designer. Many of the best WotC material isn't so much groundbreaking for presenting new classes but for presenting somewhat-tested new concepts. The Warlock class, for instance is remarkable not insomuch that it's a new class in and of itself, but because it's telling you that these groups of spell-like abilities apparently can be accommodated by the game even if they have no use limitations. These new concepts in classes aren't just valuable for providing new material, but for providing new springboards from which DMs can explore the game with brand new custom material. Anyone who builds classes and game mechanics in 3e from the ground up with any regularity would be conversant with this improved customizability in 3e, even if they don't agree with the established benchmarks.
shadzar 07-30-07, 03:41 AM	just because its tested doest mean its good. i use a random TV program as an example. Enterprise the prequel to Star Trek tested good, but how long did it last? likewise Stagate SG1 was cancelled while it had a large share and a great following of watchers. jsut because something is tested in a small sample group doesn't mean it will work overall.
ArcTan 07-30-07, 04:03 AM	just because its tested doest mean its good. i use a random TV program as an example. Enterprise the prequel to Star Trek tested good, but how long did it last? likewise Stagate SG1 was cancelled while it had a large share and a great following of watchers. jsut because something is tested in a small sample group doesn't mean it will work overall. Yes. However, it is *more likely* to work than something that has *never* been tested *at all*. These arguments are becoming increasingly feeble. ("3e bothers to playtest its material!" "That doesn't mean it's good!") Come on. 3e bothers to playtest its material *and it shows*. 2e didn't bother to playtest much of its material, and boy howdy, did that also show. to the 14 year old "texter". yeah well that is a whole other kettle of fish that you and older people need to grow out of. you aren't conversing with it you are playing a modified form of email tag, and tag in any format is a childs game. but you are still a child so go ahead and play it, hide and seek, and duck duck goose as well. You just like making a game out of this, don't you? The point is that the 14-year-old texter looks less like a texter than you do when you type. The 14-year-old texter is mature enough to understand that different conventions apply to different media, and that when you're typing several sentences at once on a big screen it's not too damn much to ask to ask you to capitalize sentences. The fact that you jumped straight to slamming Holy Beholder -- whose post was infinitely clearer and easier to read and more mature-sounding than yours -- for being a texter is pretty trollish. So is calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll.
Steely_Dan 07-30-07, 07:20 AM	to the 14 year old "texter". yeah well that is a whole other kettle of fish that you and older people need to grow out of. you aren't conversing with it you are playing a modified form of email tag, and tag in any format is a childs game. but you are still a child so go ahead and play it, hide and seek, and duck duck goose as well. Completely unnecessary. Holy Beholder is right. This is not a chat room, so everyone is trying to tell you not to treat it like one – could you please capitalize, and no more sentence fragments? I personally have a hard time understanding your posts, not the content, but legibility.
Frugal 07-30-07, 08:13 AM	The issue of customisability comes up when you need mechanics to represent it. Yes, you can do a lot with flavour and RP but that's mainly going to be the personality of your character. However, what if I want the actual abilities of my character to be different? Suppose I want to make a quick-witted fighter who's good with the ladies? Well in 3.x I might go for a swashbuckler/rogue combo and take the feat from Complete Scoundrel that lets the 2 classes stack for some purposes. I'll be good in a fight but I'll also have the social skills to back up that side of my flavour. In a lot of classed systems (and I'm not familiar enough with 2ed to say if this applies or not) your class locks you into a set of abilities and that's it. Maybe I'd be forced to decide between melee fighting abilities or social skills. Yes, I could still play the class and just "flavour" the social skills but then the flavour feels weaker because I can't back up that flavour with any mechanics. If there are rules for social skills then I need to have good ability in those social skills to back up my claim of being the sociable fighter, and to back up being a decent swordsman, I need to have some skill with a sword. In order for the flavour to make sense, I need the mechanics.
shadzar 07-30-07, 09:51 AM	The issue of customisability comes up when you need mechanics to represent it. Yes, you can do a lot with flavour and RP but that's mainly going to be the personality of your character. However, what if I want the actual abilities of my character to be different? Suppose I want to make a quick-witted fighter who's good with the ladies? Well in 3.x I might go for a swashbuckler/rogue combo and take the feat from Complete Scoundrel that lets the 2 classes stack for some purposes. I'll be good in a fight but I'll also have the social skills to back up that side of my flavour. In a lot of classed systems (and I'm not familiar enough with 2ed to say if this applies or not) your class locks you into a set of abilities and that's it. Maybe I'd be forced to decide between melee fighting abilities or social skills. Yes, I could still play the class and just "flavour" the social skills but then the flavour feels weaker because I can't back up that flavour with any mechanics. If there are rules for social skills then I need to have good ability in those social skills to back up my claim of being the sociable fighter, and to back up being a decent swordsman, I need to have some skill with a sword. In order for the flavour to make sense, I need the mechanics. so unless you choose a swashbuckler/rouge you are unable to play in a way that this fighter can be quick-witted and "good with the ladies"? you don't need feats from some class to roleplay. all you need is an imagination and the cooperation of the DM to have your character "good with the ladies", and your own abilities to be quick-witted. i am beginning to think that many DMs need to assign INT to the characters based on the players abilities so they are not struggling with things they cannot comprehend or are jsut beyond their abilities.
Frugal 07-30-07, 10:06 AM	so unless you choose a swashbuckler/rouge you are unable to play in a way that this fighter can be quick-witted and "good with the ladies"? you don't need feats from some class to roleplay. all you need is an imagination and the cooperation of the DM to have your character "good with the ladies", and your own abilities to be quick-witted. i am beginning to think that many DMs need to assign INT to the characters based on the players abilities so they are not struggling with things they cannot comprehend or are jsut beyond their abilities. Because, it's not just roleplay. As I said, if there are mechanics around social skills then I need to be able to have the appropriate skills to represent being good at those things. For instance, off the top of my head (in 3.5), I'd need bluff and diplomacy. Hide and move silently might be useful for escaping from people if I'm typically on the run a lot (would depend on character concept). Now I'm away from my books but maybe I can do all of that with just the swashbuckler class, I certainly can't do it very well with the fighter class. That's my point, that it's not just RP. I threw out a very quick character concept (not really even much of a concept admittedly). And INT has nothing to do with it, it's more likely to be CHA. As I stated far earlier in this thread, CHA is supposed to represent how well you do with these things. Yes, in 2ed you could purely roleplay a lot of this stuff and just let it go freeform, but the problem is that I should have a good CHA score to represent this and most DM's will just go by the RP and not by the stat, which allows for me to have CHA as a dump stat with no consequence. By attaching some mechanics to the stat (as 3.x does), I'm required to have a good CHA to be good at these things. I'm still required to RP out the situation (as per the rules) but I need the skill ranks to have a good chance of success.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 10:07 AM	Agreed. The counterarguments are very weak, and the style is provocative and insulting.
shadzar 07-30-07, 10:23 AM	Because, it's not just roleplay. As I said, if there are mechanics around social skills then I need to be able to have the appropriate skills to represent being good at those things. For instance, off the top of my head (in 3.5), I'd need bluff and diplomacy. Hide and move silently might be useful for escaping from people if I'm typically on the run a lot (would depend on character concept). Now I'm away from my books but maybe I can do all of that with just the swashbuckler class, I certainly can't do it very well with the fighter class. That's my point, that it's not just RP. I threw out a very quick character concept (not really even much of a concept admittedly). And INT has nothing to do with it, it's more likely to be CHA. As I stated far earlier in this thread, CHA is supposed to represent how well you do with these things. Yes, in 2ed you could purely roleplay a lot of this stuff and just let it go freeform, but the problem is that I should have a good CHA score to represent this and most DM's will just go by the RP and not by the stat, which allows for me to have CHA as a dump stat with no consequence. By attaching some mechanics to the stat (as 3.x does), I'm required to have a good CHA to be good at these things. I'm still required to RP out the situation (as per the rules) but I need the skill ranks to have a good chance of success. for me it is as simple as a charisma check for bluff or diplomacy. is the character strong enough in this area to pull it off. a bonus should be assigned by the DM for how in-character the player tries to pull off the bluff or diplomatic action based on the players natural abilities. examples: a player who is a diplomat may draw out some lengthy boring something or other in great detail explaining, blah, balh, blah, fine give him a high bonus if his character would be able to do the same quickly so he doesn't bore you with the entire set of dimplomatic procedures. a card shark as an example may be able to lie his way out of somthing so gets a high bonus as well. someone who doesn't know much about real world diplomacy but tries to peacfully express what he would be trying to do in a manner that should feasibly work in the game shold also get a high bonus for the ffort put into it. as directly above, but the player just says some random hting hoping that a diplomatic resolution will be reached with little thought or effort may get no bonus, or even get a negative. too many in game "feats" removes the player from the equation and seems to make the player more of a dice rolling machine. so even though through roleplaying you might pull it off the charisma check (rolling equal to or lower than your charisma score) with any bonuses added can help determine whether you succeed or fail with the given individual(s) you are challenging in this "battle of wits" if you will. even with 3.x a DM can just take the roleplaying and say you succeed without a dice roll because you convinced him it should work. and the DM knows his particular NPCs traits, quirks, ideals; better than any of the books since all DMs are different and not mass produced liek the books. ;)
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 10:35 AM	If you do it like that, then everyone will dump Charisma and no one will take Diplomacy or Bluff because it's all a matter of player capability anyway. Thus, a Cha 6 Dwarf with a -2 final modifier on Diplomacy can still be played as a suave charmer with a silver tongue and people eating out of his hand. If you do it with the rolls, then the mechanics will matter, and there's no way to get around that without falling into the dilemma I explain above. A Suave Duelist needs some kind of significant advantage to the roll in order to appear better at speaking than a tongue-tied barbarian. You could just add it every time as part of character-bonus, or have the player write a made-up bonus to facilitate it. If you do, then all you're doing is poorly emulating the skill system 3e D&D has. Why not just take it wholesale and get all the perks?
Grand Theft Otto 07-30-07, 10:39 AM	for me it is as simple as a charisma check for bluff or diplomacy. is the character strong enough in this area to pull it off. a bonus should be assigned by the DM for how in-character the player tries to pull off the bluff or diplomatic action based on the players natural abilities. Its delightful that you've come around to 3rd edition's social skill system so quickly, considering a few pages ago you were whining about those same skills taking away from roleplaying.
tankschmidt 07-30-07, 10:48 AM	This is GREAT!!!! Finally, a chance to dialogue in a reasonable forum with 2e fans. :) Glad to be of service. I would counter that by saying that 3e is better for a short adventure because it aims to balance PC power at each level. Therefore, no matter where you start and end at, you should expect everyone to contribute meaningfully and have fun! I would tend to disagree with this to some degree. Obviously no one wants to play a 1st level magic user in 2nd edition. But just so, it would be just as difficult to play a 20th level fighter in 3E. No matter what form of D&D you have, there's a sweet spot for the best play. I will grant you that that sweet spot might be larger for 3E, however. CRs in 3e are like HD in 2e: they're a rough estimate of monster power. The DMG has suggested limits for newbies so that they don't inadvertently kill off their friend's PCs, but if you know what you're doing, there's nothing preventing you from fielding in an ECL+4 or ECL+5, even an ECL+10 encounter. This I would like, if that's all there was to it. If we gave CR another name (let's call it Hackfactor) and intended only to use it as an estimate of monster power, then I'd be 100% on board. But the balance is based on four encounters a day with a certain percent above and below the ECL of the party members. It's too much micromanaging for my tastes. As High Octane mentioned, a lot of DM's feel obligated to follow these rules or else face unruly players. When I'm playing another game, I can stock dungeons or encounters anyway I like, and it's entirely on the shoulders of the players to avoid them if they are too difficult. For me, this reinforces the vulnerability of characters and makes them choose their tactics carefully. That said, given a different group of players, I can see how one would prefer working within the CR framework. Moreover, 2e combat ROUNDS were somewhat faster, but the combat themselves were not, since they often took twice as long to resolve, and that's assuming no one ran and initiates a chase sequence. On this topic, I'd like to have some more discussion. In my experience, 2nd edition combats always ran much more quickly -- again Combat and Tactics rules aside. How do you run combats in 3E? How did you in 2nd edition? In 3E, I ran my combats by the book -- battle mat, attacks of opportunities, flanking, threatened squares, reach... We followed the rules to a "T". In 2nd edition, sometimes we used a map and sometimes we didn't. I would describe the terrain, and players would move in to engage certain enemies or decide to stay back. If we did the whole battlemap thing, dimensions were always approximate, and movement wasn't counted too strictly. We tended to use intutition over who had an advantage due to terrain and any resultant modifiers. How was your 2nd edition experience different? And how did it make combat last so long? Let's talk more about this and see what the actual difference is. Whether you grant magic or the players run it by you makes no difference to me, except that with the latter, I don't make a lovingly crafted magic weapon, only to see it languish in someone's backpack and later forgotten! Which magic items you want your players to have is YOUR decision. 3e is only making the rather sensible suggestion that your players will probably like their items more if they got to choose them. I have two distasteful things I'd like to mention about 3.x. The first is that I prefer that the introduction of spells, equipment, magic items and so on lie firmly in the hands of the DM. In my experience, when you start a 3.x game, players come to the table expecting to be able to choose their own magic items as well as feats, spells, and prestige classes from non-core material that I might not want in my game. To challenge that expectation might result in someone feeling "nerfed" or unable to realize a "character concept." The second thing I don't like about 3.x is the idea of "slots," "builds," and strange templates. They just feel too much like a video game to me. I do recognize that some players denounced 2nd edition as too much like a video game when it came out - some things never change. ;) I may be solidly in the minority on this particular forum, but a lot of players who didn't like the changes of 3E feel that it takes too much power from the DM's hands, reducing him to a computer running the PC's through a video game. I'm not saying that's the only correct intepretation of those changes, but it may be more common than you think.
shadzar 07-30-07, 10:59 AM	If you do it like that, then everyone will dump Charisma and no one will take Diplomacy or Bluff because it's all a matter of player capability anyway. Thus, a Cha 6 Dwarf with a -2 final modifier on Diplomacy can still be played as a suave charmer with a silver tongue and people eating out of his hand. If you do it with the rolls, then the mechanics will matter, and there's no way to get around that without falling into the dilemma I explain above. A Suave Duelist needs some kind of significant advantage to the roll in order to appear better at speaking than a tongue-tied barbarian. You could just add it every time as part of character-bonus, or have the player write a made-up bonus to facilitate it. If you do, then all you're doing is poorly emulating the skill system 3e D&D has. Why not just take it wholesale and get all the perks? then what is charisma if it doesn't include those things such as bluff and diplomacy? you didn't require then on 2E. that is why i say the game has changed so much and the concept of how to play it i just have no liking for the 3.x environment. players no longer need to think for themselves and the stats conflict with themselves. you play your character based on his base ability scores. when you create your character you assign those in a way that allows you to play a character you want. a rogue is perfectly acceptable to have a low DEX and high CHA if he isnt a pick-pocket. the player who understand the relation ship to how the ability scores themselves work can crate a character to roleplay with. do the ability scores mean so little in 3.x they are for the most part just a set of numebr that give bonuses to other things, rather than actually show the strengths and weaknesses of the overall character? the removal of those abstracts in favor of the finites gives less room to roleplay to a PLAYERs strengths.
shadzar 07-30-07, 11:03 AM	Its delightful that you've come around to 3rd edition's social skill system so quickly, considering a few pages ago you were whining about those same skills taking away from roleplaying. a charisma check has nothing to do solely with 3.x. it was always a way to determine social interaction of PCs and NPCs. the bluff and diplomacy components of 3.x are unrequired elements to do the task when one is capable of the "needless thespianism" as EGG put it to actually play the role of the character IN-character.
Frugal 07-30-07, 11:06 AM	I have two distasteful things I'd like to mention about 3.x. The first is that I prefer that the introduction of spells, equipment, magic items and so on lie firmly in the hands of the DM. In my experience, when you start a 3.x game, players come to the table expecting to be able to choose their own magic items as well as feats, spells, and prestige classes from non-core material that I might not want in my game. To challenge that expectation might result in someone feeling "nerfed" or unable to realize a "character concept." I think a lot of this is more of a question of players and play style than the system. With my group, when I started planning my new campaign I discussed it with the groups, one of the first questions they asked was, "are you going to ban anything, what races are you allowing, etc?" This wasn't in the tone of, "I want x and you won't let it, waaah!" it was all constructive and people were interested about the campaign and just wanted to know what they were allowed and not allowed so that they could work within those guidelines. It was more of a case of finding out what wouldn't fit with the world I was working on. So no, I don't think it's inherent in 3.x, I think it's a question of the players you play with and whether the DM is willing to have a constructive discussion about this and if the group is mature enough to make it a constructive discussion. The second thing I don't like about 3.x is the idea of "slots," "builds," and strange templates. They just feel too much like a video game to me. I do recognize that some players denounced 2nd edition as too much like a video game when it came out - some things never change. ;) I may be solidly in the minority on this particular forum, but a lot of players who didn't like the changes of 3E feel that it takes too much power from the DM's hands, reducing him to a computer running the PC's through a video game. I'm not saying that's the only correct intepretation of those changes, but it may be more common than you think. Actually, I think that templates were one of the coolest things added to 3.x, it just adds so much versatility to the game for creating cool creatures. But I seem them far more as a DM tool where most aren't appropriate for PC play. Granted I also like starting the campaign at level 1 so most/all templates aren't going to be available to players due to the level adjustment. Yes, I think that some players will see them and try to figure out the best way to make a super powerful character but I don't think that's a flaw in 3.x, min/maxing has always been around in D&D, 3.x just has so many more options that it means there's a lot more for the min/maxers to look for to squeeze out the optimal build for something. That's not an issue with the system, that's an issue with the player.
tankschmidt 07-30-07, 11:12 AM	...if the group is mature enough to make it a constructive discussion. This may be off-topic, but I think it's necessary to mention that although the members of my group range in age from mid-twenties to late-thirties, we broke down last session and began giggling and making "farting" noises by blowing on our upper arms.
Frugal 07-30-07, 11:18 AM	then what is charisma if it doesn't include those things such as bluff and diplomacy? you didn't require then on 2E. that is why i say the game has changed so much and the concept of how to play it i just have no liking for the 3.x environment. players no longer need to think for themselves and the stats conflict with themselves. you play your character based on his base ability scores. when you create your character you assign those in a way that allows you to play a character you want. a rogue is perfectly acceptable to have a low DEX and high CHA if he isnt a pick-pocket. the player who understand the relation ship to how the ability scores themselves work can crate a character to roleplay with. do the ability scores mean so little in 3.x they are for the most part just a set of numebr that give bonuses to other things, rather than actually show the strengths and weaknesses of the overall character? the removal of those abstracts in favor of the finites gives less room to roleplay to a PLAYERs strengths. Well you claim that you've played 3ed and 3.5 so I guess you either don't know how skills work or you're playing dumb to make your case appear stronger. CHA is a component of bluff and diplomacy, but it's not the only component. All skills are based on an ability score's modifier. So the person with a high CHA will naturally be better at bluffing and diplomacy than one with an average, or below average CHA. However, you also invest skill points in your skills. This represents training or learning in particular skills, as opposed to natural ability. A shy person (low CHA) can learn to become an effective public speaker (high diplomacy) but it requires more effort/training (skill points) than someone who's naturally gifted in social areas (high CHA). What this does is allow you to fine tune what your character is good at. For instance, the swashbuckling character I described before might have a high DEX due to his style of fighting but he likely wouldn't have any experience with picking pockets (sleight of hand) or picking locks (open lock). It doesn't fit with the character concept. So his high DEX will give him a little bit of a natural ability but he's not going to be nearly as good as the character who's grown up living on the streets making a living as a pickpocket and burglar, even though both characters might have levels in the rogue class. With 2ed things are too dependant on ability score or on class selection. What this means is that if you want to be good at one thing you're forced to be good at a number of other things which may not be appropriate to your character.
Frugal 07-30-07, 11:23 AM	This may be off-topic, but I think it's necessary to mention that although the members of my group range in age from mid-twenties to late-thirties, we broke down last session and began giggling and making "farting" noises by blowing on our upper arms. Oh yeah, age has nothing to do with it. Happens with my group all the time too. The thing is though, I have a group who's mostly interested in having a good time and isn't going to intentionally try things that will derail the campaign or deliberately sabotage things. The general impression I get was that in earlier editions there was much more of a mentality that the DM was "god" and in 3.x there's much more of an idea that D&D is a partnership and a cooperative game. Some 2ed players seem really reluctant to give up the power they once wielded. Personally, I think this is a variation of the DM vs. players mentality. D&D is not meant to be adversarial, it's meant to be a collaborative game where the DM and players create a story together for their mutual enjoyment. I think the balance of power should be much closer to 50-50 between players and the DM and when either one gets too far out of balance you run into problems.
shadzar 07-30-07, 11:45 AM	Well you claim that you've played 3ed and 3.5 so I guess you either don't know how skills work or you're playing dumb to make your case appear stronger. CHA is a component of bluff and diplomacy, but it's not the only component. All skills are based on an ability score's modifier. So the person with a high CHA will naturally be better at bluffing and diplomacy than one with an average, or below average CHA. However, you also invest skill points in your skills. This represents training or learning in particular skills, as opposed to natural ability. A shy person (low CHA) can learn to become an effective public speaker (high diplomacy) but it requires more effort/training (skill points) than someone who's naturally gifted in social areas (high CHA). What this does is allow you to fine tune what your character is good at. For instance, the swashbuckling character I described before might have a high DEX due to his style of fighting but he likely wouldn't have any experience with picking pockets (sleight of hand) or picking locks (open lock). It doesn't fit with the character concept. So his high DEX will give him a little bit of a natural ability but he's not going to be nearly as good as the character who's grown up living on the streets making a living as a pickpocket and burglar, even though both characters might have levels in the rogue class. With 2ed things are too dependant on ability score or on class selection. What this means is that if you want to be good at one thing you're forced to be good at a number of other things which may not be appropriate to your character. i didn't care less what the mechanics were when i played. if i was required to roll something i never cared to put to memory what modifiers to add to it. i just rolled the di(c)e and let somebody else figure the rest out for the final result. i made it clear before i played the first at 2006 game day i didn't know 3.x but that was the point to "teach" people d&D. and after that i repeatedly told the others i didn't know nor care about the game mechanics. none the less a few players kept asking me how things worked in 3.x and i had to repeat over anf over and over that i didn't know 3.x and all i could tell them was ideas of how it should function conceptually without direct interaction with the rules. its nice that if people feel they "need" thos feats they are there but i find the low CHA person may not necessarily be shy, but could be very open yet not very liked. ;) and the obverse is also true.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 11:53 AM	tankschmidt: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for giving everyone the opportunity to discuss and read a well-typed and well-considered response. I would tend to disagree with this to some degree. Obviously no one wants to play a 1st level magic user in 2nd edition. But just so, it would be just as difficult to play a 20th level fighter in 3E. No matter what form of D&D you have, there's a sweet spot for the best play. I will grant you that that sweet spot might be larger for 3E, however. Well, there's more to it, of course. There always is. ;) A 20th level Fighter in 3e is somewhat at a disadvantage; okay, greatly at a disadvantage as compared to a Wizard, but the same relationship is in 2e also. You NEVER want to be stuck as the Fighter if you could help it. Better to play a Ranger or Paladin. Moreover, 3e offers the DM plenty of ways to compensate the Fighter for his relative weakness. There's PrCs, substitution levels, open-ended feat structure, even Tome of Battle and whatnot. In contrast, if you wanted to improve the 2e Wizard at 1st level, you're pretty much on your own. But the balance is based on four encounters a day with a certain percent above and below the ECL of the party members. It's too much micromanaging for my tastes. As High Octane mentioned, a lot of DM's feel obligated to follow these rules or else face unruly players. When I'm playing another game, I can stock dungeons or encounters anyway I like, and it's entirely on the shoulders of the players to avoid them if they are too difficult. For me, this reinforces the vulnerability of characters and makes them choose their tactics carefully. That said, given a different group of players, I can see how one would prefer working within the CR framework. I view it another way. The DMG states that there are two kinds of encounters: status quo and dynamic. There's absolutely no problem with placing a bunch of status quo encounters on the map, even if some of them are beyond current PC capability. The DMG doesn't contradict this practice, and even outlines the gist of it rather explicitly. If your player are unruly because their characters died out of some misguided sense of invincibility, then the problem is with the players, not the system. For that matter, some 2e players expected the DM to follow printed campaign material and adventure material to the letter, and groused when they didn't, in fact, get a piece of the Rod of Many Parts after so-and-so an activity. Again the problem there is with the players, not with 2e. Even if you use purely status quo encounters, the baseline recommendations go a long way towards telling you probable results from encounters. A CR+4 encounter is likely to be pretty draining. You oughtn't expect your player party to go through very many of those a day. If you stock your dungeon chock-full of them, then the PCs are either going to die, or they're going to go very, very slowly. That's what the CR system is telling you, not that you're under a straightjacket that limits your creativity. How we ran 2e combat: We used square tiled map reproductions (sometimes on graphing paper) and small objects to represent placing. We kept a strict tally of all movement and placing because spells like Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Burning Hands, and even effects like Dragon Breath were dependent on such things. Elevation, was of course, also important. It didn't help that there weren't real rules on corner cases like what to do on the borders of such spell effects. We had to invent how to determine when you were "engaged." We ruled this as "adjacent" although some people raised the obvious question of what "adjacent" was to a 120 foot Dragon. Then you also had to declare facing, since there were "backs" to be considered, plus concerns like encumbrance and armor weight, and the effect of decreases in various character variables. How we run 3e: We use graph paper and small objects to represent characters. Clearer rules on engagement heads off most questions on who gets an attack for which action. Lighter "casting" vulnerability rules meant that the Wizards are no longer such sticklers for range, particularly on opponents who just might get an opportunity to get right next to them. This tends to shorten combat time, since the Wizard players no longer exhaustively estimate everyone's movement for the next turn. The combat in 2e wasn't "twice as long" in real time. It was "twice as long" in terms of combat rounds, and about 12 times as long in game time, since 2e rounds were a minute apiece. In real time, 2e combat took around 30 minutes or so for mid level characters. It's usually about the same for 3e combat, but sometimes you get really fast combats that get settled in one or two rounds. Those take about 15 minutes or less to resolve. I have two distasteful things I'd like to mention about 3.x. The first is that I prefer that the introduction of spells, equipment, magic items and so on lie firmly in the hands of the DM. In my experience, when you start a 3.x game, players come to the table expecting to be able to choose their own magic items as well as feats, spells, and prestige classes from non-core material that I might not want in my game. To challenge that expectation might result in someone feeling "nerfed" or unable to realize a "character concept." Do what I do. When a new player wants in, I ask him to outline his character concept without using any game term whatsoever. If he doesn't know what to play, then he can't very well play it, right? Then I give him his options based on what I'm comfortable with. If he's looking to angle a maxxed build for mechanical exploits, then I tell him point blank that that crap doesn't fly with me, and that he'll probably be happier elsewhere. If he's looking to play a solid and enjoyable concept, then I accommodate him as best I can, within the limitations of the player group. I even allow customization of class and magic items and such, subject to my approval, of course. This isn't a 3e issue, as you can tell. There've been hordes of players over the years in 2e who insist on porting in 20d6 Fireball Swords on the basis that "their DM let them play with it." Now it's "It's in the so-and-so supplement and this is how it works." I don't go for that, so it doesn't bother me. I banned 20d6 Fireball Swords in 2e, and I continue to keep a tight ship in 3e. The second thing I don't like about 3.x is the idea of "slots," "builds," and strange templates. They just feel too much like a video game to me. Well, I've been around the block, so I like to think that I'm a bit more open-minded about these things. Shadowrun has Archetypes that are essentially builds to make character generation and system navigation easier. Builds in 3e are the same animal. They're essentially preplanned combinations of mechanics that are designed to result in a specific effect. If you like the character concept of the build, I don't see why you should object to directing people to it so that they spend less time messing with mechanics, and more time with the actual character. Templates are something of a stranger animal. I've never had a player who took a templated character who didn't at least partially regret it later on, so I advise players in advance to avoid them unless they're central to concept. I like templates because they simplify my life. Instead of having to make a different monster for every kind of vampire there is, just apply the template to fighter, clerics, wizards, or whatever. Instead of having to generate a bunch of monsters wholecloth to populate the Plane of Fire, I can apply the Fire Elemental Template to common animals and "cheat" that way. Templates are really more of DM's tool so I look askance at any player who asks to use the thing. The subjective impression that it resembles a video game cannot be explained. If you don't like it on that basis, then you may never come to like it. For my part, I think that video game mechanics are fair game for tabletop RPGs to plunder for concept, especially if this makes for a more streamlined system. I'm not saying that's the only correct interpretation of those changes, but it may be more common than you think. It's possible that people are running around not liking 3e for features that it doesn't contain. That's one of the reasons I'm grateful for this opportunity to represent the force of positive change and reasoned discussion. If you don't like 3e, I can live with that. To each his own, right? What I want to do is enlighten these people to the real deal so that they can decide for themselves what they like or don't like, rather than rely on rumor and popular myths and misconceptions.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 11:59 AM	shadzar: i made it clear before i played the first at 2006 game day i didn't know 3.x but that was the point to "teach" people d&D. and after that i repeatedly told the others i didn't know nor care about the game mechanics. none the less a few players kept asking me how things worked in 3.x and i had to repeat over anf over and over that i didn't know 3.x and all i could tell them was ideas of how it should function conceptually without direct interaction with the rules. 1. If you don't care about game mechanics, why should you care what edition you're playing? Flavor and game enjoyment is edition independent. 2. You're proposing that we should play a game without interacting with the game's rules? Wouldn't that mean that we aren't actually playing the game?
shadzar 07-30-07, 12:00 PM	You NEVER want to be stuck as the Fighter if you could help it. Better to play a Ranger or Paladin. maybe the person you were replying to or yourself would "never". but i prefer just a straight fighter in 2E more often than not. so i don't mind getting "stuck" with it over a ranger or paladin.
shadzar 07-30-07, 12:03 PM	shadzar: 1. If you don't care about game mechanics, why should you care what edition you're playing? Flavor and game enjoyment is edition independent. don't care about game mechanics in 3.x don't care for the game, don't care for its mechanics. and am finding more and more reasons why to dislike 3.x daily without even reading half of the core books!
Mark Thorson 07-30-07, 12:13 PM	and am finding more and more reasons why to dislike 3.x daily without even reading half of the core books! And I'm seeing and remembering more and more reasons why I wouldn't go back and play 2e now! Yay for both of us!
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 12:17 PM	shadzar: I find it remarkable that you purposefully trumpet your lack of familiarity with 3e as reasonable grounds for not liking it.
Edymnion 07-30-07, 12:22 PM	I find it remarkable that you purposefully trumpet your lack of familiarity with 3e as reasonable grounds for not liking it.Why? Its a common tactic. "Harry Potter books are evil and teach children how to practice witchcraft!" "Have you ever actually read one to see what they say?" "No, I'd never read one of those evil things!" Someone who has made up their mind already can't be bothered by niggly little details like knowing what they're talking about.
Mark Thorson 07-30-07, 12:22 PM	shadzar: I find it remarkable that you purposefully trumpet your lack of familiarity with 3e as reasonable grounds for not liking it. That's just it, though. He also says he played in, what, 4 or 5 games? You gotta know them somewhat to play that many times. We picked them up pretty easily after just a couple of "fight club" sessions.
Frugal 07-30-07, 12:40 PM	i didn't care less what the mechanics were when i played. if i was required to roll something i never cared to put to memory what modifiers to add to it. i just rolled the di(c)e and let somebody else figure the rest out for the final result. As someone else pointed out, if that's how you play what difference does it make which edition you're playing? I know you've commented that you had to track other stuff but that's a matter of the group you're playing with. We have one player who's been playing much longer than I have who still has no interest in learning the rules, whenever she rolls someone else helps her out with determining the effect. It sounds like you're asking for the same thing, so find a group that works that way. i made it clear before i played the first at 2006 game day i didn't know 3.x but that was the point to "teach" people d&D. and after that i repeatedly told the others i didn't know nor care about the game mechanics. none the less a few players kept asking me how things worked in 3.x and i had to repeat over anf over and over that i didn't know 3.x and all i could tell them was ideas of how it should function conceptually without direct interaction with the rules. its nice that if people feel they "need" thos feats they are there but i find the low CHA person may not necessarily be shy, but could be very open yet not very liked. ;) and the obverse is also true. The reason I keep bringing up mechanics is because you keep bringing up things you don't like mechanically about 3.x that are either not true or come down to game style yet you present them as explicit mechanics in 3.x. Yes, someone could be shy, or just not liked, or whatever, to represent a low CHA. And personally, I prefer those types of interpretations to the usual, "I'm ugly and smell bad" interpretations you get sometimes from a low CHA. My issue is that simply using CHA (or any ability score for that matter) to determine things like bluffing or diplomacy don't over a very fine granularity of what you're good at. There are a number of things in D&D that can be represented by having a high CHA and having a high CHA makes you good at all of them. By having skills that are partially based on ability modifiers it allows you to have your high CHA still represent a good natural ability but then you can focus on the specific aspects you want. Here's a good example, suppose I want to play a character who begins off very naive about dealing with people. Maybe it's shyness, maybe it's a lack of confidence, maybe it's a bad stutter, whatever. Over time adventuring he gains confidence and through finding himself thrown into leadership roles he begins to develop the confidence and skill needed to lead others and grows into a very effective leader. Now, clearly at 1st level this character requires a low CHA, possibly even below average, as he's not good at social skills. Over playing the campaign and the direction I see the storyline going I can buy ranks in diplomacy (or other social skills), I can use my stat increases to increase my CHA (to represent him "coming out of his shell") and over time have him grow into someone who has a good diplomacy skill and possibly some other social skills that fit with the concept. Now my understanding of 2ed is that ability scores rarely change after character creation other than by using magical items, so I have to either start with a low CHA (that fits my initial concept) and be locked into sucking at social things, or I need to have a predetermined idea of growing into the leader role and go with a high CHA to start but that presumes a predetermined plan for developing the character and/or prior knowledge of the campaign's storyline so it won't work as a natural development out of the events in the campaign. There is the option of magical items but I prefer the idea of the character's own abilities improving rather than relying on magical items to achieve this RP situation. So with 2ed, as I see it, I'm forced to be locked into that initial character concept and it's very difficult to change it into something else throughout the game. Sure, I can play the great leader but with that bad CHA score I'm doing a bad job of RPing the character. But if my CHA improves and I gain social skills then it makes sense that I RP him becoming the great leader. I can even start out with a class that doesn't offer social skills as class skills and later on multiclass into a class that offers those skills, and it's easily achieved.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 12:44 PM	Edymnion: Touche.
Frugal 07-30-07, 12:55 PM	don't care about game mechanics in 3.x don't care for the game, don't care for its mechanics. You do realise these are contradictory, right? It's one thing to say that you aren't interested in knowing the game mechanics for 3.x, that's fine, and as I've mentioned, my group has a player like that. It's also perfectly valid to say that you don't like the mechanics in 3.x and some interesting discussions about game design and RPG mechanics can ensue. However, if you don't care about rules mechanics then how can you have a preference one way or the other about 3.x's mechanics? If you don't like 3.x's mechanics then how can you say that you don't care about mechanics? As far as I can tell, it seems like you like to trot out complaints about the way certain mechanics work in 3.x and then as soon as someone challenges you on the fact that the mechanics don't work the way you suggest your retort is, "I don't care about mechanics". As someone else has already pointed out, it seems like you don't like what you think 3.x is like, but what you think 3.x is like and what 3.x actually is are not the same thing. As I see it you have 3 options: Find a 3.x group that allows you to play very freeform and will take care of the mechanics for you. Take the time to objectively look at the basic mechanics for 3.x and come to an informed opinion about them. Stick with 2ed, admit that you don't know about 3.x and stop complaining about things you don't know about. Honestly, any of these seem workable. The 1st allows you to focus solely on RP and not worry about the system, the 2nd allows you to at least come to an informed decision about the rules, and at least then you can have an intelligent conversation with someone about what you don't like mechanically about 3.x and the 3rd is more or less maintain the status quo for your gaming and basically saying, "I don't know 3.x and I don't care to learn it". There's nothing wrong with saying that, but it's when you come on the boards making unfounded complaints about 3.x that you have to expect to be flamed. If you don't care to learn 3.x that's fine but then please don't come on complaining about 3.x.
Omega_Grey 07-30-07, 01:16 PM	My two cents. For what its worth. My group and I have always talked about going back and running a second edition campaign to try and recapture our nostalgia for the game. Now I say talked because that is all we have done with that idea for the last, oh, 4 years. Obviously we dont want to nearly as bad as we say we do, otherwise we would have gone back to do it. Then again we found a nice little compromise, the main problem that we apparently had with 3rd/3.5 is that our DM's (we have three core DMs, myself being one of them) did less prep work for our sessions on average since it was 'easier' for us to do things on the fly. We remedied that by actually spending time as a group to sit down and talk about everything that we love in a fantasy setting (not an RPG) and decided what sort of things from that we could each incorporate into our DnD experience. I havent been happier with my group in a long time. But if going back to second edition is what some people want, I say let them. No amount of fact producing/arm twisting is going to have them admit that they are wrong and that 3rd/3.5 is better (and vice versa). After all, they are only games people. They are there to be enjoyed. Now if you get your enjoyment from these arguments on the other hand, then more power to you.
shadzar 07-30-07, 01:16 PM	the things i know about 3.x caused me to dislike the rest without having to know it. someone eats a apple and gets sick from it and finds out it was because they are allergic to apples, then i guess they should try apple pie, or apple cider, etc then since it isn't just apples but other things they don't know how will react with the apples. allergies are not the same as personal preferences, but you get the idea. a bad "taste" for something could have the same effect. yes people came become biased for whatever personal reason that have against something and it doesn't require them to have any further evidence to change their mind. the only difference if people that would prevent other from doing something non-harmful just because they are biased towards the thing....example the religious nuts that wanted to ban D&D because it was satans game type crap. just because i don't care for the crappy edition you people feel like playing doesn't mean i feel i must stop you from being able to play it. i just prefer not to play bad games. you however can play whatever you want.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 01:27 PM	Well, it would be nice if you could also stop spreading unfounded negative rumors about what you think 3e is like, since it's really quite wrong. As I said, if you like 2e, go nuts. Play 2e. More power to ya! But don't go around saying you don't like 3e because it has magic shops.
Frugal 07-30-07, 01:42 PM	the things i know about 3.x caused me to dislike the rest without having to know it. someone eats a apple and gets sick from it and finds out it was because they are allergic to apples, then i guess they should try apple pie, or apple cider, etc then since it isn't just apples but other things they don't know how will react with the apples. allergies are not the same as personal preferences, but you get the idea. a bad "taste" for something could have the same effect. Except any "example" of what you disliked was based on an incorrect understanding of the rules or an assumption that a particular style of play is mandated in 3.x when it's not. I'd love to see some actual legitimate complaints that you have with the rules. So far all I've seen were pieces that are based on play style (which is mandated by the group you play with) or demonstrably false. just because i don't care for the crappy edition you people feel like playing doesn't mean i feel i must stop you from being able to play it. i just prefer not to play bad games. you however can play whatever you want. And again, when confronted with questions like, "what didn't you like?" or "what makes it crappy?" all you've come up with has been incorrect information, when that's been challenged you go back to, "I don't care about mechanics" (which begs the question of why the edition matters) or blanket statements that 3.x is a bad game and people who play it are stupid. As I've said numerous times, I'm very interested in game design, I like discussing how different systems work. You keep mentioning what tastes you got of the game that you didn't like but I've yet to see any concrete examples that have any bearing in the actual rules. Well okay, you did mention not liking having to keep track of so many modifiers, personally I think you've exaggerated the problem but it's possible that you started playing in a higher level campaign in which case this can be an issue if you're coming in "cold". I started playing 3.5 in a campaign that was around 12th level and I found that it was difficult for me to start at that level, we started a 1st level side campaign shortly afterwards (due to some players not being able to make every week and wanting to preserve the continuity in the higher level campaign) and then I picked up the rules very quickly. I would definitely recommend starting at 1st level for anyone learning the game. At that level there simply aren't that many modifiers to keep track of so you can get familiar with the basics of the rules. As you level, you will get more modifiers but usually it's simply a matter of updating those you already have and the odd time you add 1 more modifier, so it's very easily tracked. By the time you've reached a high level and have a lot of modifiers you should be pretty familiar with the rules and also familiar with where your modifiers are coming from, and when they do and don't apply (more often then not they're permanent or long duration). So yes, I agree there are various modifiers to keep track of, but I think if you start at 1st level it's not much of an issue.
Mark Thorson 07-30-07, 02:22 PM	but I think if you start at 1st level it's not much of an issue. Our first 3.0 game started at 3rd level and it wasn't a problem, but I do see your point on that. Of course, we were able to playtest the combat stuff for a couple of sessions before we got the campaign rolling.
Frugal 07-30-07, 02:34 PM	Our first 3.0 game started at 3rd level and it wasn't a problem, but I do see your point on that. Of course, we were able to playtest the combat stuff for a couple of sessions before we got the campaign rolling. Yep, that would help too, and 3rd isn't too much higher. I meant more like what I did with starting my first campaign at 12th or 13th level, that took a lot more getting used to.
Mark Thorson 07-30-07, 02:40 PM	Yep, that would help too, and 3rd isn't too much higher. I meant more like what I did with starting my first campaign at 12th or 13th level, that took a lot more getting used to. Oh yeah, I'm very glad we didn't jump in on that high of a level. We would have needed probably 2 or 3 more playtest sessions at least and a lot more character prep time, not to mention it would have skipped my favorite levels to play.
shadzar 07-30-07, 02:51 PM	Except any "example" of what you disliked was based on an incorrect understanding of the rules or an assumption that a particular style of play is mandated in 3.x when it's not. I'd love to see some actual legitimate complaints that you have with the rules. So far all I've seen were pieces that are based on play style (which is mandated by the group you play with) or demonstrably false. And again, when confronted with questions like, "what didn't you like?" or "what makes it crappy?" all you've come up with has been incorrect information, when that's been challenged you go back to, "I don't care about mechanics" (which begs the question of why the edition matters) or blanket statements that 3.x is a bad game and people who play it are stupid. As I've said numerous times, I'm very interested in game design, I like discussing how different systems work. You keep mentioning what tastes you got of the game that you didn't like but I've yet to see any concrete examples that have any bearing in the actual rules. Well okay, you did mention not liking having to keep track of so many modifiers, personally I think you've exaggerated the problem but it's possible that you started playing in a higher level campaign in which case this can be an issue if you're coming in "cold". I started playing 3.5 in a campaign that was around 12th level and I found that it was difficult for me to start at that level, we started a 1st level side campaign shortly afterwards (due to some players not being able to make every week and wanting to preserve the continuity in the higher level campaign) and then I picked up the rules very quickly. I would definitely recommend starting at 1st level for anyone learning the game. At that level there simply aren't that many modifiers to keep track of so you can get familiar with the basics of the rules. As you level, you will get more modifiers but usually it's simply a matter of updating those you already have and the odd time you add 1 more modifier, so it's very easily tracked. By the time you've reached a high level and have a lot of modifiers you should be pretty familiar with the rules and also familiar with where your modifiers are coming from, and when they do and don't apply (more often then not they're permanent or long duration). So yes, I agree there are various modifiers to keep track of, but I think if you start at 1st level it's not much of an issue. you tell me what level i started. go find if exists, the nov 2006 game day characters of which i was the straight fighter. after that was level 7-10 characters, then a level 1 character in a one shot. the only group around with which to play was the one i left unless i drive an hour to play in another. i can't afford that kind of comute for a game. so if the games i were in were scrwed up then that is not my fault. i ignored most of the rules in them, since one game consisted of about 10 players and a first time DM. there was no time to worry with learning anyhting had i actually had the interest. and there was no time outside of the game to do so since at the time i was building the entire website for the store. if they taught me wrong it is not my fault, and i see no reaosn to read a book i dont feel i would like so i don't even open 3.5 books. they have nothing in them for me. i don't require them to play D&D. as also previously stated any person unless citing a source can omly present material that is his/her opinion on forums. anyone that thinks otherwise is pretty dense. and i for one can only talk from my experiences. if others here can talk from anothers point of view in the real world then more power to them. and i do not like discussing who different systems work. i like one that i like. i don't have to convince you to like, but i don't have to agree with the system you like. and am free to voice my opposition to that system if i want. i have so far played all editions of D&D with the exception of "2.5" and the compiled rules cyclopedia. (note Chainmail was not truely D&D yet so it is not counted in there) you can like and play what you want, say what you don't like about my prefered edition, etc but it doesn't mean i have to accept your prefered edition. (or we could both mock AD&D1E) i prefer to discuss abstracts from the game. but many times people drags specific rule sets into it and convolute the discussion, such has happened in the "nagic shop" thread. i can see if others want to argue rules about wealth per level, but it doesn't mean that "rule" is required to determine whether or not magic shops or the need for a DM to pamper players exists. it just seems people cant do without their concrete rules. to tell them how something should work. and to them i refer them to my signature. MAYBE the reason i like AD&D2E so much...maybe.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 02:58 PM	So you don't know anything significant about 3e, and yet don't like it, and prefer 2e for reasons that aren't really inherent in that rule system? Perhaps that should be in your sig as well.
Frugal 07-30-07, 02:59 PM	Oh yeah, I'm very glad we didn't jump in on that high of a level. We would have needed probably 2 or 3 more playtest sessions at least and a lot more character prep time, not to mention it would have skipped my favorite levels to play. Yeah, was the joy of joining an existing group. Now fortunately I pick up rules pretty quickly and we did have the 1st level side campaign start up fairly soon after I started so that helped a lot.
Mark Thorson 07-30-07, 03:08 PM	Yeah, was the joy of joining an existing group. Now fortunately I pick up rules pretty quickly and we did have the 1st level side campaign start up fairly soon after I started so that helped a lot. That's cool. Every campaign with that group since that first one we've started at 1st level, which I prefer. I like building characters from the ground-up as well.
Frugal 07-30-07, 03:26 PM	you tell me what level i started. go find if exists, the nov 2006 game day characters of which i was the straight fighter. after that was level 7-10 characters, then a level 1 character in a one shot. Well, I'd have to see if I could find the game day characters. Level 7-10 is getting into a higher level where some familiarity of the rules would be really helpful, and a lack of knowledge would make things more confusing. so if the games i were in were scrwed up then that is not my fault. i ignored most of the rules in them, since one game consisted of about 10 players and a first time DM. there was no time to worry with learning anyhting had i actually had the interest. and there was no time outside of the game to do so since at the time i was building the entire website for the store. So wait, 10 players and 1st time DM? That's a completely dysfunctional game, to handle that size of a group you really need an experienced DM and experienced players or at least those who know the rules or are willing to learn. Yet somehow the fact that game didn't work was the fault of the system? Guess what, in a 10 person game the players really need to carry their weight because the DM just plain doesn't have the time to manage everything. You might prefer a game that focuses less on mechanics but expecting a DM (1st time or otherwise) in that size of a group to handle it all for you is just plain rude. I know I certainly wouldn't draw any conclusions about a system based on that experience, it's just begging for trouble. So from the sound of it, 2 of your 3.x experiences were extremely limited (Game day, 1 day of gaming, and a one-shot in the other case) and a 3rd of the 4 was in a huge group with a 1st time DM. Gee, I can't imagine why you don't know much about the system and why you might have some negative opinions of it based on some less than ideal situations for learning how it actually plays. if they taught me wrong it is not my fault, and i see no reaosn to read a book i dont feel i would like so i don't even open 3.5 books. they have nothing in them for me. i don't require them to play D&D. Again, yes it's not your fault but then don't go around posting incorrect information on the boards. I flat out admit that I don't know much about 2ed, and you'll notice that everything I've said about it has dealt with the general information I do know, or been phrased as, "I don't know how it works in 2ed but...." or "I was under the impression that 2ed handled it like...." and so on. I flat out admit that I don't know 2ed and I don't state how I think mechanics in 2ed worked as if they were fact. Plus, I'm also willing to learn more about 2ed works. I ask questions about how something worked or if the game has rules for something. Instead, you've stuck to your bad opinion based on faulty/incomplete information and are unwilling to even listen to someone else telling you otherwise. If someone gave me a bad synopsis of a book or a movie and I decided I wasn't interested in reading/watching it I know I'd probably start re-evaluating that decision if I started hearing that the synopsis I got wasn't accurate, especially if I heard that from a number of different sources. The same is true of 3.x, you've clearly had some incorrect ideas about how things work in 3.x yet when you've been continually corrected and had things explained to you you've continued to stick to the same arguments that the game is "bad" or "dumb" or "stupid", even when faced with numerous people telling you that what you said was bad about it isn't the case, and have frequently directly quoted (or accurately summarised) the rules in order to clarify things. as also previously stated any person unless citing a source can omly present material that is his/her opinion on forums. anyone that thinks otherwise is pretty dense. Well I guess that makes you dense as you keep posting incorrect rules from 3.x as if they were fact, in spite of being shown that it's incorrect. People have provided exact page references illustrating that what you say about 3.x is false, yet you persist in saying the same false things about the rules. and i do not like discussing who different systems work. i like one that i like. i don't have to convince you to like, but i don't have to agree with the system you like. and am free to voice my opposition to that system if i want. All you've been asked to supply is what you didn't like about 3.x. So far that's mostly been met with blanket attacks that it's "stupid" or "crappy" or incorrect rules. If you're so disinterested in discussing different systems why are you even continuing to post on this thread? i prefer to discuss abstracts from the game. but many times people drags specific rule sets into it and convolute the discussion, such has happened in the "nagic shop" thread. i can see if others want to argue rules about wealth per level, but it doesn't mean that "rule" is required to determine whether or not magic shops or the need for a DM to pamper players exists. Again, there is nothing in the D&D rules for 3.x that suggest that magic shops exist. There is also nothing in the general flavour that suggests they exist, other than in specific campaign settings like Forgotten Realms (which apparently spread the concept predominantly in 2ed). I believe that Eberron also includes magic shops but I'm not familiar enough with the setting to comment for sure. That doesn't mean that magic shops are an explicit or implicit part of 3.x, it simply means that certain settings include them, the main one being a setting ported over from 2ed, which also had them and was the default setting for 2ed. So if we want to talk about which edition has magic shops more ingrained in them as a system, in terms of abstract concepts and flavour, then I'd say it sounds like it's far more prevalent in 2ed. it just seems people cant do without their concrete rules. to tell them how something should work. and to them i refer them to my signature. MAYBE the reason i like AD&D2E so much...maybe. The big issue I have is that you seem to think that having more concrete rules (I say more because 2ed clearly had some concrete rules) seems to limit creativity. Personally, I think that it frees me up to be more creative in other ways. Yes, some DM's are quick on their feet and can make up a rule on the fly, but sometimes you also get stuck and have to think for awhile. Or sometimes you make a snap call and it has unforeseen consequences down the road or the players disagree with the ruling. Having a concrete rule means I can just quickly look up the rule (assuming I don't know it) and move on. For me, that is less disruptive to the game and allows me to focus more on storyline, RPing, NPC tactics, and so on, rather than adjudicating basic things that (I would argue) should have been included in the rules to begin with. Furthermore, for the situations that aren't covered in the rules (which will almost always happen in an RPG at some point), I have more material to draw upon for making my judgement, which I find useful, especially when the rules follow a consistent mechanic.
Roxlimn 07-30-07, 03:37 PM	Technically, magic shops existed all the way back in 1e in Hommlet, where the Magic User sold you scrolls and such and the Priest and Druid sold you potions, but I disgress.
ORC_Tuhteth 07-30-07, 03:57 PM	Quick comment on this: Incidentially, complaining about your writing style does not constitute "trolling". Complaining about writing style, spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. are all considered a form of baiting -- such statements almost always cause a negative response from the target of the comment. For example, if you're having trouble understanding someone, you could say this: "I'm not certain I'm following you, but I think you're saying that [insert argument here]. Is that correct? If not, could you restate it so we're on the same page?" If they try to restate it and you still can't understand, you could follow up with something like this: "I'm sorry, I'm just not sure what you're trying to say. Could you [break it down into multiple sentences/separate it into paragraphs/put it in a bulleted list/run it through a spell check] so I can be sure I'm following you correctly?" This is about the farthest you can really go without coming across as rude or elitist. If you can't understand someone and you have the urge to tell them to learn how to spell/punctuate/use grammar instead of trying to respond to their post (as above), you should just ignore that person instead of critiquing the writing in question.
Joneleth 07-30-07, 04:06 PM	I may be a bit late with this, but I read up to where someone said he brushed Baldurs gate under the carpet because of teh 2nd ed rules. I also had some trouble understanding thaco at first, because the game didn't seem to be very consequent in what it meant when a magic weapon had a + or - to thaco. But really it would be a waste to let teh game catchdust because of that. Baldurs gate is an excellent series. Take 5 minutes to learn what thaco means, and the influences that higher scores or proficiencies have on your character by looking at the results thereof in your character screen. I promise you won't regret playing those games. To original discussion: I think there's nothing to discuss really. Whatever floats your boat. I prefer 3rd because that's what I'm used to. But everyone plays by the system that suits them best.
ArcTan 07-30-07, 04:29 PM	And I'm seeing and remembering more and more reasons why I wouldn't go back and play 2e now! Yay for both of us! To be honest, the main reason I wouldn't go back and play 2e isn't the ruleset -- it's that every time we have a rehash of the Edition Wars, I get reminded that the grognards who stuck with 2e tend to be arrogant control freaks. Really, the "spirit" of 2e was *not* that the rules should be a kind of litmus test so only the smartest and most obsessive nerds were allowed to play; that the contradictory and confusing rules meant players were supposed to be constantly confused and the DM therefore had absolute power to do whatever he wanted without questions or backtalk; that class balance was purposely bad so that you could weed out the newbies by tricking them into taking the dumb classes while the smart players knew what the good classes were; or any of that crap. Those were *mistakes*. A lot of the early designers *recognized* these mistakes and tried vainly to fix them (Player's Option was really for that purpose). But people are now taking those mistakes and actually peddling them as *positive qualities*, and that freaks me the hell out. It's like people *want* D&D to be a badly written game that only people who are veterans at it can enjoy -- like the idea that a bunch of snot-nosed kids being able to pick up the game right away and have fun without the help of their graybearded super-DM is somehow offensive. *My* ideal hack-n-slash D&D-ish role-playing system would be one where you can pick up the rules in one day, where there are lots of options that are flavorful and interesting but no real bad choices or good choices, and where, ideally, there is no DM in the referee sense. There might be someone who sets up the scenarios and decides on the game structure, but no one whose job it is to design the system on the fly. It should be a game where four or five people can just go out and buy it and *start playing that afternoon*, and where the decision of who gets to be the DM is as simple as "Who wants to do it?" "I have an interesting idea for a campaign!" *Not* "Who wants to do it?" "I will, because I'm the only one who owns all the relevant books and who's been DMing for the past 20 years and is familiar with the secret spaghetti-ball of houserules that our game depends on." "Well... okay." D&D 3e is not this system. But it's getting there. They're trying. They've been trying as far back as 2e, but 2e accomplished this goal extremely poorly. And, like I said, it creeps me out that there are people who stick with 2e *because* it accomplishes the goal poorly *because their goal is the exact opposite* -- they want this game to be a game where you *can't* play unless you've been playing for 10 years since you were 15 (gotta keep those snot-nosed M:tG and WoW players out, right?) and where everyone is totally reliant on the graybearded godlike DM. It's BS. It's *bad*. Bad for the game, bad for the company and bad for the community. And yet I see it everywhere -- it's an attitude that pervades these boards, meetups, random D&D geeks you meet and hope to be able to play a good game with -- I *hate* it, and I think it should be exorcized. It's everything I dislike about geek culture as a whole in a nutshell.
ArcTan 07-30-07, 04:32 PM	the things i know about 3.x caused me to dislike the rest without having to know it. someone eats a apple and gets sick from it and finds out it was because they are allergic to apples, then i guess they should try apple pie, or apple cider, etc then since it isn't just apples but other things they don't know how will react with the apples. allergies are not the same as personal preferences, but you get the idea. I get the idea that allergies are, in fact, completely different from personal preferences but you're insisting on comparing the two, which explains a lot about your bad attitude. a bad "taste" for something could have the same effect. ...Which would mean you had an *irrational prejudice* against the game or product in question, and should therefore not claim that you don't like it on anything even close to objective grounds. yes people came become biased for whatever personal reason that have against something and it doesn't require them to have any further evidence to change their mind. Being a wise, mature person who's worth having a conversation with means being able to own up to irrational biases and try to look past them. Otherwise your opinion is worthless to anyone who doesn't have your same exact biases.
Solaris 07-30-07, 04:52 PM	To be honest, the main reason I wouldn't go back and play 2e isn't the ruleset -- it's that every time we have a rehash of the Edition Wars, I get reminded that the grognards who stuck with 2e tend to be arrogant control freaks. It's funny how the players of a game can put you off the game itself; the same thing happened for me with 3E/3.5E. I won't go into specifics -- you guys have your own nice little argument going on here, and you don't need my contributions (and I don't want to get involved anyway) -- but I did want to point out that it works both ways.
ArcTan 07-30-07, 05:15 PM	It's funny how the players of a game can put you off the game itself; the same thing happened for me with 3E/3.5E. *shrug* The main reason I play 3e is not that I like the "culture" better or the "caliber of player" better, it's that the majority of people you can find to play will have 3e books. I'm perfectly happy to debate the strengths of the two rulesets just as rulesets. However, when the argument becomes about "What kinds of players play both?", I object. I object on the one hand because it's a prejudiced and stupid argument. I object on the other hand because the *specific things that people tend to say about 2e players* makes me not want to play with them. This is not a blanket condemnation. If I run into someone who wants to play a 2e game in real life, I'll judge based on how he actually acts in the game -- though he'd have to be a very good player to make me want to play a ruleset I don't like. I don't judge all people based on forum posters. However, I do judge the forum posters themselves, or at least their stated motivations. And the stated motivations of a lot of 2e grognards are ones I find intrinsically repellent.
Solaris 07-30-07, 05:30 PM	2e grognards Maybe it's my age, but I keep laughing when I see that phrase :) I guess you could be using it literally, to mean "grumbler", but applying the usual (gaming) meaning to 2nd Edition AD&D n00bs is funny.
shadzar 07-30-07, 06:55 PM	10 player group and first time DM oh they still play it and i presume some of them know the rules, as they have been playing off and on since 3.0. actually since 2E for some, and OD&D for at least one other than myself. the most knowledgable was the one explaining things to me a bit until he ran out of spare time from work and just said he would worry about the rest, while the others tried to explain things to me, and i had never played with any of them before to know how well they understand D&D of any edition. again the first game didn't even interest my that much as the game day DM explained how some of the things changed the game greatly, and summarized them. he had trasnfered to 3.5 from 3.0 from 2E liking each new system and even suggested that he knew people that didn't like the same things i mentioned about not liking as he explained the changed, and that had played 3.x for much grater time that that one little session of game day i was in. he understood easily why some things just couldn't be accepted from older players, but he still prefered 3.5 and was able to play 2E also with no ill feelings to wards other editoins. so i think he had a stronger grasp than the 10 player new DM group. in any event it doesn't take that much to say you don't like something. i had a player once i finally convinced to sit in and play a session for a game. at the end of the session they said they never wanted to play another RPG because it just didn't suit them. how is that any different? because i accepted that they were capable of judging what they liked and not forcing the opinion that they didn;t know it well enough to say they didn't like it maybe?
ArcTan 07-30-07, 11:13 PM	Maybe it's my age, but I keep laughing when I see that phrase :) I guess you could be using it literally, to mean "grumbler", but applying the usual (gaming) meaning to 2nd Edition AD&D n00bs is funny. I use it to describe an attitude rather than a time period. There are even 3.0 grognards, and 3.5 "core" grognards (OMG TOME OF BATTLE RUINED MELEE CLASSES NO ONE USE ANYTHING BUT CORE FIGHTER KTHX).
Reinforcements 07-31-07, 01:10 AM	I use it to describe an attitude rather than a time period. There are even 3.0 grognards, and 3.5 "core" grognards (OMG TOME OF BATTLE RUINED MELEE CLASSES NO ONE USE ANYTHING BUT CORE FIGHTER KTHX). Oh man, I had a run-in with a 3.5 Core grognard just the other day. Why is Tome of Battle so popular yet no online DM seems to allow it? But I digress. ... Okay, I guess I didn't really have much else to say. I do really wish, though, that Shadzar would clearly lay out what his problems with 3rd Ed. are. As others have said, Shadzar, you haven't been terribly clear, and it would aid the discussion if you'd spell it out.
Archangel62 07-31-07, 01:20 AM	Oh man, I had a run-in with a 3.5 Core grognard just the other day. Why is Tome of Battle so popular yet no online DM seems to allow it? But I digress. ... Okay, I guess I didn't really have much else to say. I do really wish, though, that Shadzar would clearly lay out what his problems with 3rd Ed. are. As others have said, Shadzar, you haven't been terribly clear, and it would aid the discussion if you'd spell it out. He's like that a lot, in many threads he screams about things that sound odd, when called on it or asked to clarify he seems to either ignore the post or move onto a new topic. As for the ToB thing, I need to know where to go to set up an online campaign but that's another topic. As for the second edition stuff, if you guys honestly think that 2nd ed was the best thing ever then why not just use your old stuff or go to Kenzer since their Hackmaster game uses 2nd edition mechanics and in fact ironed out many of the initial kinks that the old system had. Interestingly they were never able to get enough money to keep the license however so I am forced to conclude that either 2nd editions greatness is due more to familiarity/nostalgia or people simply prefer the new edition comparatively. I have played in both editions and frankly I much prefer 3.X, it has its issues sure, but it is more internally consistent and is much clearer in rules and apsects. It also means that DM fiat isn't total arbiter of many effects and rules for the game. Some of the old guard dislike that, seeing the DM as the final arbiter regardless, however it is important to remember that a game should not have it's only form of quality control being whoever is running the game at that time. It also means that rules modifications are important for clarification and, joy and rapture here, we have a better system for objectively determining power levels. The DM should not be put on some little pedestal or throne, they are just another person at the table, they are running the game but they aren't there to make the others miserable or circumvent the players tactics and abilities. Also, many of the new classes and mechanics offer things other than random plusses and minuses or options that gave pure power or alterations. Consider that in 2nd edition kits were so potent because you could drop just about anything and become a holy terror using a kit that gave you a bunch of bonuses and penalties that in most cases weren't really penalties at all (the wizard getting fewer hitpoints or the fighter having fewer nonweapon proficiencies). The new classes offer new options and tactical forms, a warlock can bring a new set of ideas and concepts to the table, an incarnate another, a hexblade a third, on and on. The biggest improvement is this, 3rd edition pulled back the curtain and showed us something, each and every class, monster, and race is basically a metagame collection of abilities. I can call myself a demonslayer and be a ranger and prestige to something else, or I can design classes looking at the rules and working out how the abilities interact and function to see what they create and where they go. Another way of looking at it is this, in 2nd edition modifying the system was often necessary but was also just as often complicated or frustrating because the changes might cause massive ripples in the game. In 3.X rules modifications are generally less necessary and due to how modular the game is you can often remove the big problems you might normally find yourself with.
Frugal 07-31-07, 08:32 AM	i had a player once i finally convinced to sit in and play a session for a game. at the end of the session they said they never wanted to play another RPG because it just didn't suit them. how is that any different? because i accepted that they were capable of judging what they liked and not forcing the opinion that they didn;t know it well enough to say they didn't like it maybe? Well personally, I might talk to the person a bit and find out why they didn't like it. Was it too much combat? Not enough? They found the rules too complicated? What? Some things could be the style of the adventure (the RP vs. combat questions), some might be RPGs in general, if they just didn't like the idea of getting into the role of a character for instance. RPGs aren't for everyone but I would like to take the time and find out why they didn't like it and discuss if it might be possible for them to enjoy it with some tweaks or if it was, in fact, just not suited to them.
Steely_Dan 07-31-07, 08:44 AM	Neurotic, control freak DMs have been around in every edition of the game. Actually, I have noticed slightly more of that attitude in 3.x DMs.
Optimized_Commoner 07-31-07, 08:49 AM	Uh for the record... An opponent's AC is the circumstance bonus they grant to hit them in combat for being poorly defended, your THAC0 is the DC of the roll to hit them and you roll a D20. It's not that hard. I miss the following things about 2e: Weapon Speed Piecemail armour Gaining XP for crafting magic items The running/swimming rules The ecology section of the MM Some of the artwork Lack of skills Reversable spells Chance to learn spell hmmm, that's all. It's a little easier in my opinion to house rule those things forwards rather than shift the whole game back an edition. If I did shift it backwards I'd go back to D&D anyway, take nostalgia to the limits and make the younglings squirm.
Steely_Dan 07-31-07, 08:53 AM	If I did shift it backwards I'd go back to D&D anyway, take nostalgia to the limits and make the younglings squirm. If I was to regress, I too would go past 2nd edition. 1st edition AD&D had serious vibe.
Optimized_Commoner 07-31-07, 09:12 AM	If I was to regress, I too would go past 2nd edition. 1st edition AD&D had serious vibe. I went from playing with an OD&D group to playing with an AD&D 2e group. Never played a single session of AD&D(/revised). Though I read one of their MCs once and it looked cool.
Mark Thorson 07-31-07, 09:20 AM	If I was to regress, I too would go past 2nd edition. 1st edition AD&D had serious vibe. I have many more fond memories of playing OD&D and 1e AD&D than I have of playing 2e. Admittedly, that has probably more to do with the groups I was playing with than the specific editions. I was with some extreme munchkins for most of 2e. We're talking Vorpal weapons and Swords of Sharpness all around at fairly early levels. Lot of Hack n' Slash and not much RP'ing. Just not my taste.
Frugal 07-31-07, 09:54 AM	Weapon Speed Piecemail armour I don't know enough about 2ed but I can see these as good and bad. My understanding is that initiative in 2ed was a lot more complicated, I can kind of see the argument for weapon speed in that you can get the "drop" on someone better with a quicker weapon but it sounds like it also added a lot of complexity so I can understand dropping it to speed up play. Same goes for piecemeal armour if I'm understanding what you're referring to. On the plus side, it allows you to wear a mixture of armour but then you pretty much need to do hit locations and then you need a called shot mechanic and you need a way to balance things so that certain called shots aren't too powerful or effective; like the penalty for aiming at an un-armoured area being less than the target's AC (or higher in 2ed terms) means that his armour is essentially useless because you're always better off ignoring the armour and going for the called shot. I don't know enough about 2ed's system to know how well it handled these, just saying it can be fraught with peril and it certainly adds complexity. Gaining XP for crafting magic items I don't know enough about 2ed's crafting rules. I don't really like 3.x's system of paying XP to craft, but I understand why they did it for balance reasons. I'd really love to see it overhauled so that if players want to craft they can but so that it also doesn't completely throw off the economy if they choose to do so. The ecology section of the MM Agreed, 3.5's MM drives me nuts that there's little to no context provided with the creature entries. What I find funny though is that others will complain loudly about the amount of fluff or "filler" in the later MM's but I actually really like that there's more detailed ecologies in the later MM's. Granted, there's also a lot of excessive filler and some of the flavour's not great so it's not perfect either. Lack of skills I'm curious about this one, I suspect it's just a difference in preference since that's one of the things I really enjoy about 3.x.
Grand Theft Otto 07-31-07, 10:26 AM	I miss the following things about 2e: The ecology section of the MM Totally agree on this one. To date, the best monster books published, IMO, are the Monsternomicons by Privateer Press. Each entry has a nice ecology, a bit of fluff fiction, and frequently the creature themselves serve as treasure (rules for poison, body part salvage, etc). Chance to learn spell I personally hated this one. It might have made sense if you could try again after a week etc.
shadzar 07-31-07, 11:58 AM	I don't know enough about 2ed but I can see these as good and bad. My understanding is that initiative in 2ed was a lot more complicated, I can kind of see the argument for weapon speed in that you can get the "drop" on someone better with a quicker weapon but it sounds like it also added a lot of complexity so I can understand dropping it to speed up play. assume a sword was speed 7 and a dagger speed 4. roll for initiative. sword wielder gets a 5 dagger user gets a 10 sword wielder completes his swing at initiative 12. dagger goes through at initiative 14. luck allows the sword wielder to swing first and potentially kil the dagger user before the dagger gets his chance to finish his action. Same goes for piecemeal armour if I'm understanding what you're referring to. On the plus side, it allows you to wear a mixture of armour but then you pretty much need to do hit locations and then you need a called shot mechanic and you need a way to balance things so that certain called shots aren't too powerful or effective; like the penalty for aiming at an un-armoured area being less than the target's AC (or higher in 2ed terms) means that his armour is essentially useless because you're always better off ignoring the armour and going for the called shot. I don't know enough about 2ed's system to know how well it handled these, just saying it can be fraught with peril and it certainly adds complexity. with any armor you would have gaps in certain location making hits easier in those areas. it just gave the ability to not have to wear a whole suit of same armor. since their was dodging and parrying in 2E you could avoid attacks to the legs is you wren't wearing armor there. I don't know enough about 2ed's crafting rules. I don't really like 3.x's system of paying XP to craft, but I understand why they did it for balance reasons. I'd really love to see it overhauled so that if players want to craft they can but so that it also doesn't completely throw off the economy if they choose to do so. yup wizards gained XP for using their talent to create something. you weren't gauranteed to always succeed and the cost could sometimes be much more for harder items than the listed "value" of said item throgh the trial and eerors in creating it. this effort was awarded with more XP because the wizard gained knowledge when he crafted his first or first few items of a given type whle he hones his skill. i guess now the XP loss means there is no chance for failure when creating items? I'm curious about this one, I suspect it's just a difference in preference since that's one of the things I really enjoy about 3.x. i would think "lack of skills" means that they aren't predefined. you don't have to chose just things listed to be able to do. the more skills that are spelled out, the lessit makes it look like you can do. while the less skills spelled out leave more room for making up stuff to do....?
Grand Theft Otto 07-31-07, 12:09 PM	yup wizards gained XP for using their talent to create something. you weren't gauranteed to always succeed and the cost could sometimes be much more for harder items than the listed "value" of said item throgh the trial and eerors in creating it. this effort was awarded with more XP because the wizard gained knowledge when he crafted his first or first few items of a given type whle he hones his skill. Which would have been fine and dandy if there was any kind of concrete rules for making items aside from the "lose a point of Con" permanency spell. Oh and trolls blood for potions of healing. I recall that in there as well.
Mark Thorson 07-31-07, 12:43 PM	i guess now the XP loss means there is no chance for failure when creating items? No one's ever tried that in our campaign yet, but there is a spellcraft check for scribing scrolls and you can fail, so I'd guess there's a failure chance at creating an item.
shadzar 07-31-07, 12:48 PM	Which would have been fine and dandy if there was any kind of concrete rules for making items aside from the "lose a point of Con" permanency spell. Oh and trolls blood for potions of healing. I recall that in there as well. trolls blood? i will need to check on that one. maybe it wasn't in the PHB or DMg, but something mentioned in the MM? why woudl you need concrete rules? when making a sword you needed to make a sword. it gave enough for the job to be done minimilistically is so desired, or to the extreme down to finding the proper exact ingreidents to give a given ability. you wouldn't expect a potions/poisons section to go into detail about creating real poisons would you? that would make any book containing it illegal. so if they couldn't go into depth of concrete rules for creating poisons, then why should they everything else? do you need everything spelled out for you and unable to think for yourself how to follow what is given to come up with a way to do something? i can understand the concept behind the loss of Con, but could never fully justify it. so many other spells could put a drain on the body of the caster and give the same result. i don't recall if it was intended to be permenant, i think so...(been a while since dealing with creating a new magic item), but i would be able to see a temporary loss of a few points of Con rather than a permenant loss of a single point of it.
shadzar 07-31-07, 12:53 PM	No one's ever tried that in our campaign yet, but there is a spellcraft check for scribing scrolls and you can fail, so I'd guess there's a failure chance at creating an item. and you lose the XP whether you pass or fail the spellcraft check?
Mark Thorson 07-31-07, 01:07 PM	and you lose the XP whether you pass or fail the spellcraft check? Actually, I don't believe there's any XP involved in Scribing a scroll. I think if you fail you can try again in a day? A week maybe? I haven't played a Wizard in 3.x yet so I'm not entirely sure on that.
Reinforcements 07-31-07, 01:15 PM	Actually, I don't believe there's any XP involved in Scribing a scroll. I think if you fail you can try again in a day? A week maybe? I haven't played a Wizard in 3.x yet so I'm not entirely sure on that. The base cost of a scroll is Spell Level * Caster Level * 25 gp. As with all magic items, it costs half that in miscellaneous magical materials (in a scroll's case, special ink and paper) and 1/25 that in xp to create. For all the magic item creation rules, see here (http://srd.plush.org/magicItemsCreation.html).
Mark Thorson 07-31-07, 02:26 PM	The base cost of a scroll is Spell Level * Caster Level * 25 gp. As with all magic items, it costs half that in miscellaneous magical materials (in a scroll's case, special ink and paper) and 1/25 that in xp to create. For all the magic item creation rules, see here (http://srd.plush.org/magicItemsCreation.html). Ah, very good. Thanks for that.:)
Frugal 07-31-07, 04:52 PM	why woudl you need concrete rules? What the crafting rules in 3.x do is tell you how much money/xp, and how long, it will take to make the item. That's not including any special ingredients (which is left up to the DM's discretion), or even what those materials might be. But it does mean that you can get a guideline for how much work is involved and that does help you balance when it can be made. For instance, you probably wouldn't want a 1st level wizard crafting a +5 sword, it would throw things off greatly. Not sure how 2ed handled that balance, if it did at all. This is one of the good things about all items in the book having costs, you can figure out how much it costs to craft them and it also gives you a guideline for when it's appropriate for a party member to have the item (be it bought, found or crafted) when you look at the wealth by level table. To me, that's a huge advantage, you can get a sense that a 50,000 gp item would not be appropriate for a 7th level character. It also gives you a rough idea of an item's power because you can compare it with other items of the same price. Now that's not to say the 3.x crafting system is perfect, it even says that the formulas given are only guidelines and that any new item should be balanced against similar effects. This is good and bad, it's great that the DM has the discretion because there are some things that would normally break the game otherwise, but it does create some issues where you'll see on the boards that anyone asking about pricing a particular magic item will get a wide range of different answers.
Grand Theft Otto 07-31-07, 05:12 PM	trolls blood? i will need to check on that one. maybe it wasn't in the PHB or DMg, but something mentioned in the MM? Yep, I think under ecology. Its one of the things I do miss about 1st/2nd edition MM's. why woudl you need concrete rules? when making a sword you needed to make a sword. it gave enough for the job to be done minimilistically is so desired, or to the extreme down to finding the proper exact ingreidents to give a given ability. Why do you need rules for how far you can jump? You say you jump, and you do. How about hitting someone with a sword? I mean, cant they just say swords are sharp and the DM think of how to run a copmbat? What kind of uncreative people are actually playing?! Lets look at potions of healing, which by all accounts on how often they were found, werent overtly onerous to make (and certainly didnt perma sap a point of Con in the process). Ok, we need trolls blood (thank you Monstrous Compendium). What else? How much does it cost? How long does it take? Can I just drink trolls blood? I dont expect a step by step process for every item, but SOMETHING would be helpful. Hell, take the page devoted to random prostitude generation and offer some advice. The item creation guidelines in the 3.5 DMG take a few pages, and offer you enough to get by without getting into specifics. 2nd edition had specifics, such as the troll blood (or displacer beast hides) without a framework system to hang on. do you need everything spelled out for you and unable to think for yourself how to follow what is given to come up with a way to do something? Allow me to present the best RPG ever, which blows 3.5, 1st edition, Unkown Armies, and every other system out of the water. Called "Blank Page"! Its the best, because theres nothing written down! If anyone cares to buy this groundbreaking rule system, feel free to send me $9.95, and I will be happy to mail you a copy. Only real creative roleplayers, not "roll players" need apply. A non-system is not a system. The absence of substance is not substance. i can understand the concept behind the loss of Con, but could never fully justify it. so many other spells could put a drain on the body of the caster and give the same result. i don't recall if it was intended to be permenant, i think so...(been a while since dealing with creating a new magic item), but i would be able to see a temporary loss of a few points of Con rather than a permenant loss of a single point of it. Hell, I'd settle for how Identify worked. Why exactly is a high level wizard willing to give up a significant chunk of his life force to make some darts +1 that break on impact?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-31-07, 05:16 PM	Allow me to present the best RPG ever, which blows 3.5, 1st edition, Unkown Armies, and every other system out of the water. Called "Blank Page"! Its the best, because theres nothing written down! If anyone cares to buy this groundbreaking rule system, feel free to send me 9.95, and I will be happy to mail you a copy. Call it Tabula Rasa and I bet you could actually sell some copies. ;)
Sleepwalker13666 07-31-07, 05:28 PM	I started in second, I fought 3rd edition mostly because of the lack of options available at first, with my second edition books and magazines I had over 100 classes to choose from, piles of spells and monsters (boy did kinkos love me.) But I had to admit i found the 3rd edition rules system better. Now I pretty much can use any option I want thanks to all the expansions in wizards books alone. Me and my group tried to play a second edition game just for a change of pace, the concept I had in mind was immediately hosed since for some reason Elves could not be rangers,I understand some racial/class restrictions, but elves and rangers just seem to go hand in hand. It took us about over 3 hours to figure it out again, that backwards math, speed modifiers for weapons, ugh. It made me appreciate my 3.5 books a lot more.
High Octane 07-31-07, 06:21 PM	I started in second, I fought 3rd edition mostly because of the lack of options available at first, with my second edition books and magazines I had over 100 classes to choose from, piles of spells and monsters (boy did kinkos love me.) But I had to admit i found the 3rd edition rules system better. Now I pretty much can use any option I want thanks to all the expansions in wizards books alone. Me and my group tried to play a second edition game just for a change of pace, the concept I had in mind was immediately hosed since for some reason Elves could not be rangers,I understand some racial/class restrictions, but elves and rangers just seem to go hand in hand. It took us about over 3 hours to figure it out again, that backwards math, speed modifiers for weapons, ugh. It made me appreciate my 3.5 books a lot more. I seem to remember for some reason 2nd edition decided to limit rangers to humans and half-elves. I know in 1st edition they were allowed. One thing I do not miss about 2nd edition and prior editions was the racial restrictions on classes. Instead now we just have modifiers that make combining certain classes and races a bad idea. Somewhere along the line though dwarves became real good wizards, which I find odd.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 06:36 PM	Neurotic, control freak DMs have been around in every edition of the game. Actually, I have noticed slightly more of that attitude in 3.x DMs. The point is I've never heard someone say that they're upgrading to 3e D&D or switching to 3e D&D from GURPS or World of Darkness specifically because it lets them be neurotic control freaks. I've never heard anyone come out and say "I don't like GURPS because players can customize their characters too much. I like D&D because it means as a DM I'm the only one who understands how the class and level system works so I can control what my players can do." If they did, my response would be the same.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 06:40 PM	Allow me to present the best RPG ever, which blows 3.5, 1st edition, Unkown Armies, and every other system out of the water. Called "Blank Page"! Its the best, because theres nothing written down! If anyone cares to buy this groundbreaking rule system, feel free to send me $9.95, and I will be happy to mail you a copy. Only real creative roleplayers, not "roll players" need apply. I have a better idea. Instead of making the page actually blank, cover it with incomprehensible scribbling and runes and glyphs. Then, everyone will talk about how "cool" the system is and how "elite" they are for bothering to try to understand it and how it provides great "groundwork" for making up your own houseruled system. ("I... think that's an A, or maybe an upside-down V. That gives me a great idea for how attacks should work!") Then not only will the system be super-flexible and for real roleplayers, it'll keep out all the riffraff who don't spend weeks trying to decipher it, and make sure that those damn anime-watching video-game-playing roll-player kids stay out of your gaming group.
Khadmus 07-31-07, 06:50 PM	Have yet to play 2e, vastly prefer the 2e books (<3 fluff <3) and don't mind the mechanical shortcomings that much. I keep waiting for the day that character kits replace prestige classes. fluffy...I wish my pillow was this fluffy.
shadzar 07-31-07, 08:05 PM	What the crafting rules in 3.x do is tell you how much money/xp, and how long, it will take to make the item. That's not including any special ingredients (which is left up to the DM's discretion), or even what those materials might be. But it does mean that you can get a guideline for how much work is involved and that does help you balance when it can be made. For instance, you probably wouldn't want a 1st level wizard crafting a +5 sword, it would throw things off greatly. Not sure how 2ed handled that balance, if it did at all. oh well item creation in 2E was very similar. it gave most of that info for you. i thought you meant thing like 2 ounces goats milks, 2 salamander tougnes, etc when making potions. :D
Alex_P 07-31-07, 08:16 PM	do you need everything spelled out for you and unable to think for yourself how to follow what is given to come up with a way to do something?I call BS here. You're not "thinking for yourself" at all. The GM is thinking for you. You're just accepting whatever he says (or arguing about it -- what joy!). Even with a group that's very focused, there's a ton of "What happens if I do this? What happens if I do this? What are the rules for doing this?" going around, because any inventive action on the PCs' parts requires a GM-fiated ruling to proceed. Just for reference, I think sifting through tons of rules or adding up modifiers sucks, too. But it's ludicrous to say that sitting on your butt waiting for one person out of the whole group to pull some rules out of his ass is any better. -- Alex
shadzar 07-31-07, 09:18 PM	I call BS here. You're not "thinking for yourself" at all. The GM is thinking for you. You're just accepting whatever he says (or arguing about it -- what joy!). Even with a group that's very focused, there's a ton of "What happens if I do this? What happens if I do this? What are the rules for doing this?" going around, because any inventive action on the PCs' parts requires a GM-fiated ruling to proceed. Just for reference, I think sifting through tons of rules or adding up modifiers sucks, too. But it's ludicrous to say that sitting on your butt waiting for one person out of the whole group to pull some rules out of his ass is any better. -- Alex and sicne you took that out of context to what i was responding to how was the person i quoted thinking for themselves with "concrete rules" telling them how to make things? they weren't they were letting the book think for them....hmmm.... at least when you ask a DM what happens when i do this and it isn't listed in a book saying you can't do it then there is a chance you can. but the way some people feel attached to the "rules" at the hip they can't think for themselves it seems. again breeding a group of people who think RPGs is just rolling random results on a series of tables. see the upper portion of my signature.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 09:25 PM	and sicne you took that out of context to what i was responding to how was the person i quoted thinking for themselves with "concrete rules" telling them how to make things? they weren't they were letting the book think for them....hmmm.... at least when you ask a DM what happens when i do this and it isn't listed in a book saying you can't do it then there is a chance you can. but the way some people feel attached to the "rules" at the hip they can't think for themselves it seems. again breeding a group of people who think RPGs is just rolling random results on a series of tables. see the upper portion of my signature. So I'm going to start selling copies of Tabula Rasa for $9.99 apiece soon. Wanna pre-order your copy? In fact, to save money on shipping I think I'm just going to sell electronic copies over the Internet, that you can print on your own.
Vaelan 08-01-07, 02:06 AM	In fact, to save money on shipping I think I'm just going to sell electronic copies over the Internet, that you can print on your own. Yeah, sure... force the consumer to pay the printing costs! :mad:
High Octane 08-01-07, 02:24 AM	Yeah, sure... force the consumer to pay the printing costs! :mad: I know! The game was so much better when _Jayne_Cobb_ created it and ran it! Yeah Tabula Rasa has really gone to hell with the new management who are all much greedier and evil than the old one.
Alex_P 08-01-07, 02:33 AM	I have a better idea. Instead of making the page actually blank, cover it with incomprehensible scribbling and runes and glyphs. Then, everyone will talk about how "cool" the system is and how "elite" they are for bothering to try to understand it and how it provides great "groundwork" for making up your own houseruled system. ("I... think that's an A, or maybe an upside-down V. That gives me a great idea for how attacks should work!")Didn't they already make that? (http://philippe.tromeur.free.fr/hybrid.htm) -- Alex
DrowBattlemind 08-01-07, 03:18 AM	Didn't they already make that? (http://philippe.tromeur.free.fr/hybrid.htm) -- Alex :shocked: :mymy: :uh-huh:
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 07:16 AM	I seem to remember for some reason 2nd edition decided to limit rangers to humans and half-elves. I know in 1st edition they were allowed. Wrong way round. Elves couldn't be Rangers in 1e, but they could be in 2e. Really, this is all preferential stuff. Some people like a tight rules base with a codification for a large number of actions and others prefer a more free form approach to play. I don't particularly find any version of D&D to be perfectly suited to my preferences, I just see all editions as part of a single corpus from which to draw ideas. There are loads of things I don't like about 1e, 2e and 3e and loads of things I like about them. On the other hand, if I want to play a 2e Module, I'll play with 2e rules and if I want to play a 3e Module, I'll play with 3e rules. By far more important thatn the rules set is a good DM and good Players. I have played in some crappy games of 3e and some crappy games of 2e and they all had one thing in common - a crappy DM.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 07:32 AM	The thing is, 3e CAN be used for a more free form approach, and I've never understood why people don't realize this more readily. It isn't like the fabric of the thing collapses if you don't allow Fighters or Wizards in-game, or change the AoO rules back to 2e style.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 07:46 AM	Sure, and 2e can be given a tighter rules base (I mean, most of the rules in 3e are taken from the Player's Option Series anyway). If you are willing to modify the game (and 2e operated on the assumption that by default you would) you can make either system work for you. A good example of what I mean is Spring Attack. In 2e, if you wanted your Character to move, attack and move (prior to the formalisation of Combat and Tactics) there was nothing stopping you from doing so except for the DM. If you want to do the same in 3e, then conventionally you need three Feats to do so. However, that isn't the whole story. There isn't actually anything more stopping your Character from moving, attacking and moving in 3e than there was in 2e. If you want your Character to move, attack and move without Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack, it's still up to the DM. It would be entirely reasonable for him to allow it and impose a penalty of some sort (such as -4 AB or a free AoO).
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 07:51 AM	I think that it's easier to relax rule restrictions than it is to make and extend a system competently. Playing with Combat and Tactics improved on 2e by instituting optional additions, but even then, there were some anomalies that still needed correcting. I'm not contesting that you can make either system work for you if you want. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along. For me, though, modifying 3e is easier than modifying 2e.
Steely_Dan 08-01-07, 07:56 AM	or change the AoO rules back to 2e style. Which were - It's been a while, can you remind me?
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 07:58 AM	I think that it's easier to relax rule restrictions than it is to make and extend a system competently. Playing with Combat and Tactics improved on 2e by instituting optional additions, but even then, there were some anomalies that still needed correcting. I'm not contesting that you can make either system work for you if you want. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along. For me, though, modifying 3e is easier than modifying 2e. Sure, and again that's going to be a matter of preference, as not everybody finds the same things easier. My experience is the opposite, I find it easier to modify and extend a basic system than relax or take away from a more complex system. Niether view is wrong or right, it just varies by individual. Which were - It's been a while, can you remind me? There were none in the core system (though there was a 'free hack' rule against fleeing enemies, which was the basis for AoOs), but in Combat and Tactics it was almost identical to 3e, with a few minor differences.
Frugal 08-01-07, 08:12 AM	at least when you ask a DM what happens when i do this and it isn't listed in a book saying you can't do it then there is a chance you can. And as many have already said, having more things detailed in the rules doesn't mean that you still can't come up with another option not covered by the rules, it just means that more things that you'd come up with to try are already covered. You keep suggesting that because 2ed didn't detail a lot of things that gave you nearly infinite options and that 3.x has turned things into a multiple choice situation of "a, b or c". That's not how it works, you still have the nearly infinite set of options but now "a, b or c" (which are probably the most common things you might want to do) are detailed out with rules.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 08:24 AM	I think that is where a lot of the disagreements lie. In presenting a more detailed and wide ranging default rules base you create a larger corpus with which to disagree. That coupled with the decreased emphasis on 'tailoring the game to your own preferences' in 3e can lead to some misconceptions about what is possible or desirable within the game. To me, 3e just looks like somebody's (very detailed) House Rules for 2e. To new players, though, it might not appear this way and that can be problematic when trying to relate the two editions.
Steely_Dan 08-01-07, 08:28 AM	There were none in the core system (though there was a 'free hack' rule against fleeing enemies, which was the basis for AoOs), but in Combat and Tactics it was almost identical to 3e, with a few minor differences. I don't remember a "free hack" rule in the 2nd edition PHB or DMG. Player's Option series... *shudders*
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 08:31 AM	Well, then you may want to check your 2e PHB: Retreat To get out of a combat, characters can make a careful withdrawal or they can simply flee. Withdrawing: When making a withdrawal, a character carefully backs away from his opponent (who can choose to follow). The character moves up to 1/3 his normal movement rate. If two characters are fighting a single opponent and one of them decides to withdraw, the remaining character can block the advance of the opponent. This is a useful method for getting a seriously injured man out of a combat. Fleeing: To flee from combat, a character simply turns and runs up to his full movement rate. However, the fleeing character drops his defenses and turns his back to his opponent. The enemy is allowed a free attack (or multiple attacks if the creature has several attacks per round) at the rear of the fleeing character. This attack is made the instant the character flees: It doesn't count against the number of attacks that opponent is allowed during the round, and initiative is irrelevant. The fleeing character can be pursued, unless a companion blocks the advance of the enemy.
Steely_Dan 08-01-07, 08:43 AM	Well, then you may want to check your 2e PHB: Thanks for that – it really makes want to go back and read my 2nd edition PHB (been many years).
shadzar 08-01-07, 08:45 AM	The thing is, 3e CAN be used for a more free form approach, and I've never understood why people don't realize this more readily. well why don't you explain it. how is 3.x able to provide a "more free form" approach than any other edition?
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 08:50 AM	For one thing, the rules usually mesh well with each other, so if you decide to simplify, you can simply take it from "d20+modifier" and keep adding 3e rules until you don't want to anymore. Then make up stuff from the "+2" generic DM's friend rule as you go along.
Steely_Dan 08-01-07, 08:50 AM	how is 3.x able to provide a "more free form" approach than any other edition? Well, you can regress it to any level you want (no AoO, no grid/squares, no feats, no skills, no threat ranges etc, etc). …But I do miss segments…
shadzar 08-01-07, 08:52 AM	Well, then you may want to check your 2e PHB: oh how i hated "retreating" in many SSI games, and the original NWN (which most used 1E rules if i recall correctly)... so many times did i die from this....which is the same to me as the attack of oppurtunity. don't like the new name they made for it though.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 08:54 AM	The thing is, in 3e, you CAN scale it up to the point where characters CAN opt to have the power not to be attacked by "retreating." You can model this, too, in 2e, but in 3e it's easier since you can just look it up and apply it rather than make it up completely.
shadzar 08-01-07, 09:01 AM	The thing is, in 3e, you CAN scale it up to the point where characters CAN opt to have the power not to be attacked by "retreating." You can model this, too, in 2e, but in 3e it's easier since you can just look it up and apply it rather than make it up completely. looking it up isnt free form. :uh-huh:
Frugal 08-01-07, 09:07 AM	looking it up isnt free form. :uh-huh: And I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about freeform in that post, he was talking about dealing with retreating and avoiding attacks of opportunity. As for free form, I think it comes down to whether you look at the rules and say, "if it's not in the rules you can't do it" or if you look at the rules and say, "okay, this is the foundation, feel free to throw out anything else and we'll figure out how it works based on that foundation." That's true of any system, but I think that having a consistent set of rules (like 3.x has) actually makes it easier to do free form since if someone does throw out something that's not covered in the rules you can take the basic mechanic in the system (d20 + modifiers) and come up with a very workable ruling.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 09:08 AM	Thanks for that – it really makes want to go back and read my 2nd edition PHB (been many years). No problem. Yeah, the old books are well worth a read, even if it's just to compare them to the current ones, as it makes for interesting reading. well why don't you explain it. how is 3.x able to provide a "more free form" approach than any other edition? Hmmn. I'm not really sure that's what is being argued, isn't it rather the case that all editions have the capacity to be equally free form? For one thing, the rules usually mesh well with each other, so if you decide to simplify, you can simply take it from "d20+modifier" and keep adding 3e rules until you don't want to anymore. Then make up stuff from the "+2" generic DM's friend rule as you go along. That doesn't really make it better for freeform play, that just makes things more consistant. Even so, the actual 2e rules were very similar. An Attribute Check is essentially a Skill check with a set Skill Modifier and Difficulty Class. The DM was free to modify that Difficulty by means of penalties. [i.e. Rolling under your Attribute is equal to 1D20 + Attribute to hit DC 21] The thing is, in 3e, you CAN scale it up to the point where characters CAN opt to have the power not to be attacked by "retreating." You can model this, too, in 2e, but in 3e it's easier since you can just look it up and apply it rather than make it up completely. Not quite following you here. The 3e Withdraw Action lets you withdraw without provoking an AoO anyway.
tankschmidt 08-01-07, 09:09 AM	Playing with Combat and Tactics improved on 2e by instituting optional additions, but even then, there were some anomalies that still needed correcting. A few pages back, I think we established that you and I have pretty different opinions on the game, but oh man does this cement it! It's over ten years later and my players are still complaining about that book. It was like every round you had to go through initiative five times. I cried every time someone with multiple attacks had to split them up into the very fast, fast, average, etc. phase. So slow. Skills and powers was almost as bad, you could end up with effectively a 19 strength by rolling a 17 -- no one picked "stamina" over "muscle." And 19 was a big deal in those days because you missed all of the 18-percentage categories. The bottom line is that each edition has stuff I don't like that would have to be stripped off. If I were to run a second edition game again, I would run no psionics, no cavalier kit, and no Options series. If I were to run a 3.x edition game again, it would be core only with no attacks of opportunity, no prestige classes, slower experience point progression, and limited multiclassing. The only edition of D&D I could leave mostly unchanged would have to be BECMI/RC - that was some great stuff.
Mark Thorson 08-01-07, 09:11 AM	well why don't you explain it. how is 3.x able to provide a "more free form" approach than any other edition? Where in his post did he say you could do it more than any other edition? He simply said you can use a more free form approach in 3e if you want, and then cited a couple of examples how.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 09:18 AM	A few pages back, I think we established that you and I have pretty different opinions on the game, but oh man does this cement it! It's over ten years later and my players are still complaining about that book. It was like every round you had to go through initiative five times. I cried every time someone with multiple attacks had to split them up into the very fast, fast, average, etc. phase. So slow. Skills and powers was almost as bad, you could end up with effectively a 19 strength by rolling a 17 -- no one picked "stamina" over "muscle." And 19 was a big deal in those days because you missed all of the 18-percentage categories. Heh, that series was the Tome of Battle of 2e (by which I mean people either seem to love them or hate them). Mind, you are citing the worst parts of those books. Sub Attributes were so stupid, I have a habit of blanking them from my mind in these discussions.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 09:31 AM	Matthew: That doesn't really make it better for freeform play, that just makes things more consistant. Even so, the actual 2e rules were very similar. An Attribute Check is essentially a Skill check with a set Skill Modifier and Difficulty Class. The DM was free to modify that Difficulty by means of penalties. [i.e. Rolling under your Attribute is equal to 1D20 + Attribute to hit DC 21] Things that are consistent are better for freeform play because you don't accidentally run into things that are directly contradictory on differing game mechanic models. For instance, the Attribute Check is essentially the same as an unmodified Proficiency Check, but what if you made a rule over a situation that was arguably skill-based but you ruled it resolved with a save? That gets really, really messy. Not quite following you here. The 3e Withdraw Action lets you withdraw without provoking an AoO anyway. You could do the same in 2e. I was referring to actions that normally provoke an extra attack. tankschmidt: It's over ten years later and my players are still complaining about that book. It was like every round you had to go through initiative five times. I cried every time someone with multiple attacks had to split them up into the very fast, fast, average, etc. phase. So slow. Skills and powers was almost as bad, you could end up with effectively a 19 strength by rolling a 17 -- no one picked "stamina" over "muscle." And 19 was a big deal in those days because you missed all of the 18-percentage categories. Well, here's the thing. I didn't allow anyone to touch the S&P Attribute scheme with a 10 foot pole, and we sorta ignored the initiative part of Combat and Tactics because we didn't like it when we played with it. The only thing that lengthens 2e combat more than all those extra attacks is separating all of them into multiple rounds within a single round. Ugh. We didn't care for that, either, let me tell you. Having said that, the grid system and various options were great for us because it condensed all our working stuff into a consistent framework. 3e's removal of facing was even better. The bottom line is that each edition has stuff I don't like that would have to be stripped off. If I were to run a second edition game again, I would run no psionics, no cavalier kit, and no Options series. If I were to run a 3.x edition game again, it would be core only with no attacks of opportunity, no prestige classes, slower experience point progression, and limited multiclassing. The only edition of D&D I could leave mostly unchanged would have to be BECMI/RC - that was some great stuff. I think that everyone pretty much prefers to run their games their own way. That's why it's so important to find a group you can live with. AoOs are easily removed from 3e since they're the most modular of the rules, although that would entail bringing back most of the exception based attack rules of 2e. There's GOT to be something that prevents people from just blithely running around in combat and casting spells in melee. Whichever option you choose is up to you, but I find the unified AoO mechanic smoother than the old lumped-together rules on that. Multiclassing needs an overhaul in 3e since there's just SO many things that's wrong with it. PrCs are okay by me, but then again, few of my players indulge in it since they know they can just come up to me with an idea and integrate it into their characters without necessarily going PrC. XP rate is also okay be me since we don't play as often as we used to, though I can see where a more regularly playing group might find that they need to halve it or even quarter it. You'll have to treat the treasure gain the same way, though! The thing is, 3e gives you so many more benchmarks and indicators for modification that it's usually easier for me, as a DM, to keep a tighter grip on mechanical events in the game with 3e rather than with any other edition. It's like driving with a dashboard and without one. Imagine if you did the same XP delay thing in 2e! The DMG doesn't tell you to retard the treasure tables as well, so you don't know that you had to do that, too. Moreover, there wasn't even a recommended amount per level, so you had to figure that on your own as well! At least in 3e, if you lowered the magic or the XP or whatever, the books also come out and tell you what to expect.
Steely_Dan 08-01-07, 09:32 AM	Heh, that series was the Tome of Battle of 2e (by which I mean people either seem to love them or hate them). Mind, you are citing the worst parts of those books. Sub Attributes were so stupid, I have a habit of blanking them from my mind in these discussions. Yes, I'm still getting over the emotional and mental scaring many parts of the Player's Option series caused me.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 09:44 AM	Things that are consistent are better for freeform play because you don't accidentally run into things that are directly contradictory on differing game mechanic models. For instance, the Attribute Check is essentially the same as an unmodified Proficiency Check, but what if you made a rule over a situation that was arguably skill-based but you ruled it resolved with a save? That gets really, really messy. Well, Attribute Checks could be used as Saves (in fact, that's about the only thing they are explicitly allowed to do outside of the Proficiency Section and Glossary). Consistant rulings do make for better freeform play, but the consistancy of the D20+X doesn't necessarily have anything more than a minor impact on doing so. It's just a mode of expression. Having a 75% Chance of doing something can similarly be expressed as 1D20+15 to hit DC 21. The thing is, 3e gives you so many more benchmarks and indicators for modification that it's usually easier for me, as a DM, to keep a tighter grip on mechanical events in the game with 3e rather than with any other edition. It's like driving with a dashboard and without one. I dunno, I find that the guidance isn't really as good as your suggesting. It still quite heavily relies on DM interpretation to make things run smoothly. The additional examples are handy, but they won't make or break the edition. Imagine if you did the same XP delay thing in 2e! The DMG doesn't tell you to retard the treasure tables as well, so you don't know that you had to do that, too. Moreover, there wasn't even a recommended amount per level, so you had to figure that on your own as well! At least in 3e, if you lowered the magic or the XP or whatever, the books also come out and tell you what to expect. That's a low blow. The 2e DMG did indeed discuss the impact of treasure and experience on the game, though it lacked the codification of 3e. Personally, I don't find the codification very much more helpful, but I can see it being useful for new DMs.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 09:54 AM	Matthew: Consistant rulings do make for better freeform play, but the consistancy of the D20+X doesn't necessarily have anything more than a minor impact on doing so. It's just a mode of expression. Having a 75% Chance of doing something can similarly be expressed as 1D20+15 to hit DC 21. True, but since chances in 2e were in both percentage and d20, plus d6, d12 and even d10, it's a little annoying and time-consuming to have to convert them all one into the other, especially when you have to be making on-the-fly rulings on top of it all. Much easier to just deal with a single type of roll and assess from there. I dunno, I find that the guidance isn't really as good as your suggesting. It still quite heavily relies on DM interpretation to make things run smoothly. The additional examples are handy, but they won't make or break the edition. Shrug. I find them extremely helpful. Much more than those various awful class creation point systems in 2e. That's a low blow. The 2e DMG did indeed discuss the impact of treasure and experience on the game, though it lacked the codification of 3e. Personally, I don't find the codification very much more helpful, but I can see it being useful for new DMs. Broad generalizations don't really help you much. 3e's codification is really much more useful. It's the difference between an artistic rendition and coded blueprints.
Grand Theft Otto 08-01-07, 10:11 AM	I have a better idea. Instead of making the page actually blank, cover it with incomprehensible scribbling and runes and glyphs. Then, everyone will talk about how "cool" the system is and how "elite" they are for bothering to try to understand it and how it provides great "groundwork" for making up your own houseruled system. ("I... think that's an A, or maybe an upside-down V. That gives me a great idea for how attacks should work!") Then not only will the system be super-flexible and for real roleplayers, it'll keep out all the riffraff who don't spend weeks trying to decipher it, and make sure that those damn anime-watching video-game-playing roll-player kids stay out of your gaming group. Already been done. Check out World of Synnibar. I particularly love the part where you cant invent new technology, because technology has been around for millions of years, and if there was a way to improve it, someone would have done it already. PURE GENIUS!!!
Grand Theft Otto 08-01-07, 10:12 AM	oh well item creation in 2E was very similar. it gave most of that info for you. i thought you meant thing like 2 ounces goats milks, 2 salamander tougnes, etc when making potions. :D Reference a page number in the dmg. I'm calling you on your lies. Since you cant, you wont respond.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 10:13 AM	True, but since chances in 2e were in both percentage and d20, plus d6, d12 and even d10, it's a little annoying and time-consuming to have to convert them all one into the other, especially when you have to be making on-the-fly rulings on top of it all. Much easier to just deal with a single type of roll and assess from there. I would tend to agree (being as I one of the first things I did for my House Ruled AD&D Game was indeed to make pretty much everything revolve around the D20 - and that was before I had heard about 3e). However, there are recognisable limitations, such as the inability of 1D20+X to represent a 1% Chance of something or any other score that deviates from the 5% interval pattern. It's a trade off, what you gain in simplicity you lose in versatility. Shrug. I find them extremely helpful. Much more than those various awful class creation point systems in 2e. Are you referring to Sub Classes built via Character Points here? I wouldn't say 3e has done a vastly better job. Base Classes still vary widely in terms of power. Broad generalizations don't really help you much. 3e's codification is really much more useful. It's the difference between an artistic rendition and coded blueprints. Hmmn. See, the problem for me is that the codification rarely seems to be accurate, since the capability of a Party is quite variable. The actual CR system is based on the 1e version of doing the same (can't remember if that made it into 2e) and is not very much more sophisticated. It's a nice try, but I cannot say I have found them overly helpful. Preferential, I'm sure. Reference a page number in the dmg. I'm calling you on your lies. Since you cant, you wont respond. You already admitted to being a troll in that regard. Could be referring to High Level Campaigning, though it doesn't appear that level of precision was ever used.
Grand Theft Otto 08-01-07, 10:14 AM	I know! The game was so much better when _Jayne_Cobb_ created it and ran it! Yeah Tabula Rasa has really gone to hell with the new management who are all much greedier and evil than the old one. Wha? Already I'm muscled out of the money. Just like Arneson. History and doomed to repeat and all that jazz.
shadzar 08-01-07, 10:26 AM	Yes, I'm still getting over the emotional and mental scaring many parts of the Player's Option series caused me. i was given Combat and Tactics shortly after its debut. not thinking it was because i was interested in reading though it, but more the person who gave it to me was trying to find someone to get rid of it too push it off on.
shadzar 08-01-07, 10:31 AM	I dunno, I find that the guidance isn't really as good as your suggesting. It still quite heavily relies on DM interpretation to make things run smoothly. The additional examples are handy, but they won't make or break the edition. That's a low blow. The 2e DMG did indeed discuss the impact of treasure and experience on the game, though it lacked the codification of 3e. Personally, I don't find the codification very much more helpful, but I can see it being useful for new DMs. those additional examples also lead to players having reason to complain about things rather than trust the DM. i find in many groups and forums, and the threads here that a major problem is player and DM trust. more evident with 3.x either due to the system OR the fact more people play now because of the way 3.x was marketed or the company that makes it or the wider acceptance of D&D. could be any of those reason, but i lean more towards rules lawyers having more ammunition with more "rules". and rules lawyers, unlike kobolds, are things i will NOT brake for. ;) never thought about the treasure being that way. but don't new DMs primarily learn from their DMs? unless the entire group is new and has had no prior experience with the game...
shadzar 08-01-07, 10:34 AM	True, but since chances in 2e were in both percentage and d20, plus d6, d12 and even d10, it's a little annoying and time-consuming to have to convert them all one into the other, especially when you have to be making on-the-fly rulings on top of it all. edition doesn't matter. form a base chance of doing something and use it with a percentile roll. you have 60% chance of accomplishing this. roll d100 or d% and 60 or less succeeds anything over 60 fails.
shadzar 08-01-07, 10:35 AM	Hmmn. I'm not really sure that's what is being argued, isn't it rather the case that all editions have the capacity to be equally free form? they do and that is my point, but its the additional "rules" that make this freeform style of playing harder for some people to grasp. those that either can't or just refuse to think outside of the rules....
shadzar 08-01-07, 10:37 AM	Reference a page number in the dmg. I'm calling you on your lies. Since you cant, you wont respond. page number for what exactly about the item creation rules for 2E vs item creation rules of 3.x? what part of what i said do you consider to be "lies"?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-01-07, 10:39 AM	Wha? Already I'm muscled out of the money. Just like Arneson. History and doomed to repeat and all that jazz. Yup. I'm the Gygax of Tabula Rasa. ;)
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 11:20 AM	never thought about the treasure being that way. but don't new DMs primarily learn from their DMs? unless the entire group is new and has had no prior experience with the game... I wouldn't want to over generalise, but I suspect that the majority of new Players start with a group that is completely new to the game (I'm mainly thinking of High School Kids). My experience of getting into D&D was: MB HeroQuest > Advanced HeroQuest > War Hammer Fantasy Roleplay > Basic Dungeons & Dragons > Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Up until the last stage of the process we (that is myself and anywhere from 4-12 friends) had virtually no input from outside sources beyond the game books themselves. After joining a local Games Club we got the opportunity to interact with some guys who were a couple of years older than us and paid more attention to magazines like Dragon.
Frugal 08-01-07, 11:28 AM	those additional examples also lead to players having reason to complain about things rather than trust the DM. i find in many groups and forums, and the threads here that a major problem is player and DM trust. more evident with 3.x either due to the system OR the fact more people play now because of the way 3.x was marketed or the company that makes it or the wider acceptance of D&D. could be any of those reason, but i lean more towards rules lawyers having more ammunition with more "rules". and rules lawyers, unlike kobolds, are things i will NOT brake for. ;) never thought about the treasure being that way. but don't new DMs primarily learn from their DMs? unless the entire group is new and has had no prior experience with the game... I think the big reason you see "more" of this with 3.x is because we have forums like this where people can talk about it easily. During 2ed you'd mostly have the odd BBS or usenet, and a much smaller internet population. I'm willing to bet that the problems were just as prevalent in 2ed, but without the means to spread these stories to a wider audience, you just didn't hear about it as easily. DM trust is an issue with either edition, in 2ed the DM can make rulings but if the players don't trust him then they won't go along with his ruling. You can't assume a problem that's independent of edition (the trust between the players and the DM) and yet then apply it only to one edition. It's really a double edged sword. In 2ed the DM had to make rulings and there was always the potential for players disagreeing with it and all he has to stand on is, "because I say so". In 3.x you have the potential that the players will call the DM on him doing something wrong according to the rules. In either case it depends on your gaming group, not the edition, for how that'll be resolved. If you have a group of players who trust their DM then in 2ed they'll go along with his rulings and in 3.x they'll let minor rules mistakes slide, or they'll bring them up in a constructive manner. That usually involves waiting till the end of the session if you don't want to disrupt play, or if it's something urgent and you can correct it quickly maybe you interrupt. But again, that's the matter of the players and the DM. The people who would likely rules lawyer things in 3.x are not interested in promoting a smooth gaming experience, they're interested in getting their way, so if you throw them into a 2ed game they're just likely to argue about any DM ruling and ask for him to provide some basis for his ruling if it disagrees with how they think it should work (ie, in their favour).
shadzar 08-01-07, 11:28 AM	My experience of getting into D&D was: MB HeroQuest > Advanced HeroQuest > War Hammer Fantasy Roleplay > Basic Dungeons & Dragons > Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. i also started with a group in 1984ish that was all new. but the game was pretty much still in its infancy then. i would hope to think by now that there are enough players spread throughout this country at lesaat where a group should have access to at least one experienced player that could run them through a simple game or help understand some things to help them get some experience before taking the plunge. maybe even co-DM until they get a few screw up under their belts to now how to tinker. maybe it just mean there needs to be something better than D&D for dummies that can help new players. not sure about the basic game thing but someone i know told me it stunk and the learned more formt he real books than it. maybe those who created 3.x have been playing so long that take some things for granted and forget that new players may not know any better than some things the writers knew but figured everyone else knew... :(
Steely_Dan 08-01-07, 11:28 AM	I wouldn't want to over generalise, but I suspect that the majority of new Players start with a group that is completely new to the game (I'm mainly thinking of High School Kids). My experience of getting into D&D was: MB HeroQuest > Advanced HeroQuest > War Hammer Fantasy Roleplay > Basic Dungeons & Dragons > Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Up until the last stage of the process we (that is myself and anywhere from 4-12 friends) had virtually no input from outside sources beyond the game books themselves. After joining a local Games Club we got the opportunity to interact with some guys who were a couple of years older than us and paid more attention to magazines like Dragon. In my experience it's the opposite, usually people are drawn into this game by people who already play it. I've rarely heard of a group of people spontaneously taking up D&D, not that that can't happen, but it seems rare to me. I was brought into the game (1st edition) by my older brother's friends. And most other people I know got into D&D through such and such etc.
shadzar 08-01-07, 11:37 AM	In 3.x you have the potential that the players will call the DM on him doing something wrong according to the rules. and that is one reason i began to hate rules lawyers. the first i ever saw was Gary Gygax in his letter or article in Dragon Magazine.... "If you aren't playing by the rules as they are written, then you aren't AD&D." sorry don't recall which issue, and don't have the reader program installed that comes with DMA, i use another reader so can't give any reference on this. and i don't feel that the rules should be used to say why a DM can't do something. that again would require having a rule for every possible thing. and when a DM creates his world their are no such rules. nothing prevent, nor should it, a DM from placing an arid desert near an artic region. why? magic exists in D&D. the versimilisititude, or whatever that silly word is, should have nothing to do with a worlds climatology (sp) or whatever. we know things defy physics and such... look at bees flying and all the while violating aerodynamics... and that shouldn't be solely for said for the worlds nature, but anything else that takes place in the DMs world. the rules just don't hold water and there is never a time you can just blindly adhere to them all. you take some and leave the rest. i challenge anyone to say they play strictly by the rules of any edition! i doubt i will get any yes's since all editions have things that contradict its own rules.
Grand Theft Otto 08-01-07, 11:46 AM	page number for what exactly about the item creation rules for 2E vs item creation rules of 3.x? what part of what i said do you consider to be "lies"? That 2nd edition had item creations guideline sin the same ballpark as 3rd editions. So what page of the 2nd edition DMG can I find something like that?
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 11:55 AM	In my experience it's the opposite, usually people are drawn into this game by people who already play it. I've rarely heard of a group of people spontaneously taking up D&D, not that that can't happen, but it seems rare to me. I was brought into the game (1st edition) by my older brother's friends. And most other people I know got into D&D through such and such etc. Heh, as I said, that's just me experience of it. Judging from the kinds of questions and scenarios that frequently turn up on D&D Boards, though, I rather suspect that there are still quite a lot of new players coming into the hobby without reference to a wider community. I think past High School is where you start to encounter more 'mixed' groups. That 2nd edition had item creations guideline sin the same ballpark as 3rd editions. So what page of the 2nd edition DMG can I find something like that? It won't be in the 2e DMG, but you will be able to find such information in Dungeon Master's Option: High Level Campaigning, which is pretty much where 3e seems to have drawn its inspiration for Magic Item creation.
shadzar 08-01-07, 11:55 AM	That 2nd edition had item creations guideline sin the same ballpark as 3rd editions. So what page of the 2nd edition DMG can I find something like that? back to the original post i was responding to.... What the crafting rules in 3.x do is tell you how much money/xp, and how long, it will take to make the item. That's not including any special ingredients (which is left up to the DM's discretion), or even what those materials might be. But it does mean that you can get a guideline for how much work is involved and that does help you balance when it can be made. For instance, you probably wouldn't want a 1st level wizard crafting a +5 sword, it would throw things off greatly. Not sure how 2ed handled that balance, if it did at all. in response to this i said 2E has those things as well. they can be found starting here... AD&D 2E Revised DMG, page 118, header The Nature of Magical Fabrication enjoy your reading. ;)
Frugal 08-01-07, 12:26 PM	and that is one reason i began to hate rules lawyers. the first i ever saw was Gary Gygax in his letter or article in Dragon Magazine.... "If you aren't playing by the rules as they are written, then you aren't AD&D." I think a lot of that had to deal with Gygax's ego that anyone would dare to play the game differently than he intended it. But the thing is, I see that rules lawyering really comes down to one thing, getting their way. Rules lawyers may claim to be interested in accurately following the rules but the goal is usually to use the rules as a club to get what they want. Ever see a rules lawyer bring up something that didn't go in his favour? I seriously doubt it. Often times it also has nothing to do with common sense and has more to do with finding some twisted reading of the rules which contravenes common sense, and frequently standard rules of grammar, but does actually follow what is written in the rules. Find something in the rules that you've been ignoring that is detrimental to them and suddenly you'll see the protests come up. I bring this up because this helps illustrate that the problem is not the rules, that's simply a symptom of the problem. The problem is that you have a player who always wants to get his way. In 2ed you may not have the rules but that just removes that one symptom. What you'll likely get instead are howls of, "but that's not fair!" whenever you have to make a ruling that they don't like. What I like about having a codified rules set is that you when you're dealing with a reasonable group and can be mature about playing the game you can use it to correct mistakes (by the DM or players) in a convenient manner. For instance, my group (now yes, we're currently playing GURPS but the principle is the same for this) reserves some time at the beginning of each game session for rules discussions or questions. What this allows us to do is say stuff like, "hey, do you remember last session we handled it this way, well I thought that sounded weird but couldn't remember so I looked it up and the rules say it works this way, what do you think?" And then we can correct rules errors, but in a constructive manner that doesn't degrade into a big rules argument. We can discuss if we like the way it was run better of if we want to handle it the way the rules say and move on.
shadzar 08-01-07, 12:42 PM	I think a lot of that had to deal with Gygax's ego that anyone would dare to play the game differently than he intended it. i won't disagree with his attitude or the rules lwyering mentality you describe. but it still feels more rules give them more ammunition to be disruptive. if you haven't read or aren't in the "DM power to disallow (long)" thread you might find some of it interesting along these same lines. you may already be there and i don't recall, but again some of these threads are so similar i can barely keep them seperate in my mind. its not that i mind rules, but the people that think you must adhere to the letter of what is written in the books in order to be doing it right, and cant accept someone else may prefer to do it another way....ie people who prefer 2E to 3.x. both may be following rules, but they just don't agree that the other are using the right rules. i personally jsut don't liek the way 3.x is set up and won't play it. while some can't accept that i never say that people should stop playing 3.x. ;)
Melvin the Mediocre 08-01-07, 01:02 PM	Having played for over 30 years, I've hit all the editions pretty thouroughly. They are all quirky in some places, and they all shine in some places. I've always run the most recent game because it is easier to find players. But my group just switched back to 2e because the person who wanted to run is more comfortable with those rules. No one cared, and we're having fun.
Frugal 08-01-07, 01:25 PM	both may be following rules, but they just don't agree that the other are using the right rules. i personally jsut don't liek the way 3.x is set up and won't play it. while some can't accept that i never say that people should stop playing 3.x. ;) No, but you've said it's stupid, crappy and insulted the intelligence of anyone who plays it various times in this thread. I'm not trying to convince you to play 3.x, all I've asked is for some elaboration on what it was you didn't like.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-01-07, 01:42 PM	both may be following rules, but they just don't agree that the other are using the right rules. i personally jsut don't liek the way 3.x is set up and won't play it. while some can't accept that i never say that people should stop playing 3.x. ;) No one (well, no one sane) has an issue with you preferring 2e over 3e, what people take umbrage to is you slamming 3e and those who play it. You decry those who ostensibly object to you preferring 2e over 3e yet you do not offer that same consideration to those who prefer 3e over 2e. Give as you would get.
Solik 08-01-07, 02:19 PM	Yes, a more comprehensive ruleset gives rules lawyers more ammunition to be disruptive. Likewise, a less comprehensive ruleset gives DMs more room to be disruptive. Both are people problems, not game problems.
Frugal 08-01-07, 02:35 PM	Yes, a more comprehensive ruleset gives rules lawyers more ammunition to be disruptive. Likewise, a less comprehensive ruleset gives DMs more room to be disruptive. Both are people problems, not game problems. Yes, but my theory is that rules lawyering is just a symptom of a disruptive player, having fewer rules takes away that tool but they'll just find another way to be disruptive because the issue is that they're a disruptive player, not that they're a rules lawyer (again, I see that as a symptom of the problem).
Solik 08-01-07, 02:56 PM	I agree. They will find other tools. Just like a disruptive DM can still be disruptive in a the more confined 3rd edition ruleset (Rule 0 if all else fails).
shadzar 08-01-07, 03:05 PM	No, but you've said it's stupid, crappy and insulted the intelligence of anyone who plays it various times in this thread. I'm not trying to convince you to play 3.x, all I've asked is for some elaboration on what it was you didn't like. about 3.x? oh well thats easy to answer..... WotC
Barron 08-01-07, 03:16 PM	Unfortunately, this is the internet, and depsite what a decent souled human being should do is extremely different to what he has to do http://www.intternetti.net/~jiri/motivation/futility.jpg Pic related
Frugal 08-01-07, 03:30 PM	about 3.x? oh well thats easy to answer..... WotC Would you care to elaborate? I'm trying to have a constructive discussion about the differences in the editions and why people prefer one over the other. Saying that you don't like WOTC (and nothing beyond that) doesn't really help much. At this point I'm thinking it's something like this (based on your other responses): WOTC makes Magic: The Gathering, and that's for kids and a dumb game therefore 3.x is for kids and a dumb game. Wizards is owned by Hasbro, which makes stuff for kids, this further backs up that 3.x is for kids. They dropped "advanced" from the title. 2ed is "advanced" and for smart people, since WOTC/Hasbro make games for kids and they admit the game isn't "advanced" it must be for dumber people and be for kids. vs. 2ed was "advanced", it even said so in the title, you had to be smart to play it, I mean they wouldn't make something "advanced" if it weren't hard right? I like not having rules fleshed out because it lets me power trip over my players. 3.x fleshes out too much which means my players might actually dare to question my authority with these foolish things called "rules", and I'd even be expected to know them!
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 03:53 PM	Okay, let's try and keep to constructive criticism. All the things I don't like about 3e are preferential, so these aren't absolutes, they are subjective, but a quick list to open up discussion: 1) Artwork. I really preferred 2e Artwork over 3e (not so much Dark Sun and Planescape, but Spelljammer, Dragonlance, etc...) 2) Iterative Attacks. These were an awful idea and the source of many headaches when seeking 'balance' within the game. 3) Increased Hit Points/Power Attack. The Hit Point to Damage Scale seem unnecessarily large and Power Attack is completely FUBAR. 4) Active Defence. The loss of the ability to actively parry/block sucked. They have even reintroduced it via Wall of Blades, but it's still virtually unavailable to Fighters. 5) Saving Throws. Three Saving Throws was a great idea, the actual implementation was rubbish, as Characters seem now much more vulnerable to magical effects than previously. 6) Feats. Feats were unwise. They are completely unbalanced and access to them is so infrequent that they have become extremely valuable. Making Weapon Proficiencies and Skill Focus Feats under these conditions has been problematic at best. Fighting Styles have similarly suffered. 7) Skills. The Skill system was a welcome reformation of the Non Weapon Proficiency System and thief Skills to me, but again the implementation was poor. Too few Skill Points available and I don't think much of the idea of Cross Classed Skills. Anyway, just some things for discussion. For both the last two entries, I much prefer the Character Point approach from Player's Option: Skills and Powers.
Archangel62 08-01-07, 04:06 PM	its not that i mind rules, but the people that think you must adhere to the letter of what is written in the books in order to be doing it right, and cant accept someone else may prefer to do it another way....ie people who prefer 2E to 3.x. both may be following rules, but they just don't agree that the other are using the right rules. i personally jsut don't liek the way 3.x is set up and won't play it. while some can't accept that i never say that people should stop playing 3.x. ;) The problem here is that if that you keep trying to use these debates as an excuse to argue that 2nd edition is superior and if anyone questions it they're a horrible person or they're stupid. You're also complaining about people who argue that a more accurate internally consistent ruleset works better for the game, this argument truly confuses me. Since one would think that a well designed rules system, one that didn't NEED constant tinkering and varied so widely table to table, would be good for players and the person running. The problem that I see is that if you want to argue that an entirely free form game is better, that's fine, but the problem is that in total free form you also have the issue of EVERYTHING being up to individual fiat. The rules are there to give guidelines and ideas as to what a character is theoretically capable and incapable of.
High Octane 08-01-07, 04:10 PM	Okay, let's try and keep to constructive criticism. All the things I don't like about 3e are preferential, so these aren't absolutes, they are subjective, but a quick list to open up discussion: 1) Artwork. I really preferred 2e Artwork over 3e (not so much Dark Sun and Planescape, but Spelljammer, Dragonlance, etc...) 2) Iterative Attacks. These were an awful idea and the source of many headaches when seeking 'balance' within the game. 3) Increased Hit Points/Power Attack. The Hit Point to Damage Scale seem unnecessarily large and Power Attack is completely FUBAR. 4) Active Defence. The loss of the ability to actively parry/block sucked. They have even reintroduced it via Wall of Blades, but it's still virtually unavailable to Fighters. 5) Saving Throws. Three Saving Throws was a great idea, the actual implementation was rubbish, as Characters seem now much more vulnerable to magical effects than previously. 6) Feats. Feats were unwise. They are completely unbalanced and access to them is so infrequent that they have become extremely valuable. Making Weapon Proficiencies and Skill Focus Feats under these conditions has been problematic at best. Fighting Styles have similarly suffered. 7) Skills. The Skill system was a welcome reformation of the Non Weapon Proficiency System and thief Skills to me, but again the implementation was poor. Too few Skill Points available and I don't think much of the idea of Cross Classed Skills. Anyway, just some things for discussion. For both the last two entries, I much prefer the Character Point approach from Player's Option: Skills and Powers. Iterative attacks have been around since 1st edition when you ended up getting 3/2 attacks a round at like 6th level as a fighter. Characters are more vulnerable to magical attacks at higher levels due to increasing DCs instead of a flatly falling saving throw requirement, but only against equivelant level casters. Against lower levels they are just as resilient if not more so. At lower levels characters are no more vulnerable. In many cases they are less so. I've never heard of active defense in earlier editions. Care to elaborate? As for hit points and power attack, I think you are basing this on the amount of hit points 1st or 2nd edition monsters and characters had. On average, hit points were overall increased across the board in 3.x. Too few skill points? A rogue has [(8+int) x 4] skill points at first level. Some classes have less, but they are meant to have few skills.
Alex_P 08-01-07, 04:15 PM	Frugal, Well, these days, WotC definitely has certain, err, "cultural" problems. Big problems (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html), some would say. They're the EA of their field, brand-obsessed and producing lots of incremental change rather than any real innovation. (Of course, TSR turned into the same kind of thing -- 'cept too many of its projects were unprofitable -- like 20 years ago, so this isn't a point for second edition or anything.) -- Alex
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 04:36 PM	Iterative attacks have been around since 1st edition when you ended up getting 3/2 attacks a round at like 6th level as a fighter. Er, yes, I'm aware what form they previously took. The new form, though, in my opinion, sucks. In AD&D, the maximum number of Primary Attacks you could get without Specialisation was 2/1 at Level 13+, if you belonged to the Warrior Class; the maximum number of Off Hand Attacks you could get was 1. The 0/-5/-10/-15 progression of 3e Iterative Attacks on a 'Full Attack Action' has gimped Fighter Classes. Getting two Attacks at +7/+2 at Level 7 is vastly inferior to getting two attacks at +7/+7, which was the case with Specialised Fighters; hell it's arguably inferior to getting 3/2 Attacks at +7/+7. The situation becomes worse at higher levels where the extra Attacks have virtually no chance of hitting compared to the initial attack (being at -50% and -75%). Characters are more vulnerable to magical attacks at higher levels due to increasing DCs instead of a flatly falling saving throw requirement, but only against equivelant level casters. Against lower levels they are just as resilient if not more so. At lower levels characters are no more vulnerable. In many cases they are less so. That's right, but previously they were uniformly resistant. The key complaint against Fighters in 3e, that they are vulnerable to magic, was none existant in 2e. The key Villain is quite likely to be a high level Spell Caster. I've never heard of active defense in earlier editions. Care to elaborate? You can find the rule listed as 'Parry' in the Complete Fighter's Handbook and 'Block' in Combat and Tactics. Basically, you could trade out attacks for opposed defence rolls. They were inelegant, but they worked. As for hit points and power attack, I think you are basing this on the amount of hit points 1st or 2nd edition monsters and characters had. On average, hit points were overall increased across the board in 3.x. Yes, uniformly as levels go up, but at Level 1, creatures still have the same Hit Points. Thus the difference between a Level 20 and Level 1 Character (or equivalent creature) has become vastly greater, further excaberating the old 'Orcs aren't a challenge anymore' problem (unless you start tacking on Class Levels, but that doesn't address the core problem, it just results in an arms race). The Power Attack paradigm is also worth considering, having made other forms of combat than Two Handed Fighting pretty much obsolete amongst savvy adventures above Level 3. Leap Attack and Shock Trooper combinations have become a matter of course to increase Damage. Too few skill points? A rogue has [(8+int) x 4] skill points at first level. Some classes have less, but they are meant to have few skills. Heh, yes Rogues have a load of Skill Points, but even they can barely cover the important Skills without extremely high intelligence scores. It's pants that a typical Fighter cannot even cover the four basic Skills of Jump, Climb, Ride and Swim.
Vaelan 08-01-07, 04:51 PM	i challenge anyone to say they play strictly by the rules of any edition! I play strictly by the rules of 3.5. Every action is resolved exactly as written in the books. i doubt i will get any yes's since all editions have things that contradict its own rules. I have yet to find a contradiction and since you know nothing about the edition, I am not at all interested in reading the mess you consider proper sentence structure just to see that you can't show me one. Ever see a rules lawyer bring up something that didn't go in his favour? Yes. I have done that very thing on many, many occasions as I both play with and DM people who do not know the rules nearly as well as I do. I could very easily "forget" a number of rules to my advantage, but I don't. I'm sorry, am I getting in the way of your asinine arguement that anyone who concerns themselves with the rules is factually dishonest? :rolleyes: Often times it also has nothing to do with common sense and has more to do with finding some twisted reading of the rules which contravenes common sense, and frequently standard rules of grammar, but does actually follow what is written in the rules. "Common sense" is most often applied to ignore undesirable, yet factually obvious, aspects of a rule. It is an excuse to skim the text, assume it says what you want to, and go on your way without examining the intent behind the rule based upon how the rule was written. It is the last resort of the simple-minded and apathetic, not that there is anything wrong with apathy. I hope that, by now, you have realized that elaborating on your little grudge doesn't serve any further purpose than a simple statement of dislike, unless you're trying to offend people with overly broad condemnations. I trust that I have exhibited that quite effectively. but it still feels more rules give them more ammunition to be disruptive. Fewer rules: DM resolves a situation. Disruptive Player complains that the on-the-fly resolution doesn't make sense. DM either gets into a long, pointless discussion or tells him to sit down and shut up. More rules: DM resolves a situation. Disruptive Player complains that the rules weren't followed. DM either cites the rule or tells him to sit down and shut up. I'm not really seeing a difference in the overall method of disruption. I am, however, seeing a difference in the resolution of the disruption. The system with more rules resolves these disruptions more quickly, since it refers to an authoritative source rather than appealing to someone who is quite clearly an irrational jackass. As a side note: I wouldn't read too much into the fact that I ended this post by commenting that discussions with irrational jackasses are futile. I assure you, it is largely coincidental. ;)
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-01-07, 05:35 PM	Actually, I do agree that the cross class skill idea is retarded, DEEPLY retarded, and classes do need more skill points across the board. Simple example: Dwarven legionaire, Fighter 3rd. He is expected to stand sentry duty in quiet, dangerous tunnels, so WTF can't have LISTEN as a class skill, hm? -He never, ever rides or Swim. So why does he HAVE to have those as class skills, eh? etc. All skills should be class skills ALL of 'em. It's what you put your points INTO that decided what your character is *good at* not some arbitrary RETARDED system that says: "You're fighter can't Spot sneaky enemies" etc. Gah!!! bar that, and some other things, 3rd ed trounces the pants off 2nd. :)
Downtym 08-01-07, 05:37 PM	Well, these days, WotC definitely has certain, err, "cultural" problems. Big problems (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html), some would say. They're the EA of their field, brand-obsessed and producing lots of incremental change rather than any real innovation. (Of course, TSR turned into the same kind of thing -- 'cept too many of its projects were unprofitable -- like 20 years ago, so this isn't a point for second edition or anything.) All that article convinced me of is that the author doesn't understand business. From what I read in the article, the author is upset that Adkinson turned WotC from a hedonistic, New Age preaching camp for social misfits into an actually profitable business - this is no small feat in a world where no one expected creating, writing, or publishing niche games to be profitable. As for innovation, true innovation is something that established corporations rarely achieve. That's why they have independent research groups or purchase other start-ups or license the innovative ideas from up-and-comers. For better or worse, smart businesses realize quickly that there is very little money innovating; the real money is marketing, branding, and selling an already developed product. You then reinvest that money into the innovative organizations - either by hiring their talent or licensing their IP. Then you repeat the cycle of market, manage the brand, and sell. And what Adkinson did was take a company that was probably doomed to burn brightly at both ends and turn it into a sustainable business.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 05:51 PM	Actually, I do agree that the cross class skill idea is retarded, DEEPLY retarded, and classes do need more skill points across the board. Simple example: Dwarven legionaire, Fighter 3rd. He is expected to stand sentry duty in quiet, dangerous tunnels, so WTF can't have LISTEN as a class skill, hm? -He never, ever rides or Swim. So why does he HAVE to have those as class skills, eh? etc. All skills should be class skills ALL of 'em. It's what you put your points INTO that decided what your character is *good at* not some arbitrary RETARDED system that says: "You're fighter can't Spot sneaky enemies" etc. The sad thing is that Cross Class Skills are nominally an adaption of the 2e Groupings of Non Weapon Proficiencies (General, Warrior, Rogue, Wizard and Priest). Unfortunately, it wasn't a very well done adaption, on top of not being the greatest idea in the world to begin with. Interestingly, the DMG does discuss the possibility of rearranging Class Skills to better represent particular variations on a Base Class. I agree, though, every Skill should be available and freely bought on a 1:1 basis.
Alex_P 08-01-07, 06:00 PM	As for innovation, true innovation is something that established corporations rarely achieve. That's why they have independent research groups or purchase other start-ups or license the innovative ideas from up-and-comers. For better or worse, smart businesses realize quickly that there is very little money innovating; the real money is marketing, branding, and selling an already developed product. You then reinvest that money into the innovative organizations - either by hiring their talent or licensing their IP. Then you repeat the cycle of market, manage the brand, and sell. And what Adkinson did was take a company that was probably doomed to burn brightly at both ends and turn it into a sustainable business.... a sustainable business that he then left in disgust. Which is exactly the point: a company that leads in the business of RPGs and other "analog games" is practically irrelevant in terms of the actual craft. This happened to TSR, too. Right now I'd say Wizards is handling it better than they did. But, still, none of the stuff they make has really improved much in, what, at least a decade now? Nor have they explored new ground. -- Alex
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:21 PM	Would you care to elaborate? I'm trying to have a constructive discussion about the differences in the editions and why people prefer one over the other. Saying that you don't like WOTC (and nothing beyond that) doesn't really help much. its a first that i have seen it as a serious question then over the years. most people ask so they can pick my answers apart and tell me why the things i don't like are superiour to how its handled in 2E. WotC...well a few reasons. i stopped Magic, playing shortly before the release of, or maybe after 3.0 D&D because the vast rules changes made in or aobut 5th edition. it just wasn't a game i liked anymore. i will still play MtG using the older cards and editions, but 95% of the newer cards are stupid and ruined the game for me. that being said i had very little hope that if they fouled up their own game they would be able to take someone elses game, one i have loved for many years and do it justice. Hasbro buying WotC had me on many occasions and still do saying i anticipate seeing Hasbro related monsters in D&D such as My Little Pony, etc. when 3rd fitsy came out and i got a free conversion booklet i looked over it and got my free copy of the software in dragon or dungeon magazine that helped create characters. well this didn't do much for me either, nor did the "first look" at 3rd edition in dragon magazine. i just didn't like what i saw. having only playing SSI games for D&D i was very interested in a rerelease of NWN. a game i had spent MANY hours on AOL playing with my 2400 baud modem, and the lag from those who still only had 300 baud modems and playing around in the sewers. well it came out with little to no information on the rules used and they were of course 3rd edition. my dismay at no longer being able to create an online game for playing D&D with anybody was great. i could and did code the bajesus out of about 200 megs worth of world, plots scripts etc. but the only thing that worked was the roleplaying plots because all the fighting encouters were so off compared to the 2E equivalents. i then read some of the rules what i could, but the damage to Dragon and the design of D&D books was already to where it was hard trying to read the poor choice of dark fonts on dark background and throwing pictures into the middle of pages i quickly stopped trying to read the books. when i again picked up a core book and read some of the things i just didn't like the ideas. nothing was wrong with THAC0. AC didn't need to have an infinite upper limit. and everything pretty much starting off with 10 AC was pointless. why have it at 10, why not 0 and work your way up? then the inclusion of the 2.5 material that i didn't like such as removing the old saves in favor of the fortitude, reflex and will checks from players options. not to mention the kits from the numerous splat books that were unneeded and hardly ever used, or argued about when they were became core and called "pretige classes". the term itself is utterly stupid. why not call them advanced classes, or secondary classes, or even something else....anything else. then we get into the level advancement. why would every class level at the same rate? they each had different skills relying on different things. but the also destroyed that to where the classes didnt really matter what you were because a class no longer determined your role in the party. the skills and feats were no improvement over the NWPs/WPs and secondary skills. all they did was give them a new name and told you how you were suppose to use them. i didn't ever find it that hard to use them in the first place, or just omit the optional ones and just use an ability score to check for whatever the action was closest related to. the ability scores. they became so generic and no longer had any point save for giving modifiers to every thing else. chance of learning a spell is gone. anybody can learn anything. the game had gone from being something that you devised new ways to overcome obstacles while playing to creating a character so you don't have to do anything while playing other than roll the dice since you already have a greater chance to do something because of table X. the players also began treating it as such and since the game promote and details more ways about fighting it was geared more to that style of gameplay in peoples eyes. the rules lawyers..i already mentioned that. the WBL and CR i recently came to understand a bit about. again the books dictating what goes where. who says a party shold encounter 4 groups of level X things per day? some days they dont meet anything while travelling. again promoting the fighting aspect of the game. while the roleplaying have been turned into picking the best mechanics you can find. that is after all the only reason to play a certain "prestige class" is to get its bonuses. when i played a paladin i wanted the challenge of someone forced to be lawfull good and at the same time arrogant and acting superior to others. not just for minor undead turning and laying on hands. it just departed from tha game i liked into something else. like say monopoly stopped being manufacturer and they only made monopoly junior. not that 3.x is for a younger crowd, but the fact that the game i liked no longer existed, nor did its concepts. maybe this is all localized phnomena for this worthless area i live in and the small minded people. yes i mean small minded because i wonder how some of them even get dressed on their own in the moriing. but i digress. the marketing scheme aimed at younger people doesn't help either when those younger people that have never played 2E or earlier editions start talking about it as though it was worthless because there is something new. :rolleyes: cutting 2E from dragon magazine shortly after i had renewed my subscription to only include 3.0 material also. i ended up paying for a two year subscription to only get two useful peridodicals other than any maps included in them. i can understand inflation to a point but the amount of picture in 2E was a problem for some, so i guess in turn 3.0 increased the amount of pictures but decided not to have them in full pages. to compensate for this the prices of books was now $30. and the art is frankly bad. i can't really find a piece i like. there is no Larry Elmore that i can see, no Tony DiTelirzi (sp). everything was either some sepiad color sketch or a rip off of Davinci's style. now that may seem like very little, but after finding out so much i didn't like right there, why continue reading the books to find out if there is anything in it? well i gave the game an acutal try to play rather than watch 3.x at nov 2006 game day. not really a good judgement to be able to tell because of the utter RPG newbs that were so childish...the 8 year old at the table was more mature than the 15-20 year olds...there was no way i was going to be able to tell anything about the actual game. then in february i sat in on a game for a missing player one session to help them out and just toss cures so the DM didn't have to run it as an NPC. there again not much to learn about the game. the next sessino i was also asked to return in case another player was missing. this time the DM had to leave early to get sleep for work and handed the game off to me. well i take his information on what was to come and how he was intending this module to go. he said it wasn't too different a set of rules so just run it like second and have the players iron out the wrinkles. all hell broke lose after the first initiative roll and fighting started with melee and amgic that i had no idea what was going on. actually a very small and vague idea because i recently started playing DDM. now me alreayd understanding ACs went up, it took longer than it had ever taken for a batle sequence because of all the modifiers that had to be added up and looked up during the sequence by those who knew and had been playing the game since i didn't have the slightest idea what they were talking about. i asked for an attack role and waited to see if it bested the AC and it took forever once i die was roled to get an answer. they couldn't find ability X in the books etc. :rolleyes: if the players with 5+ years of experience with the edition took that long to get through a simple battke sequence then now ay in hell i wanted to try to figure it out. the funniest thing one player kept asking me how to do something, and until june kept asking me only to get the same response from me, which he didn't like at all. "i don't know this sytem. i don't know where anything is located in the books to even tell you where to look it up. i am not going to search for it sicne i wouldn't even know what it was i was trying to look up." overwhelming is an understatement for the situation on a whole. i felt as though i had never played a roleplaying game in my life. the sad part when i created my character years ago to play in the single session of Rifts it took less time to create the character for that system than the one nights battle segment. and playing was also much easier sorting through the rules. 3.x is just not something made for me.
High Octane 08-01-07, 07:32 PM	Yes, uniformly as levels go up, but at Level 1, creatures still have the same Hit Points. Thus the difference between a Level 20 and Level 1 Character (or equivalent creature) has become vastly greater, further excaberating the old 'Orcs aren't a challenge anymore' problem (unless you start tacking on Class Levels, but that doesn't address the core problem, it just results in an arms race). The Power Attack paradigm is also worth considering, having made other forms of combat than Two Handed Fighting pretty much obsolete amongst savvy adventures above Level 3. Leap Attack and Shock Trooper combinations have become a matter of course to increase Damage. Heh, yes Rogues have a load of Skill Points, but even they can barely cover the important Skills without extremely high intelligence scores. It's pants that a typical Fighter cannot even cover the four basic Skills of Jump, Climb, Ride and Swim. You are taking into account that you cannot power attack for more than your base attack bonus right? So a level 1 fighter can only power attack for 1. That only equates to 1 extra damage or 2 with a 2 handed weapon. As for the skill points, you don't necessarily have to have all those skills maxed out. You can still swim without any ranks, but you will have trouble in hard currents. You can still ride a horse untrained in ride, but you wont be able to attack from a horse. You can still climb without skill ranks, in fact a knotted rope against a wall would be easy given that your strength modifier should cancel out most of your armor check penalty and you can take 10. You can of course still jump untrained, you just won't go as far. In fact, jump is actually for the most part a highly undesirable skill, since it isn't too long before you can get items that let you fly or at least levitate. You could simply spread the points around, and you will be increasing in those skill checks anyway since a fighter usually tries to enhance his strength with magic items and often thats where the ability points go, and strength is the ability tied to 2 out of 3 of the skills. Many do agree with you that a fighter should get more skill points though, some suggest 4+int a level.
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:33 PM	The problem here is that if that you keep trying to use these debates as an excuse to argue that 2nd edition is superior and if anyone questions it they're a horrible person or they're stupid. you mean, as i refer to posts 9 and 11 again; those who first came into the thread and starting making claims that 3.x was superior and insinuating that anyone who thought otherwise was stupid. post 11 moreso than 9. and the quoted post from 11 wasn't even in disagreement than 3.x was bad. both argued for 3.x post 9 however went into saying playing one class was pointless unless you metagamed to use the best equipment. it went downhill form there. not many people wished the thread creator luck on getting his game going either.
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:36 PM	Frugal, Well, these days, WotC definitely has certain, err, "cultural" problems. Big problems (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html), some would say. They're the EA of their field, brand-obsessed and producing lots of incremental change rather than any real innovation. (Of course, TSR turned into the same kind of thing -- 'cept too many of its projects were unprofitable -- like 20 years ago, so this isn't a point for second edition or anything.) -- Alex oh no. 2E brown books weren't all that profitable. the gren books were even worse so. and actually 2E is about 20 years old now being published in 1989. the damage was done when that father and son team came into the picture.
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:41 PM	I am not at all interested in reading the mess you consider proper sentence structure just to see that you can't show me one. maybe you would find reading this more to your liking then? Quick comment on this: Incidentially, complaining about your writing style does not constitute "trolling". Complaining about writing style, spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. are all considered a form of baiting -- such statements almost always cause a negative response from the target of the comment. if anyoen wishes to read it later and is unable to find this post again you can currently find it located in my signature in the bottom spoiler block.
Zac789 08-01-07, 07:41 PM	I'm sorry, but thats not possible, as there was never a 2.0 D&D. The whole .0/.5 bull:censored: is purely a third edition mess. It was 2e, second edition. There was no . anything. The closest you came was Skills and Powers, but that was still optional side material. There was no 1.0, 2.0, and I will throw an unholy fit if there is ever a 4.0 (because I have no intention of putting up with another .5 fiasco). 1e, 2e, 4e. 3.5 is something that should never have happened. While what you say is true in its purest state, many of us came to refer to the Dungeoneer Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival guide, and Unearthed Arcana as the "1.5" books. Many of the concepts that became core to 2ed came from these 'bridge' books
Downtym 08-01-07, 07:44 PM	TANGENT ALERT! Sorry for this, promise it's my last on this subject before we return you to your regularly scheduled program of "Everyone Loves shadzar" ... a sustainable business that he then left in disgust. And? Adkison didn't get what he dreamed of. Rarely any of us do. But I would wager that what he did get, what developed out of his dream, will have a much longer shelf-life and will produce more enjoyable products then what he originally wished for. Everyone with any sense aspires to do what they enjoy for a living, but at some point rubber will meet road and your dream will have to be compromised for what is marketable and what survives in the world at large. And if the first iteration of your dream implementation didn't work out right, then hopefully it made you wealthy enough to - man, I don't know - buy out Gen Con and form another company to try for a second iteration. Which is exactly the point: a company that leads in the business of RPGs and other "analog games" is practically irrelevant in terms of the actual craft. I wouldn't go so far as to call WotC irrelevant in this market. The company in a lot of ways is still the 900 pound gorilla on the block and where it goes, others follow. Look at the Open Gaming License, that was a brilliant maneuver in branding, marketing, and opening up the market to some good (and bad) products. You can't walk through a store without seeing "Random Fantasy RPG Book: OGL Product, Requires the Dungeons and Dragons Player's Guide!" On the back? WotC's brand. If any publicity is good publicity, WotC did one thing right in making sure that everyone in the world knew who they were and what they sold. Now look at the card gaming market. This is a market that almost didn't exist before Magic walked onto the stage and slammed down a gauntlet. Now you have card games of every type and fashion crawling out of the woodwork. And claiming that WotC is irrelevant to innovation in this market? Have you seen Hecatomb, Netrunner, or Battletech? Sit down with each of these games for a weekend and there's some game theory awesomeness behind each one. You can argue that the monopolization of a large portion of the game industry hurts it by creating a monoculture, but it also helps it by concentrating capital in a company willing to invest in new ideas and games. If nothing else, look at how Eve Online's producers have argued that World of Warcraft is great for their product - the more people that WoW brings into the MMO market, the larger customer base exists for Eve Online to sell itself to. Also, WotC's success makes investors more willing to provide funding for game development and game publishing. Given that, I just wouldn't find myself accepting the argument that WotC is nearly as bad as Mr. Tynes opines in his article. Hey, big surprise, WotC is a company out to make money! Who knew, right? This happened to TSR, too. Right now I'd say Wizards is handling it better than they did. But, still, none of the stuff they make has really improved much in, what, at least a decade now? Nor have they explored new ground. If you feel WotC isn't exploring new ground, then why don't you explore this new ground yourself then license it to them for all the money you can? Or maybe you can invest - like really invest, not just buy their book, but write a sizeable check for R&D - in companies that you think are exploring new ground? Personally, I think WotC is doing an admirable job keeping the hobby alive and exploring old and new ideas. I mean, come on, they have essentially helped to revive the miniatures market! That's no easy feat right there. And they're keeping Avalon Hill alive (If you haven't played Betrayal at House on the Hill you have no idea what you're missing) all while trying to push the RPG market out of the basements and into the 21st century. Personally, I'd toss at least a B or B+ Wizards way just for effort and for keeping so many fun games on the market when its obviously not a business of the quick bucks. I too would prefer if Wizards explored more game ideas and game types (I'm still bitter over Netrunner being canceled and while I never played Hecatomb, I admired its mechanics because they were amazing), but then I also understand that WotC is in a fairly unforgiving business with tight margins which either rewards innovation and exploration with a briefcase full of money (Magic) or crushes a company because of poor business decisions (FASA :weep: ).
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-01-07, 07:49 PM	Shadzar, uh, no. Just...no. TAHC0 = mind bogglingly perverse. Everyone but you and a few die hards realizes this ;) It is not simpler. -10+ everything else = simple! Open ended, this is a GOOD thing. -10 then take away, then go to 0 and into negatives = duh? So, they took a while to check on an ability, like that never happened in 2nd ed either..."Hey, what book is the item in?" etc. The layout of the books is MUCH better, the secondary art is great, and a damned sight better than 2nd ed. I agree the full page art that made 2nd ed D&D cool, is alas, missing. -DeTirlitzzi sucked, utterly deeply SUCKED, all his damned creatures looked like refuges from a concentration camp, ugh. It's fine if he enjoys that style of art himself, but when you're portraying a sodding great minotaur and make it look instead like a starved cow complete with flies buzzing around it's arse....ick! -The fantastic "Dragon Slayers" pic in 2nd ed PHB is about an all time fave :) Prices/ hey haven't you heard of inflation, mate? :D Fair price for a hefty, fully coloured, decorated pages, book. You're kidding yourself if you think it should be cheaper. The MUCH slimmer 1st ed books were mostly horribly illustrated, with a few exceptions wel all fondly remember, and laid out in a totally scatter brained way. -I loved 1st and 2nd ed too! I also used to like children's tv, once as well... OMG, how you play a character, is up to you and the DM!! The 1st, 2nd or 3rd ed rules have nothing to do with that, and you know it. 3rd ed does not stop you playing your paladin as an arrogant zealot. oh I give in, I think you're either deliberately trolling for a laugh, or the kind of person who espouses 1950's cars not for enjoyment of aesthetics, (which is a valid view point even if I don't necessarily agree) but because you try telling folk they are mechanically better and safer than current vehicles, which is obviously a load of rubbish. :rolleyes: next, we'll be hearing how 1st ed psionics and bards were much better than currently...oi vay :D
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:59 PM	Shadzar, uh, no. Just...no. and my point is proven as to why i just said "WotC" to answer your question Frugal.
Frugal 08-01-07, 08:20 PM	Yes. I have done that very thing on many, many occasions as I both play with and DM people who do not know the rules nearly as well as I do. I could very easily "forget" a number of rules to my advantage, but I don't. I'm sorry, am I getting in the way of your asinine arguement that anyone who concerns themselves with the rules is factually dishonest? :rolleyes: Vaelan, you're misunderstanding what I mean by "rules lawyer". I concern myself with the rules and have a nasty habit of mentioning rules that will harm the party when I'm playing. What I mean by "rules lawyer" is the kind of guy who will have a character go to -10 HP and then say, "okay, I stand up and take a swing at my opponent" and will then argue at length that nothing in the rules says a dead character can't perform an action. Or the type of guy who will take some completely twisted reading of the rules, usually bending standard grammar beyond recognition, to argue that they "say" something they clearly don't. The kind of player who will sit and argue about some little rule at length in the middle of the game, bogging it down completely for everyone else, and refuse to listen to basic logic or even the DM just saying, "fine, but I'm the DM and I'm house ruling that it doesn't work that way". The kind of guy who will then protest at length if you say, "fine, you can do that, but you do realise that your monk's not actually proficient with his unarmed strikes, as per the rules as written, so he's going to suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty," will scream until he's blue in the face that it's not fair and of course a monk is supposed to be proficient with unarmed strikes. That's what I mean by a "rules lawyer".
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-01-07, 08:43 PM	Rules laywers existed in 1st and 2nd ed, as well as 3rd. OMG, worst, cheating, ratbag, rules-lawyer I ever knew was in a 2nd ed game..system had nothing to do with it, just as in real life, being a ratbag has nothing to do with race, creed or colour! :D This fellow took min/maxing to the max...he abused every rule, and caused more party wipes than ANYTHING else did. He was a rules-lawyer purely to abuse the game, and that's the difference between being a "rules freak", or "player who legitimately exploits everything to best advantage because his character is a smart, sneaky SOB!" ;) -Rules-laywers may try to pretend to be the latter type, but they ain't. Rules-laywers are like the kobold who farts, and blames his smell on the only healer on his side! :D
High Octane 08-01-07, 08:52 PM	Vaelan, you're misunderstanding what I mean by "rules lawyer". I concern myself with the rules and have a nasty habit of mentioning rules that will harm the party when I'm playing. What I mean by "rules lawyer" is the kind of guy who will have a character go to -10 HP and then say, "okay, I stand up and take a swing at my opponent" and will then argue at length that nothing in the rules says a dead character can't perform an action. Or the type of guy who will take some completely twisted reading of the rules, usually bending standard grammar beyond recognition, to argue that they "say" something they clearly don't. The kind of player who will sit and argue about some little rule at length in the middle of the game, bogging it down completely for everyone else, and refuse to listen to basic logic or even the DM just saying, "fine, but I'm the DM and I'm house ruling that it doesn't work that way". The kind of guy who will then protest at length if you say, "fine, you can do that, but you do realise that your monk's not actually proficient with his unarmed strikes, as per the rules as written, so he's going to suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty," will scream until he's blue in the face that it's not fair and of course a monk is supposed to be proficient with unarmed strikes. That's what I mean by a "rules lawyer". I despise that form of rules lawyer. I consider myself quite the rules lawyer, but I am ethical in my doing so. The difference between ethical rules lawyering and unethical comes down to a few things: Honesty: An ethical rules lawyer reveals his knowledge of the rules in their entirety even when the rules favor against what he wants. Respect: An ethical rules lawyer respects that the DM has the final say, and always says to the DM that he can houserule it if he wants. Patience: An ethical rules lawyer recognizes that arguing during the game disrupts it and wastes time. If at all possible, he will delay any extensive discussion that will require looking rules up and time talking to until after a game or during a break. Proper use: Ethical rules lawyers are in fact one of the top foes of munchkins and cheaters. An ethical rules lawyer will use his knowledge of the game in order to make sure munchkins do not exercise loopholes that actually do not exist and helps recognize cheaters who conveniently forget factors that they know exist. Rules lawyers also are helpful to players who may not realize what they are getting themselves into or forget their own advantages (newer players) in ways such as "Oh don't worry, dodge bonuses stack.", "Don't forget you get +4 AC verse giants as a dwarf." These are the differences between ethical rules lawyers and unethical rules lawyers, the cousins of munchkins.
Frugal 08-01-07, 08:52 PM	its a first that i have seen it as a serious question then over the years. most people ask so they can pick my answers apart and tell me why the things i don't like are superiour to how its handled in 2E. Wow, 665 posts in and we finally get something concrete. The thing is you have some valid comments here, some of it's opinion that I disagree with but there's some valid stuff here that's interesting discussion. Now if your previous posts are any indication, I can understand why you think 3.x players are just trying to bait you, you've been rude, evasive, insulting, troll baiting, and flat out wrong about rules you've posted, how else do you expect to be treated? i stopped Magic, playing shortly before the release of, or maybe after 3.0 D&D because the vast rules changes made in or aobut 5th edition. it just wasn't a game i liked anymore. I dropped out around Chronicles or Homelands I think. I just got tired of the constant release schedule and too many cards being reprints of prior cards, or the exact same card with a different name so you could get around the normal tournament rule (at the time at least, don't know about now) that you could only have 4 of any card in your deck. That and I always felt like it was less about strategy and more about who had the most money to get the best deck. that being said i had very little hope that if they fouled up their own game they would be able to take someone elses game, one i have loved for many years and do it justice. See, that's not valid, completely different set of designers. Now sure, I can see some concern but at least now you've outlined it a bit rather than just saying that what you don't like about 3.x is WOTC. having only playing SSI games for D&D i was very interested in a rerelease of NWN. a game i had spent MANY hours on AOL playing with my 2400 baud modem, and the lag from those who still only had 300 baud modems and playing around in the sewers. well it came out with little to no information on the rules used and they were of course 3rd edition. my dismay at no longer being able to create an online game for playing D&D with anybody was great. Don't base anything about 3.x on NWN, it's kind of 3ed but not really. A lot of the rules are different to make it work for a computer game. The biggies being that it's realtime obviously but then that means that several mechanics were changed, several were eliminated, and some stuff just completely made up (like there's a whole new skill that handles things like parrying, when parrying doesn't happen in 3.x and the skill doesn't exist). i then read some of the rules what i could, but the damage to Dragon and the design of D&D books was already to where it was hard trying to read the poor choice of dark fonts on dark background and throwing pictures into the middle of pages i quickly stopped trying to read the books. The chapter title pages in the books bug me too. I can read them, but barely, and I've commented on this before on the boards, it's just plain bad design. when i again picked up a core book and read some of the things i just didn't like the ideas. nothing was wrong with THAC0. AC didn't need to have an infinite upper limit. and everything pretty much starting off with 10 AC was pointless. why have it at 10, why not 0 and work your way up? THAC0 was just a hack from the older still to-hit tables. There's nothing wrong with THAC0 itself, it's just that the whole lower AC is better concept is just really unintuitive. As for why they started at 10, well that gives you a 55% chance to hit with no modifiers (10 or more on a d20). Starting at 0 would mean that people would start with a 95% chance to hit you, with no modifiers (since a 1 always misses), clearly bad. You could make the modifiers higher but then you run into issues with insane ACs with things that stack and also making it inconsistent with the standard ability score modifiers. 10 makes a lot of sense when you look at how other things work. not to mention the kits from the numerous splat books that were unneeded and hardly ever used, or argued about when they were became core and called "pretige classes". the term itself is utterly stupid. why not call them advanced classes, or secondary classes, or even something else....anything else. Actually, the DMG says they're optional, but you wouldn't know that looking at how many WOTC pumps out in new releases all the time. I like the idea but find a lot of them are just plain stupid or unnecessary. And I think the 3.x does have far too many classes (base or prestige) which does contribute to some people feeling like they need a class named exactly like what they want to play in order to play the concept. then we get into the level advancement. why would every class level at the same rate? they each had different skills relying on different things. but the also destroyed that to where the classes didnt really matter what you were because a class no longer determined your role in the party. Because they wanted to balance the level of power, so that a level x PC with class A should be the same power as a level x PC with class B. It also completely eliminated the need for every class to have it's own XP table, hell from what I've heard it was also every race/class combo had it's own XP table. This just gets silly. The idea in 2ed was, "we freely admit that none of these classes are balanced against each other but we'll even it out by making you advance slower or faster" whereas with 3.x the mentality is, "we've tried to balance all the classes so that they should be equal at the same level", now don't get me wrong, they totally screwed up with it, most casters typically suck at low levels and get obscenely powerful at higher levels, but I still think it's a far better way to handle things. It also makes adventure design easier because you can put out a module and say it's designed for 4 5th level characters not, "designed for 4 characters and the fighter should be around level 7 and the mage around level 4...." the ability scores. they became so generic and no longer had any point save for giving modifiers to every thing else. Um, that kind of is the point, they effect everything. Now one change I wouldn't mind seeing is completely eliminate the score and just make it a modifier. I mean that's pretty much all they do anyway (other than when the stat itself is drained), so your STR would be +2, not 14 (which gives a +2 modifier). the game had gone from being something that you devised new ways to overcome obstacles while playing to creating a character so you don't have to do anything while playing other than roll the dice since you already have a greater chance to do something because of table X. Usually heavy optimization results in becoming a one trick pony. As soon as you get out of that situation then you're screwed. the WBL and CR i recently came to understand a bit about. again the books dictating what goes where. who says a party shold encounter 4 groups of level X things per day? some days they dont meet anything while travelling. again promoting the fighting aspect of the game. while the roleplaying have been turned into picking the best mechanics you can find. that is after all the only reason to play a certain "prestige class" is to get its bonuses. Again, I already told you how the CR system works, all it is is a guideline. It tells you (roughly) what the power of the encounter will be. As for the 4 encounters per day, again that's only a guideline. It's just telling you that's what the designers balanced the game against, you can run more or less on a case by case basis but be aware of the side effects. For instance, a lot of classes have abilities that are limited number of uses per day, if you're going to run a lot of encounters in a day then you probably need to make them easier (at least the later ones) because the characters will start running out of steam. Similarly, if you run a single encounter it should be harder because the characters can use all their most powerful abilities without fear (if they know there's only going to be 1 encounter). So no, it doesn't tell you where to place stuff or how to pace things, it just gives you a baseline for how they designed the system so that you can base any variations off that. And again, there's nothing explicit in the rules the eliminates RP, if that's the way your 3.x groups played then I feel sorry for them. when i played a paladin i wanted the challenge of someone forced to be lawfull good and at the same time arrogant and acting superior to others. not just for minor undead turning and laying on hands. Oh it's still there, has to be lawful good, and depending on how you read the paladin's code, still has to be a complete ******* and make having one in the group no fun for the rest of the party. It's all still there (cruise the boards for a bit and check out the number of paladin threads). Personally, I think it's bad design because I hate seeing a class have it's mechanics "balanced" by forcing a particular RP style on you. Classes should give a little flavour and some mechanics and leave the RP aspect up to the player. the funniest thing one player kept asking me how to do something, and until june kept asking me only to get the same response from me, which he didn't like at all. "i don't know this sytem. i don't know where anything is located in the books to even tell you where to look it up. i am not going to search for it sicne i wouldn't even know what it was i was trying to look up." overwhelming is an understatement for the situation on a whole. Well it sounds like you've had crappy situations with 3.x all around, a game day situation is not going to be good (as you mentioned), the one off isn't much to judge on. Then being thrown into DM'ing with no knowledge of the rules (and not even your own campaign either) just plain sucks. And amount of time playing doesn't mean knowing the rules. I pick up rules quickly and had the gist in a few sessions when I started, and that was with no help from the others in the group, all on my own. As I mentioned there's someone else in the group who's been playing since 2ed who still has to be reminded that she rolls a d20 to hit. Now she's great at RP, she just has no interest in learning the mechanics, so others help her out. 3.x definitely demands more rules knowledge in order to DM, throwing you in like that was unfair to you. But then spending the rest of the time refusing to learn the rules isn't fair to your players either.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 09:04 PM	You are taking into account that you cannot power attack for more than your base attack bonus right? So a level 1 fighter can only power attack for 1. That only equates to 1 extra damage or 2 with a 2 handed weapon. Of course. I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying, oh my God look how much damage Level 1 Characters can do! Far from it. I'm saying look how much damage level 20 Characters do compared to Level 1 Characters. The gap between levels is greater now than it has ever been, which I view as undesirable for building consistant worlds, but it's just my opinion. As for the skill points, you don't necessarily have to have all those skills maxed out. You can still swim without any ranks, but you will have trouble in hard currents. You can still ride a horse untrained in ride, but you wont be able to attack from a horse. You can still climb without skill ranks, in fact a knotted rope against a wall would be easy given that your strength modifier should cancel out most of your armor check penalty and you can take 10. You can of course still jump untrained, you just won't go as far. In fact, jump is actually for the most part a highly undesirable skill, since it isn't too long before you can get items that let you fly or at least levitate. You could simply spread the points around, and you will be increasing in those skill checks anyway since a fighter usually tries to enhance his strength with magic items and often thats where the ability points go, and strength is the ability tied to 2 out of 3 of the skills. Many do agree with you that a fighter should get more skill points though, some suggest 4+int a level. Oh yeah, I know you can spread the points around, but unfortunately some of the basic checks require you to 'max out' the Skill. What rubs me up the wrong way is that people have little to no incentive to do so. I much prefer Character Point driven Skill acquisition, rather than Level based. Tying Skills to the levelling system and limiting them by Class, I think, was a mistake. Part of the reason Saga has skills advance by Character Level is because they noticed that Players don't spread the points around (according to the article I read about it on the Star wars Site, anyway). and the art is frankly bad. i can't really find a piece i like. there is no Larry Elmore that i can see, no Tony DiTelirzi (sp). everything was either some sepiad color sketch or a rip off of Davinci's style. I know Jeff easly did at least one picture of the Iconic Characters, but something appears to be wrong with his Website at the moment, so I cannot link to it.
Solik 08-01-07, 09:46 PM	chance of learning a spell is gone. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#addingSpellstoaWizardsS pellbook It requires a Spellcraft check to scribe scrolls into your spellbook. the game had gone from being something that you devised new ways to overcome obstacles while playing to creating a character so you don't have to do anything while playing other than roll the dice since you already have a greater chance to do something because of table X In several years of 3rd edition gaming, I have never found this to be true. who says a party shold encounter 4 groups of level X things per day? some days they dont meet anything while travelling Oh wow. The "4 encounter per day" suggestion is a balancing mechanic. The idea is that you have approximately 4 encounters of equal CR to the party's ECL between rests. You obviously may diverge from this. If you want more encounters, you decrease the CR of a few of them (or grant the players the ability to recover a bit). If you want fewer encounters, you increase the CR. In no way does this mean "4 fights every single day." You are not expected to do this. You can go a year between encounters if you want, but when you start having encounters, you should plan them around the balancing point of 4 encounters at CR = party ECL. The more experienced you are as a DM, the more you can vary this formula and maintain balance. If you actually had 4 encounters every single day, you'd go from level 1 to 20 in about a month and a half, game time! The reason for this rule is that if you have too many encounters, player resources will be stretched too thin, and the combats will be more challenging than their CR should indicate. Likewise, if you have fewer encounters, they will be easier than their CR should indicate, as players can freely "go nova." Again, an experienced DM can handle such divergences; the 4/rest suggestion just gives a recommended starting point. when i played a paladin i wanted the challenge of someone forced to be lawfull good and at the same time arrogant and acting superior to others. not just for minor undead turning and laying on hands. Not only has this been ported to 3rd edition in its entirety, but you can go even farther with this with optional material such as the Book of Exalted Deeds. if the players with 5+ years of experience with the edition took that long to get through a simple battke sequence then now ay in hell i wanted to try to figure it out Sounds like a poor group. This is not the norm. Or, well, if it is, I fear for humanity. Even more.
Zémobiel 08-01-07, 09:57 PM	Personally i think D&D secound edition is one of the worst system ever. The progression is over complicated, the savinf trow are a nigtmare. I have played secound edition like 6 years before 3 came out, i was relucant first, but i fastly see how 3.0 was way easyer to understand all mathematical was morelogical and simpler.
High Octane 08-01-07, 10:09 PM	not to mention the kits from the numerous splat books that were unneeded and hardly ever used, or argued about when they were became core and called "pretige classes". the term itself is utterly stupid. why not call them advanced classes, or secondary classes, or even something else....anything else. Well sir, I find the name of a concept to bear little on the games actual playability and fun factor. This reminds me of the complaints I keep hearing when they changed "Pick Pocket" in 3.0 to "Sleight of Hand" in 3.5. then we get into the level advancement. why would every class level at the same rate? they each had different skills relying on different things. but the also destroyed that to where the classes didnt really matter what you were because a class no longer determined your role in the party. Although the reason for same rate has been mentioned, I would actually like to counter that characters do not advance at the same rate. A wizard becomes better at hitting a target (base attack bonus) at half the rate of a fighter. He becomes adept at taking blows at a signifigantly reduced rate verse a fighter (smaller hit die), and the fighter learns battle maneuvers and tricks at an increased rate (bonus feats). If you look at leveling as a more abstract notion, you see that advancement is not consistent between classes. the skills and feats were no improvement over the NWPs/WPs and secondary skills. all they did was give them a new name and told you how you were suppose to use them. i didn't ever find it that hard to use them in the first place, or just omit the optional ones and just use an ability score to check for whatever the action was closest related to. The new system allows for increasing difficulty based on effort put into learning a skill rather than starting stat. The idea is that the focus is more on the skill ranks put in rather than the natural stat. Whether you like or dislike that notion is a matter of taste. However this does allow characters to advance overall so that after a few levels what was impossible becomes hard, then slightly difficult, and finally at higher levels easy. The skills scale with level more. the ability scores. they became so generic and no longer had any point save for giving modifiers to every thing else. Upset there is no difference between 14 dex and 15 dex? Some people are and I understand that. However there are some differences. It is easier to raise the 15 stat in order to increase your modifier. It also gives more cushion verse dexterity damaging spells and effects. chance of learning a spell is gone. anybody can learn anything. Sort of. The spells given at level up for a wizard are given freely, but to pull from another spell book or scribe from someone elses scroll into your spellbook does require a spellcraft check, which is intelligence based. Sorcerers get all their spells only from leveling without a check, but I think if a class is going to be stuck with a limited number of spells he could ever choose from he should get what he wants without losing out to some bad roll. the game had gone from being something that you devised new ways to overcome obstacles while playing to creating a character so you don't have to do anything while playing other than roll the dice since you already have a greater chance to do something because of table X. Perhaps you could explain how this is any different than 2nd edition? I don't even know what you are referring to unless this is yet another desire to revert to Tabula Rasa. the players also began treating it as such and since the game promote and details more ways about fighting it was geared more to that style of gameplay in peoples eyes. So you are saying that 3.x is more combat focused due to there being more rules for combat and thus not focused on puzzles and such? the rules lawyers..i already mentioned that. See my rant on ethical rules lawyering. If someone wanted to they could also rules lawyer 2nd edition, but the game was so incomplete and up to DM arbitration I must admit it was harder to do. But the tradeoff confusion and utter and complete dependance on the DM for everything leading to a feeling of powerlessness overall for the players and often a power trip from the DM makes dealing with unethical rules lawyers not seem so bad. At the very the least the problem is now rules plawyers players who you can kick out a lot of the time if he isn't reachable instead of the power tripping/railroading DM whose campaign you have to abandon if he isn't reachable. the WBL and CR i recently came to understand a bit about. again the books dictating what goes where. who says a party shold encounter 4 groups of level X things per day? some days they dont meet anything while travelling. again promoting the fighting aspect of the game. while the roleplaying have been turned into picking the best mechanics you can find. that is after all the only reason to play a certain "prestige class" is to get its bonuses. WBL? Anyway, having a seemingly arbitrary system of measuring monster and challenge rating that is at the very least consistent is better than having none at all. I remember trying to DM first edition for a couple session. When planning the campaign, I had no idea what kind of monsters would be appropriate for their challenge level. These were level 1 characters. I looked into pitting them against a mind flayer for crying out loud because it didn't seem to have too many hit points and its tentacle attacks didnt hit too hard! when i played a paladin i wanted the challenge of someone forced to be lawfull good and at the same time arrogant and acting superior to others. not just for minor undead turning and laying on hands. You wanted to be a jerk and be disliked? I assure you you don't need to have any rules or code to make that happen with a D&D character, particularly a lawful good one (as a paladin still has to be) Hell a lot of people do it while cutting out the D&D middleman entirely! like say monopoly stopped being manufacturer and they only made monopoly junior. not that 3.x is for a younger crowd, but the fact that the game i liked no longer existed, nor did its concepts. Despite the fact that you said "Not that it's for younger crowds" I don't find that sincere. There is nothing stopping you from dusting off your old monopoly set and playing with that. Same with 2nd edition D&D. the marketing scheme aimed at younger people doesn't help either when those younger people that have never played 2E or earlier editions start talking about it as though it was worthless because there is something new. :rolleyes: Theres a difference between not preferable and worthless. A 1994 honda accord is not worthless, it still gets you places, but I would prefer the 2006 model if given a choice. cutting 2E from dragon magazine shortly after i had renewed my subscription to only include 3.0 material also. i ended up paying for a two year subscription to only get two useful peridodicals other than any maps included in them. Sorry. Maybe they should have included adaptation for 2E with them. i can understand inflation to a point but the amount of picture in 2E was a problem for some, so i guess in turn 3.0 increased the amount of pictures but decided not to have them in full pages. to compensate for this the prices of books was now $30. and the art is frankly bad. i can't really find a piece i like. there is no Larry Elmore that i can see, no Tony DiTelirzi (sp). everything was either some sepiad color sketch or a rip off of Davinci's style. Matter of taste. As for the increased cost: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/rpgsaretooexpensive.html now that may seem like very little, but after finding out so much i didn't like right there, why continue reading the books to find out if there is anything in it? The voice in your head telling you maybe you had a predisposition to hate the product since it changed what you were used to? well i gave the game an acutal try to play rather than watch 3.x at nov 2006 game day. not really a good judgement to be able to tell because of the utter RPG newbs that were so childish...the 8 year old at the table was more mature than the 15-20 year olds...there was no way i was going to be able to tell anything about the actual game. Immature people are not edition specific. Believe me, there are people who suck at being mature outside of even D&D as a whole. then in february i sat in on a game for a missing player one session to help them out and just toss cures so the DM didn't have to run it as an NPC. there again not much to learn about the game. the next sessino i was also asked to return in case another player was missing. this time the DM had to leave early to get sleep for work and handed the game off to me. well that was just bad planning. You didnt know 3.5 and shouldnt have been asked to take the DMs mantle for a game you knew little about. Sorry. now me alreayd understanding ACs went up, it took longer than it had ever taken for a batle sequence because of all the modifiers that had to be added up and looked up during the sequence by those who knew and had been playing the game since i didn't have the slightest idea what they were talking about. i asked for an attack role and waited to see if it bested the AC and it took forever once i die was roled to get an answer. they couldn't find ability X in the books etc. :rolleyes: if the players with 5+ years of experience with the edition took that long to get through a simple battke sequence then now ay in hell i wanted to try to figure it out. I find the fact they had 5 years actual playing experience to be unlikely. What level was this game? I understand if this is level 18 or something. overwhelming is an understatement for the situation on a whole. Try having a 3.5 player try to DM 2nd on the fly and see how well he does. 2E and 3.5 are highly different systems, I am not denything that. Though there are some similarities, it's a lot like someone stopping a game of Command and Conquer and asking you to fill in while he is gone "cause you've played Starcraft before, and it's similar." It is, but that guy still will get you killed while filling in. i felt as though i had never played a roleplaying game in my life. the sad part when i created my character years ago to play in the single session of Rifts it took less time to create the character for that system than the one nights battle segment. and playing was also much easier sorting through the rules. 3.x is just not something made for me.I really hate to be so blunt, since I don't think you should have to update your campaign to 3.5, but you really don't have much of a choice in at least learning the system. You can still host 2E, but other people will host 3.5 and other d20 games. In order to play with them you are going to have to familiarize yourself with the d20 system. After that, you are halfway done with learning 3.5 so you may as well go the whole way.
Archangel62 08-01-07, 10:13 PM	you mean, as i refer to posts 9 and 11 again; those who first came into the thread and starting making claims that 3.x was superior and insinuating that anyone who thought otherwise was stupid. post 11 moreso than 9. and the quoted post from 11 wasn't even in disagreement than 3.x was bad. both argued for 3.x post 9 however went into saying playing one class was pointless unless you metagamed to use the best equipment. it went downhill form there. not many people wished the thread creator luck on getting his game going either. People can argue about a system, the complaint that I have had about 2nd edition, and it is a complaint that seems to be shared, is that 2nd edition D&D wasn't internally consistent and also gave very little in terms of tactical options. You needed supplimental material to even HOPE to do anything tactical or tricky, say tripping or some other way to deny a foe actions. Also, the mechanics themselves were poor and so much was left undefined that the games quality varied horribly depending mostly on who ran it. And I say this as someone who runs, my players are allowed, encouraged even, to correct me during a game or look up a mechanic if I am incorrect. I readily admit that I make mistakes and thus if I screw up my players have every right to call me on it and make sure I fix the mistake. In some cases it happens from misinterpretation or me misremembering a rule but it is best for the game and the group that the rules are out there so that we can compare notes and make sure that they work the way we want them to. Also, as has been mentioned before, if you really love 2nd edition so much why not buy from Kenzer who was creating new games and material using 2nd edition material?
High Octane 08-01-07, 10:16 PM	Of course. I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying, oh my God look how much damage Level 1 Characters can do! Far from it. I'm saying look how much damage level 20 Characters do compared to Level 1 Characters. The gap between levels is greater now than it has ever been, which I view as undesirable for building consistant worlds, but it's just my opinion. I watched 300 yesterday. A spartan kills a rhino by throwing one spear. Oh yeah, I know you can spread the points around, but unfortunately some of the basic checks require you to 'max out' the Skill. What rubs me up the wrong way is that people have little to no incentive to do so. I much prefer Character Point driven Skill acquisition, rather than Level based. Tying Skills to the levelling system and limiting them by Class, I think, was a mistake. Part of the reason Saga has skills advance by Character Level is because they noticed that Players don't spread the points around (according to the article I read about it on the Star wars Site, anyway). That is a matter of taste again, which is valid. But I venture to say if levels are not your thing, D&D is not your game. Any edition. I knew plenty of RPG players who didn't like the level system.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 10:23 PM	The new system allows for increasing difficulty based on effort put into learning a skill rather than starting stat. The idea is that the focus is more on the skill ranks put in rather than the natural stat. Whether you like or dislike that notion is a matter of taste. However this does allow characters to advance overall so that after a few levels what was impossible becomes hard, then slightly difficult, and finally at higher levels easy. The skills scale with level more. Interestingly, this was another Skills and Powers innovation. The whole 3e Skills system looks remarkably like the Proficiency System from Skills and Powers. Upset there is no difference between 14 dex and 15 dex? Some people are and I understand that. However there are some differences. It is easier to raise the 15 stat in order to increase your modifier. It also gives more cushion verse dexterity damaging spells and effects. Actually, that is another thing that I don't like about 3e, the way the Attribute Bonuses scale uniformly by 2 and the degree to which they now scale. Not that I liked the 2e Tables any better, but I definitely prefer the Basic D&D Attribute Tables (or the Castles and Crusades Tables) Sort of. The spells given at level up for a wizard are given freely, but to pull from another spell book or scribe from someone elses scroll into your spellbook does require a spellcraft check, which is intelligence based. Yeah, the 'free spells' mechanic is another aspect I'm not fond of. But the tradeoff confusion and utter and complete dependance on the DM for everything leading to a feeling of powerlessness overall for the players and often a power trip from the DM makes dealing with unethical rules lawyers not seem so bad. At the very the least the problem is now rules plawyers players who you can kick out a lot of the time if he isn't reachable instead of the power tripping/railroading DM whose campaign you have to abandon if he isn't reachable. What I am starting to notice about these debates is that people who dislike 2e sound like they had a horrible play experience/DM and the same applies to people who strongly dislike 3e. Anyway, having a seemingly arbitrary system of measuring monster and challenge rating that is at the very least consistent is better than having none at all. I remember trying to DM first edition for a couple session. When planning the campaign, I had no idea what kind of monsters would be appropriate for their challenge level. These were level 1 characters. I looked into pitting them against a mind flayer for crying out loud because it didn't seem to have too many hit points and its tentacle attacks didnt hit too hard! Actually, the 3e CR Rating system is very similar to the one from 1e. Basically Hit Dice + Special Abilities. I know they used the same table for 2e experience, but I don't recall if that part made the transfer. Try having a 3.5 player try to DM 2nd on the fly and see how well he does. 2E and 3.5 are highly different systems, I am not denything that. Though there are some similarities, it's a lot like someone stopping a game of Command and Conquer and asking you to fill in while he is gone "cause you've played Starcraft before, and it's similar." It is, but that guy still will get you killed while filling in. Actually, I did do this a couple of times before learning all the ns and outs of 3e, it wasn't very difficult at all, but those were low level affairs. I could see it getting harder further up the food chain. Interesting discussion. [Edit] I watched 300 yesterday. A spartan kills a rhino by throwing one spear. Erm, what do you mean by that? That is a matter of taste again, which is valid. But I venture to say if levels are not your thing, D&D is not your game. Any edition. I knew plenty of RPG players who didn't like the level system. Heh. Yeah, I know plenty as well. Indeed, I went through a phase of hating levels. However, it's not levels I have a problem with, it's how they relate to other aspects in 3e. I run a House Ruled AD&D Game for long term campaigns and I find levels to be a useful tool in that context. It's not that levels aren't for me, it's more like their implementation in 3e isn't for me (outside of published modules, that is).
High Octane 08-01-07, 10:32 PM	Actually, the 3e CR Rating system is very similar to the one from 1e. Basically Hit Dice + Special Abilities. I know they used the same table for 2e experience, but I don't recall if that part made the transfer. From what I recall, the hit die system gave no indication of what level encounter was appropriate, just how much experience was awarded. It was actually based on how many hit points the creature had and you got bonuses based on it's special abilities. Later material from 1st and second may have had a system, I think some did. I probably would have found that system to be better than none at all as well :) My argument is that an internally consistent and understandable measuring system for challenge verse certain level characters is much better than having none at all, even if it isn't accurate you can still use it as a frame of reference.
High Octane 08-01-07, 10:34 PM	Erm, what do you mean by that? This is fantasy. High level characters do increasingly high amounts of damage that go beyond reason when performing the same activities. Heh. Yeah, I know plenty as well. Indeed, I went through a phase of hating levels. However, it's not levels I have a problem with, it's how they relate to other aspects in 3e. I run a House Ruled AD&D Game for long term campaigns and I find levels to be a useful tool in that context. It's not that levels aren't for me, it's more like their implementation in 3e isn't for me (outside of published modules, that is). *shrug* Whatever works for you.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 10:45 PM	From what I recall, the hit die system gave no indication of what level encounter was appropriate, just how much experience was awarded. It was actually based on how many hit points the creature had and you got bonuses based on it's special abilities. Later material from 1st and second may have had a system, I think some did. I probably would have found that system to be better than none at all as well :) My argument is that an internally consistent and understandable measuring system for challenge verse certain level characters is much better than having none at all, even if it isn't accurate you can still use it as a frame of reference. Sure, but what I'm saying is that you can find a similar system in the 1e DMG. Basically it looks like the 2e Experience Chart. A 50/50 Challenge is something with equal Hit Die to the Character. So, a Level 1 Fighter has a 50/50 chance of beating an Orc, for instance. Add on a special ability, such as a Ranged Attack (i.e. a Bow) and that Orc becomes a 2HD Challenge. It was also followed up by more general advice, such as 12 1 HD Orcs still aren't a challenge for a Level 12 Magic User. The 3e system is more complete, for sure, but the bare bones of the CR System were already present in earlier editions, which I think is worth noting. This is fantasy. High level characters do increasingly high amounts of damage that go beyond reason when performing the same activities. Ah well, then it's about callibrating your fantasy. There are different types of fantasy with different degrees of 'realism' within them. I'm not saying 3e is rubbish, I'm just saying the power disperity between Level 1 and 20 has increased and I don't like that aspect. As with everything, it's preferential and subject to the likes and dislikes of the individual (this is after all what we're discussing, what we do and don't like about different editions and why) *shrug* Whatever works for you. Absolutely.
shadzar 08-01-07, 10:46 PM	Vaelan, you're misunderstanding what I mean by "rules lawyer". I concern myself with the rules and have a nasty habit of mentioning rules that will harm the party when I'm playing. What I mean by "rules lawyer" is the kind of guy who will have a character go to -10 HP and then say, "okay, I stand up and take a swing at my opponent" and will then argue at length that nothing in the rules says a dead character can't perform an action. Or the type of guy who will take some completely twisted reading of the rules, usually bending standard grammar beyond recognition, to argue that they "say" something they clearly don't. The kind of player who will sit and argue about some little rule at length in the middle of the game, bogging it down completely for everyone else, and refuse to listen to basic logic or even the DM just saying, "fine, but I'm the DM and I'm house ruling that it doesn't work that way". The kind of guy who will then protest at length if you say, "fine, you can do that, but you do realise that your monk's not actually proficient with his unarmed strikes, as per the rules as written, so he's going to suffer a -4 non-proficiency penalty," will scream until he's blue in the face that it's not fair and of course a monk is supposed to be proficient with unarmed strikes. That's what I mean by a "rules lawyer". and don't forget this person will also mention the rules when they work for his best interest, but when a rule is being omitted that will allow him to get away with something they never bother to bring it up. ;)
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 10:46 PM	Matthew: As a matter of fact, I had a blast with 2e. Not everyone who says that 3e is a better system had a bad time with 2e. Quite a few people had a lot of fun with it. It's just that 3e is a better system.
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 10:49 PM	Sure, I didn't mean to indicate that was the case for everyone, just that I was starting to see a general trend in the broad context of this sort of discussion. Don't get me wrong, I don't think 2e is better than 3e or vice versa, I consider them to be appropriate to their times and aims. I prefer my House Ruled version of AD&D better than any of the editions (which is to be expected), but that doesn't mean I would use it to play through a 1e, 2e or 3e Module or that it would provide a better play experience in that context. I just use it for my own games.
shadzar 08-01-07, 10:51 PM	I despise that form of rules lawyer. I consider myself quite the rules lawyer, but I am ethical in my doing so. you aren't really a rules lawyer. just a bookworm. :D the rules lawyer term came about because of people that liked to quote rules only for their benefit. so thats the way i have always known it. actually you would be more like the host of a gameshow, or a backup reference guide for a DM. no real term for that because those terms like rules lawyer are primarily deragatory. nothing wrong with just knowing the rules unless you are spouting them out all the time causing distractions to the game.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 10:53 PM	Matthew: That's interesting. Very broadly, could you tell me what kind of house rules you institute? For my part, I houserule 3e as well. For the most part, we like playing from levels 3 through 12, so we don't see as much of that power spread as you say, and as with you, I like having a more equitable spread of power across leveling. Some people go even further, halving or quartering XP gained so as increase the time play of their selected level spread choice. I'm really tending towards a "broad" idea of leveling rather than a vertical one. That is, leveling will get you more stuff you can do, but not necessarily suddenly gain the ability to beat the crap out of everyone at the stuff you already know. We're also trying to fix the multiclassing problem in 3e, but it's been rather rough.
shadzar 08-01-07, 11:22 PM	People can argue about a system, the complaint that I have had about 2nd edition, and it is a complaint that seems to be shared, is that 2nd edition D&D wasn't internally consistent and also gave very little in terms of tactical options. You needed supplimental material to even HOPE to do anything tactical or tricky, say tripping or some other way to deny a foe actions. Also, the mechanics themselves were poor and so much was left undefined that the games quality varied horribly depending mostly on who ran it. internally consistent i here this a lot.. i am assuming that most people are talking about either that now group played the game the same way therefore that wasnt a unilateral concensus on how to play and the tournament style player never knew what to do when they went to a convention that played only by the written rules. me i personally didn't care what houserules were in game a from game b. if i felt the would work i played in the game, otherwise i didn't. one game i packed up and left because the DM gave 1000 XP per level of scroll scribed for caster because the groups levels were lower than the encounters that were planned. granted this was a new DM i found out later, but he was using Baulder Gate video game and trying to write it into an adventure fo his first time DMing. computer games can't directly translate because of the cast differences in capabilities of what people can do, vs the limitations of the software. the tactical option like tripping someone were there. you just had to know how to apply what was there. how different is tripping from grappling someone in reality. grappling would be harder because you are trying to maintain a hold once you have it. tripping means you just have to connect in a way to unbalance them. use the wrestling or whatever table to figure out what would work for the trip attempt and the tripped would need to do a dex check to see if they fall or maintain/reclaim their balance. how many other tactics need to be spelled out? are you talking individual tactics or group tactics? and shouldn't that be something the player figure out for themselves. like not getting flanked when it is clear you are about to. make sure you have someone watching all sides. dont get backed into a corner, etc. the variations in games is what i enjoyed most. if you play the same way for extended periods of time you get burned out quicker. plus you get to learn new ideas from seeing other people perspectives on how something is done. example: one of the few threads around here about the Deck of Many Yhings. when a PC with 3000 XP draws one card and loses 10,000 XP, what XP is he now at? very interesting seeing what people say and why. and this is not really covered in the core rules. DoMT i would hope is not the only thing that could take away XP from even the lower levels. so how do they rules say a person losing XP that would take him below 0 should be treated? i do have over 100 books for 2E and earlier. i have no need to buy any more for 3.x. i have no need or interest to play 3.x. i am more than happy to play 2E and the books don't require dusting off. i am always reading and rereading them to the point some need replacing or archived and using the core rules copies to read. and i am not at all offended by someone saying i should still play 2E. that is my preffered edition after all. IF a 4th edition comes out and is not so poorly designed i MIGHT take a look at the books. but if they are filled with poor art and terrible orginization and legibility then i will pass them by as well. even at the cost of then going back to something like 2E that everyone somehow migrates to just because its new. Also, as has been mentioned before, if you really love 2nd edition so much why not buy from Kenzer who was creating new games and material using 2nd edition material? i find Hackmaster an even bigger joke than 3.x as far as being an RPG is concerned. i barely liked the KotDT comics.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 11:29 PM	No one is saying that you shouldn't play 2e. People are saying that your assessment of 3e as "poorly designed" is subjective and illogical.
shadzar 08-01-07, 11:38 PM	No one is saying that you shouldn't play 2e. People are saying that your assessment of 3e as "poorly designed" is subjective and illogical. oddly i thought personal opinion was always subjective.... "influenced by personal opinion" well what do you know i guess it is. so it is illogical that i have formed my own opinion of something? well how dare me to make up my own mind! :eek:
Matthew_ 08-01-07, 11:38 PM	Matthew: That's interesting. Very broadly, could you tell me what kind of house rules you institute? For my part, I houserule 3e as well. For the most part, we like playing from levels 3 through 12, so we don't see as much of that power spread as you say, and as with you, I like having a more equitable spread of power across leveling. Some people go even further, halving or quartering XP gained so as increase the time play of their selected level spread choice. I'm really tending towards a "broad" idea of leveling rather than a vertical one. That is, leveling will get you more stuff you can do, but not necessarily suddenly gain the ability to beat the crap out of everyone at the stuff you already know. We're also trying to fix the multiclassing problem in 3e, but it's been rather rough. Sure, I can give it a shot. Attributes Basically follow the Basic D&D System and try to keep the modifiers low. So: 0 = -6 1 = -5 2 = -4 3 = -3 4-5 = -2 6-8 = -1 9-12 = 0 13-15 = +1 16-17 = +2 18 = +3 19 = +4 20 = +5 and so on, up to 25 = +10. Player Characters will generally not exceed 18, as a rule. Higher scores are for Monsters. Races Most Non Human Races get access to 6 low powered Abilities (Feats). Things like Alertness or +1 AB and DB with Swords or whatever. Half Elves and Half Orcs get access to 3. Classes Classes are built on an experience chart, modified by Race. The better the features, the more experience is needed to go up a level. Most Classes end up around the 2,000 XP Mark. Every Level grants 1 new Class appropriate ability, each new level doubles the XP requirement. Past Level 6 Hit Dice and Constitution Bonuses become HP Modifiers (1D4 becomes +1, 1D6 and 1D8 becomes +2, 1D10 and 1D12 becomes +3). Proficiencies Proficiencies can be anything from Swords to Carpentry. Everyone has access to about twenty Proficiencies, depending on Class and Intelligence. Each one of these starts out at +10. Characters get 12 Skill Points to spend on these, capped by level (so +11 max at Level 1). Anything they aren't Proficient in can be used at a -4 Penalty (i.e. +6).Proficiencies are modified by Attributes appropriate to the situation, usually each is listed with two possibilities. Characters gain additional Skill Points independently of level and can learn Proficiencies simply by investing the time and finding a Master. Combat Based on a 3 Second Round and Action Points. Generally speaking, 2 Action Points = Attack, 1 Action Point = Parry, 1 Action Point = Attack of Opportunity. At higher levels certain Characters gain access to Abilities (Feats) that allow 3 Action Points = 2 Attacks. There's a Table of Actions and Action Point costs, but some Characters have access to special Actions, such as Two Weapon Fighting. A Parry uses up 1 Action Point from your next Action; it's basically an opposed roll. Armour Class = 20 + Modifiers. Attack Bonus = Proficiency + Modifiers. Equipment Usual run of the mill stuff. Weapons used Two Handed move up a Damage Die (i.e. 1D6 to 1D8 or 1D10 to 1D12). Critical Hits = Natural 20 = Full Damage. Magic We use Magic Points and Proficiencies. There are nine Schools of Magic and a corresponding number of Spheres. Each has a corresponding Proficiency. Spell Casters get (1-3 MP per Level, depending on Class) + Casting Attribute Modifier. Every Spell has a difficulty rated from 10-30, you must have the corresponding number of Ranks to cast a Spell. Each Spell has it's own MP cost, which can be modified for longer durations and other effects. Casting is Spontaneous. Recovery rate is very slow. Essentially, Magic is a very limited and valuable resource that must be used with care. That's pretty much as brief a description as I can manage. It's not for everyone, but it suits us these days. Last Campaign was ninety sessions over three years. Went from Level 1 to 6 with 4-6 main Players over the course of 12 Major Adventures. i find Hackmaster an even bigger joke than 3.x as far as being an RPG is concerned. i barely liked the KotDT comics. Do you know about OSRIC? That might be well worth your time, I think.
Roxlimn 08-01-07, 11:50 PM	That looks rather interesting, actually. I would hesitate to call it 2e, though. The springboard back to Basic D&D modifiers is probably prudent. I didn't care for percentile Strength any more than I did for S&P's split attributes. I'd do the classes a bit differently, since I like neatness in XP assignment, but that's just me. The Action Point system sounds neat, but I'm a little concerned about the added complexity of action choices and point assignment. For the MP system, I might suggest giving a look through the XPH for inspiration on mechanics. shadzar: No. Your subjective impression is illogical and unfounded. I had thought that that was rather obvious from the grammar.
NineInchNall 08-01-07, 11:56 PM	... And, like I said, it creeps me out that there are people who stick with 2e *because* it accomplishes the goal poorly *because their goal is the exact opposite* -- they want this game to be a game where you *can't* play unless you've been playing for 10 years since you were 15 (gotta keep those snot-nosed M:tG and WoW players out, right?) and where everyone is totally reliant on the graybearded godlike DM. It's BS. It's *bad*. Bad for the game, bad for the company and bad for the community. And yet I see it everywhere -- it's an attitude that pervades these boards, meetups, random D&D geeks you meet and hope to be able to play a good game with -- I *hate* it, and I think it should be exorcized. It's everything I dislike about geek culture as a whole in a nutshell. Holy balls. May I buy you a beer? :pint:
Me, Myself, & 101 others 08-01-07, 11:57 PM	*My* ideal hack-n-slash D&D-ish role-playing system would be one where you can pick up the rules in one day, where there are lots of options that are flavorful and interesting but no real bad choices or good choices, and where, ideally, there is no DM in the referee sense. There might be someone who sets up the scenarios and decides on the game structure, but no one whose job it is to design the system on the fly. It should be a game where four or five people can just go out and buy it and *start playing that afternoon*, and where the decision of who gets to be the DM is as simple as "Who wants to do it?" "I have an interesting idea for a campaign!" West End Game's D6 system, used for a variety of things (most notably Star Wars before WoTC got the rights). Flexible, cinematic, with lots of options and you could learn it in a day on your own or someone could teach it to you in about 15 minutes. :)
Matthew_ 08-02-07, 12:08 AM	That looks rather interesting, actually. I would hesitate to call it 2e, though. The springboard back to Basic D&D modifiers is probably prudent. I didn't care for percentile Strength any more than I did for S&P's split attributes. Yeah, I generally describe it as House Ruled 2e because that's the edition that put the most emphasis on mechanical variation and the one it's closest to in power level. I'd do the classes a bit differently, since I like neatness in XP assignment, but that's just me. I do sometimes get the urge to make it uniform, but there's really no need. It's possible to set a score and have everyone meet it, rather than allow for variable XP progression. In practice, though, there isn't much of a difference either way. The Action Point system sounds neat, but I'm a little concerned about the added complexity of action choices and point assignment. It's probably not as complex as it sounds, as Special Actions are relatively few and most Actions correspond to the 'usual' RPG stuff. For the MP system, I might suggest giving a look through the XPH for inspiration on mechanics. Yep, I recently borrowed a copy of that book and am going to give it a read when I get the chance.
Optimator 08-02-07, 01:35 AM	The sad thing is that Cross Class Skills are nominally an adaption of the 2e Groupings of Non Weapon Proficiencies (General, Warrior, Rogue, Wizard and Priest). Unfortunately, it wasn't a very well done adaption, on top of not being the greatest idea in the world to begin with. Interestingly, the DMG does discuss the possibility of rearranging Class Skills to better represent particular variations on a Base Class. I agree, though, every Skill should be available and freely bought on a 1:1 basis. Well, for what it's worth, this web enhancement for Cityscape (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) has rules for switching skills, albeit only four. Gather Information replaces Handle Animal, Knowledge (Local) replaces Knowledge (Nature), Sense Motive replaces Survival, and Tumble replaces Ride. So, apparently, you are certainly not alone. The Tumble and Gather Information swaps can go a long way helping the fighter in and out of combat, which is kinda nice.
Frugal 08-02-07, 07:59 AM	We're also trying to fix the multiclassing problem in 3e, but it's been rather rough. Curious what problem you're referring to?
Roxlimn 08-02-07, 08:28 AM	The caster multiclassing problem. Also the save/BAB multiclassing problem. And the nonstacking abilities problem.
Frugal 08-02-07, 08:35 AM	internally consistent i here this a lot.. i am assuming that most people are talking about either that now group played the game the same way therefore that wasnt a unilateral concensus on how to play and the tournament style player never knew what to do when they went to a convention that played only by the written rules. No, what I mean by this (at least), is that all the mechanics in written rules work in a similar way. What I mean by this is let's assume there are 5 mechanics presented in the game, if 1 system has all 5 work in different ways then the system is not internally consistent. If on the other hand, the 5 mechanics all work in a similar way, then the system is very internally consistent. It makes the game easier to learn because if you learn one part of the rules it's very easy to pick up the other parts because they work the same way. I'm not saying that 3.x is perfect in this regard, but it's definitely much more consistent than 2ed is. the variations in games is what i enjoyed most. if you play the same way for extended periods of time you get burned out quicker. plus you get to learn new ideas from seeing other people perspectives on how something is done. Yes, but I think that's likely more a matter of play style and story lines than the mechanics, or sometimes just playing with some different people. IF a 4th edition comes out and is not so poorly designed i MIGHT take a look at the books. but if they are filled with poor art and terrible orginization and legibility then i will pass them by as well. even at the cost of then going back to something like 2E that everyone somehow migrates to just because its new. I think you have to be careful with how you phrase this, given what you talk about with artwork, layout and legibility, I think you're talking about the actual look of the books (which you've also mentioned in the past, you have a hard time reading the pages that have background art behind them, like the 1st page of new chapters). But, going by the replies you received, a lot of people took this to mean that you were talking about the design of the mechanics of the game, which really comes across as flame baiting if you don't qualify what you see as "poor design".
Roxlimn 08-02-07, 08:39 AM	Technically, if all the player is doing when reading the PHB is look at the pretty pictures, then poor pictures WOULD be "poor design."
Frugal 08-02-07, 09:00 AM	Technically, if all the player is doing when reading the PHB is look at the pretty pictures, then poor pictures WOULD be "poor design." The big one I agree with is that they frequently use darker backgrounds, often with artwork in them as well, behind dark text for the 1st page of the chapters as well as in some of the sections in the back (glossary and index for instance). I can read them but I find them hard to read and could see how other people could have difficulty reading them as well. I really wish they'd stop doing that. But, going by the gleemax site, I'd say it's pretty clear that WOTC's designers still don't have a clue about legibility and colour schemes that are easy on the eyes.
Grand Theft Otto 08-02-07, 11:12 AM	Iterative attacks have been around since 1st edition when you ended up getting 3/2 attacks a round at like 6th level as a fighter. It was all about the 18-00 strength dart specialist baby!
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-02-07, 11:34 AM	so it is illogical that i have formed my own opinion of something? No, it is illogical to state your opinion as fact and to upbraid those whose opinion does not coincide with your own.
Matthew_ 08-02-07, 12:28 PM	Well, for what it's worth, this web enhancement for Cityscape (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) has rules for switching skills, albeit only four. Gather Information replaces Handle Animal, Knowledge (Local) replaces Knowledge (Nature), Sense Motive replaces Survival, and Tumble replaces Ride. So, apparently, you are certainly not alone. The Tumble and Gather Information swaps can go a long way helping the fighter in and out of combat, which is kinda nice. Interesting. Good to see them actually following through on previous content discussion. I haven't read through Cityscape or Dungeonscape yet, but I have heard good things about both books. I wonder if there is anything similar to the Web Enhancement between the covers? It was all about the 18-00 strength dart specialist baby! Hah, hah; reminds me of Zal, 'the fastest Dart Thrower in the West' from Baldur's Gate. That particular exploitation was eventually offiicially fixed in Combat and Tactics. High Octane I checked into the CR equivalent for 2e. I never used it myself, but apparently the Challenge of an Encounter in a Dungeon was based on the experience value of the opponents, rated from 1-10 [where 1-20 XP = Level 1 and 10,001+ = Level 10]. Encounters should be no more than two levels higher or lower than the level of the Party (however, the 'party' is never actually defined numerically).
Hlethvagi 08-02-07, 11:41 PM	3.x and 2.0 are both awesome games! I'm just bored with 3.x. I want to go back and see what my players think about the older rules. So far so good. First game went by well and we all loved it. Night Below is the single greatest Boxed Set EVER!!! The rules were simpler and I ran the game as I've been running games since 1988. I make up the rules and keep them going. We didn't need to look up a single rule in any of the core 2.0 books as we played. We also didn't use a battle mat, as we let combat run smoothly and fairly off the cuff. This is my first time running 2.0 since the onset of 3.0, and I think it went very well. Although my players weren't all up on the idea, after the game they all were extatic and were thinking about what might happen next week. I have to say the discussion was more about the fun we had, and not about the change of system. The players all seemed to enjoy themselves immensly, and as far as I tell they can't wait till next time. Hope someone cares. Hlethvagi
Matthew_ 08-03-07, 12:12 AM	Good stuff. Fun is what it's all about. There's no need to make any edition a permanent fixture of your gaming group. Swap freely between editions and don't worry about it. There are a number of AD&D Sites out there if you are looking for more discourse; Dragonsfoot springs to mind, but the 1e Community there is probably more prominent. Glad your game night went so well!
High Octane 08-03-07, 03:35 AM	i find Hackmaster an even bigger joke than 3.x as far as being an RPG is concerned. i barely liked the KotDT comics. It's really supposed to be a joke of a sort. I mean hell it's called Hackmaster.
tankschmidt 08-03-07, 08:06 AM	Man, I've got to find a copy of the Night Below. I don't feel like paying five dollars for a pdf and then another twenty to print it out! It's really supposed to be a joke of a sort. I mean hell it's called Hackmaster. Certainly the Hackmaster rules are a little ridiculous, but the modules are pretty good, especially for a beer and pretzels group, and you can convert on the fly to pre-3.x D&D or C&C. Truly not for the wuss of heart!
shadzar 08-03-07, 11:02 AM	The players all seemed to enjoy themselves immensly, and as far as I tell they can't wait till next time. and thats all that matters is that you all had fun. the whole not lookng up rules to bog down game time is what i so love about it myself also. congrats on finding a way that your players can have fun without you getting burned out. It's really supposed to be a joke of a sort. I mean hell it's called Hackmaster. thats what i don't like about it. as a comic it was cute at times, but as a real game i prefer less silliness when i am playing.
Werral 08-03-07, 11:22 AM	West End Game's D6 system, used for a variety of things (most notably Star Wars before WoTC got the rights). Flexible, cinematic, with lots of options and you could learn it in a day on your own or someone could teach it to you in about 15 minutes. :) I'm with you. I only played it once but I understood everything. Really well made, fast, fun and consistent.
Hlethvagi 08-04-07, 02:11 AM	the whole not lookng up rules to bog down game time is what i so love about it myself also. congrats on finding a way that your players can have fun without you getting burned on it. My players also didn't spend any time thinking about their "build" after level up. They knew that the character they made at 1st was pretty much going to be the one they had until we were done with this experiment. Personally I hate builds. I think it takes away from the game. I personally like to take my feats as I see fit. What feat will benefit my char more now, than say, in the future. I know having a build can help you plan out your char to become whatever you want, but in game, with hit points rolled and finding weakness in your char, you might find a different feat is necessary. Builds can really suck if played from 1-20! Just my thoughts Hlethvagi
shadzar 08-04-07, 11:36 AM	What feat will benefit my char more now, than say, in the future. that i think is the biggest problem with some players. they look at some of the new stuff and see how it has prerequisites for later and chooses those things to benefit them later. thus meaning they may be lacking things they need now and must compensate with more magical weaponry or some such. then later when they have those new abilities they planned so far for they want better magic stuff. what if the character doesn't live that long to get that bonus whatever? i prefer to choose things i could use now. PCs are mortal. i wonder if any of that was planned into 3.x that you could "build" things. the CR and WBL systems make it for people to plan ahead and give players the ability to predestine what their characters will be in the future? i congradulate your players on seeing the possibilities of their characters as not predetermined by what they get in the future and knowing that they make their character what they want from the beginning.
NoldorForce 08-04-07, 11:46 AM	Would you rather that you, the player plans things ahead, or that the system plans things ahead for you? Sure, planning ahead may restrict "organic" character development, but no more so (and often far less) than the set-in-stone options of 2E.
shadzar 08-04-07, 11:59 AM	Would you rather that you, the player plans things ahead, or that the system plans things ahead for you? Sure, planning ahead may restrict "organic" character development, but no more so (and often far less) than the set-in-stone options of 2E. i think it comes to the point of asking what your definition of character and character development is. to me character means the entity with its own persona. some would see it to mean just a device or tool in which to play an RPG. for character development i see it as how i choose to play as time progresses. others would see it as what abilities they get at Xth level. what is so set in stone about 2E? see the top part of my signature. anything can be changed to suit playstyles from any edition. with an edition like 2E when you change something it doesn't necessairly mean you have to go through and change the whole rules to make it work. with 3.x all the rules are so interbred with each other that changing one thing could drastically alter how everything else works. one reason why i compare it to a video game so often. all the variables must be predefined and any global constants need to be set at the beginning and agree with each other throughout the program...theoratically. with 2E the fact that things aren't so intertwined means you can adapt much more to your groups playstyle. this mean you have more things your characters can do at higher levels with less work. or it may be in the case like this one where the players got tired of being bogged down with the rules and just wanted to get to playing quicker.
Holy_Beholder 08-04-07, 02:12 PM	The point is that the 14-year-old texter looks less like a texter than you do when you type. The 14-year-old texter is mature enough to understand that different conventions apply to different media, and that when you're typing several sentences at once on a big screen it's not too damn much to ask to ask you to capitalize sentences. The fact that you jumped straight to slamming Holy Beholder -- whose post was infinitely clearer and easier to read and more mature-sounding than yours -- for being a texter is pretty trollish. So is calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Thank you. However I'm not a "texter", my post said that I was at the age when most people text. Personally, I avoid it. However, I still have to read the stuff, and am exposed to vast amounts of text messages. Yet I still was able to type using capitals, punctuation, and other things. I'm just recapping my point here, and thanking you (ArcTan) for backing me up.
Solik 08-04-07, 07:40 PM	PHB2's Retraining rules addressed many of the problems of "builds" forcing characters to have times of weakness followed by times of strength. Also, the most skilled character builders craft flexible characters that can advance several different ways, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the group, the DM's campaigning style, and the types of items acquired. That's a very overlooked aspect of character building, and IMO it's the most important in a game as versatile as D&D.
shadzar 08-04-07, 08:00 PM	PHB2's Retraining rules addressed many of the problems of "builds" forcing characters to have times of weakness followed by times of strength. heard of it, never seen it. isn't it a 3.0 only product?
High Octane 08-04-07, 08:13 PM	heard of it, never seen it. isn't it a 3.0 only product? PHB2 is 3.5
NoldorForce 08-04-07, 10:29 PM	i think it comes to the point of asking what your definition of character and character development is. to me character means the entity with its own persona. some would see it to mean just a device or tool in which to play an RPG. for character development i see it as how i choose to play as time progresses.This is independent of the edition you're using. Indeed, it's likely to be independent of the system you use.others would see it as what abilities they get at Xth level. what is so set in stone about 2E? see the top part of my signature.That's a discussion effectively stating that it's alright to houserule if you know what you're doing. That doesn't make the system better by itself. Recall the Oberoni Fallacy?anything can be changed to suit playstyles from any edition. with an edition like 2E when you change something it doesn't necessairly mean you have to go through and change the whole rules to make it work. with 3.x all the rules are so interbred with each other that changing one thing could drastically alter how everything else works.Changing major game mechanics makes for large consequences, irrelevant of edition. Perhaps you could contrast examples from 3rd/2nd to demonstrate your point; I'm not seeing it.one reason why i compare it to a video game so often. all the variables must be predefined and any global constants need to be set at the beginning and agree with each other throughout the program...theoratically. with 2E the fact that things aren't so intertwined means you can adapt much more to your groups playstyle.But such rules are often considered to be rather arbitrary; you're sacrificing internal consistency for this. Having a number of mechanics that work in various different ways does little except to require more memorization of the rules. Besides, catering to differing playstyles shouldn't always require rules changes, and often can be accomplished by altering the relative quantities of game elements within the existing rules. Do you want an intrigue game? Then pull out the skill-monkeys and the diviners. And so on.or it may be in the case like this one where the players got tired of being bogged down with the rules and just wanted to get to playing quicker.D&D is a rules-heavy game. There are many games out there (good ones, likely) that aren't this way
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 12:26 AM	D&D is a rules-heavy game. There are many games out there (good ones, likely) that aren't this way I think that is rather the issue. Dungeons & Dragons 3e is a rules heavy version of 2e, which I think is at the heart of Shadzar's discomfort. The core of 2e was very, very simple (even with the none intuitive elements) and everything else was an add on.
ArcTan 08-05-07, 01:25 AM	That doesn't make the system better by itself. Recall the Oberoni Fallacy? He needs to stop parading that around as though it proves something. The D&D 3.5 DMG says almost the exact same thing in its preface. And 3e D&D is the edition that came out with the biggest collection of radical, shocking variant rules in one place ever (Unearthed Arcana, with its "Play without hit points!" "Play without attack rolls!" "Play without spell slots!" attitude).
shadzar 08-05-07, 01:38 AM	~~~Having a number of mechanics that work in various different ways does little except to require more memorization of the rules. ~~~~D&D is a rules-heavy game. There are many games out there (good ones, likely) that aren't this way so admittedly D&D is a rules heavy game and you are saying you shouldn't bother to memorize thme? quick! without looking, what is the dice rolled when trying to hit with, and when doing damage for a Magic Missle? :confused: as for interbred of 3.x that is all i hear about here is how it is so "intuitive", "internally consistant", etc how ever thing is made up of dependant systems rather than how 2E had systems that didn't connect so easily wherein each aspect had its own system. thusly having all the systems connected means that chaning one could alter how the others function. while having the systems not so closely related means changing one could have little to no effect on others. and i have no idea of what this Macaroni Mistake you speak of is.
shadzar 08-05-07, 01:44 AM	He needs to stop parading that around as though it proves something. The D&D 3.5 DMG says almost the exact same thing in its preface. And 3e D&D is the edition that came out with the biggest collection of radical, shocking variant rules in one place ever (Unearthed Arcana, with its "Play without hit points!" "Play without attack rolls!" "Play without spell slots!" attitude). it states exactly what i was telling people before the 2E revised book came out. rules change with the DM. why? because DMs interpret things differently. major example. item prices. DMs change them jsut as inflation and such in the real world happen, so not all prices in all locations on the game world will have the same price for the same item. oops i changed the rules based on common sense! :eek:
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 01:59 AM	Just out of interest, why do you care that there is a community of people who prefer 3e to 2e? Why not support the OSRIC project and all the retro AD&D style stuff coming out at the moment?
shadzar 08-05-07, 02:08 AM	Just out of interest, why do you care that there is a community of people who prefer 3e to 2e? Why not support the OSRIC project and all the retro AD&D style stuff coming out at the moment? have no idea what this OSRIC project is. probably because everytime i mention the fact that i play AD&D, the first thing i here out of peoples mouths is "You should really try 3.x". be it in real life, on other forums, etc. kinda like some jehova's (sp) witness at an airport or some other person that tries to convert you. i got tired of it several years ago and decided to come down from the high road and if i was gonna have to put up with that crap then i would dish it out just as quick as they could. so instead of just answering "no thanks" and walking away from someone telling me i should try 3.x or whatnot i respond in kind with 2E assertions of my own for them. or even beat them to the punch. maybe if everyone else would quit crapping on 2E then i and others that feel as i do would quit towards 3.x. it is cyclical. play what you want, but just dont try to force it own me. as with this thread the creator wanted to try something new(old). why did 3.x advocates all of a sudden jump into it and start what they did rather than just staying out or saying good luck? just because this is a 3.x forum? no it is a WotC forum and everything can't be seperated by edition. why do i use 2E as examples when i give ideas? because i use the information i know. ideas can always be used in the abstract form and altered for any rules set it fits in. such as the "+7 magic items at Walmart" thread. has nothing really to do with edition, just a concept of the game that isn't bound by the rules.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 02:47 AM	Okay, you definitely need to take a look at OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/). It's basically a reverse engineered version of 1e using the 3e OGL. The result is an SRD currently being used by several publishers to produce AD&D compatable products. You can download it for free (not that you need to, having plenty of 2e material). I wouldn't bother coming here to discuss 2e, the community just isn't diverse enough. Try places like Enworld, Dragonsfoot, Knights & Knaves, etc... The Other World Forums and Previous Edition Forums here are okay, but not really frequented by too many people, comparatively speaking. I know exactly how you feel, when people misrepresent 2e and compare it unfavourably to 3e, but there really is no point doing more than politely correcting people on technical details and recognising that they probably never really will understand why you prefer 2e over 3e or vice versa. Slamming 3e and praising 2e is just as short sighted as slamming 2e and praising 3e. It's all very subjective and hardly worth worrying about.
Vaelan 08-05-07, 02:50 AM	as with this thread the creator wanted to try something new(old). why did 3.x advocates all of a sudden jump into it and start what they did rather than just staying out or saying good luck? Because they saw reasons for doing so that they believed to be factually incorrect. Nobody told the original poster not to or criticized him for doing so. You are the one who brought that idiocy into the thread. just because this is a 3.x forum? no it is a WotC forum and everything can't be seperated by edition. You are claiming that this is a WotC forum, rather than a 3.5, for the purposes of what belongs. Who made 3.5? WotC. Who made editions before 3.0? Not WotC. The distinction is preserved. maybe if everyone else would quit crapping on 2E then i and others that feel as i do would quit towards 3.x. The bottom line is, you're trolling because you have perceived simple statements of opinion and comparisons as an attack. The manner in which you reacted was highly immature and the fact that you perceived what was said as "crapping on 2E" when it was nothing but reasonable criticism doesn't do a whole lot to show anyone that you're more mature than your reactions indicate.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 02:50 AM	I simply don't get it. Having 3 separate and contradictory mechanics for handling surprise is good because changes in one won't affect the others? By the same token, we should separate longsword attacks from morningstar attacks so changes in swords won't affect the entire game system! 3e is only as rules heavy as you want it to be. If you don't want a particular mechanic, you can scale it down. If you wanted to scale up a 2e game, it isn't as easy.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 03:11 AM	The bottom line is, you're trolling because you have perceived simple statements of opinion and comparisons as an attack. The manner in which you reacted was highly immature and the fact that you perceived what was said as "crapping on 2E" when it was nothing but reasonable criticism doesn't do a whole lot to show anyone that you're more mature than your reactions indicate. What actually is the definition of 'Trolling'? I simply don't get it. Having 3 separate and contradictory mechanics for handling surprise is good because changes in one won't affect the others? Eh, what are you referring to? There was only one way to handle Surprise. If there was a chance that a group was Surprised, you rolled the appropriate die and applied any modifiers against the base chance, which was 1-2 on 1D6 in 1e and 1-3 on 1D10 in 2e. 3e is only as rules heavy as you want it to be. If you don't want a particular mechanic, you can scale it down. If you wanted to scale up a 2e game, it isn't as easy. This will always be subjective. I find it easier to add to a framework than take away from a more finished product, but it's perfectly understandable that others would feel differently.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 04:02 AM	Matthew: Eh, what are you referring to? There was only one way to handle Surprise. If there was a chance that a group was Surprised, you rolled the appropriate die and applied any modifiers against the base chance, which was 1-2 on 1D6 in 1e and 1-3 on 1D10 in 2e. In 1e, there were separate surprise chances for Elves and Halflings, and yet another class based one, each of which depended on a different die, and there were no rules on how they interacted. In 2e, this was cleaned up a bit, but you still didn't have rules that stated how Hide in Shadows was supposed to interact with Surprise and the general encounter structure, and there was still the odd instance of a 1e-like independent ruling on surprise. This will always be subjective. I find it easier to add to a framework than take away from a more finished product, but it's perfectly understandable that others would feel differently. My reasoning is that you could always take rules away and interpolate rather easily. Extrapolation always carries the risk of inadvertent rule interaction down the line, and unforseen logical and rule-based consequences. Even when something goes awry in interpolation, you could always examine the discarded rule with new insight based on experience, and formulate something simple to emulate the discarded rule, or even to reinstate it with the goal of increasing variety and fun.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 04:13 AM	In 1e, there were separate surprise chances for Elves and Halflings, and yet another class based one, each of which depended on a different die, and there were no rules on how they interacted. Not quite. That was just an increased Surprise Chance if the party was completely composed of Elves and Halflings in 'Light Armour'. All it actually did was move the Base Surprise from 1-2 on 1D6 to 1-4 on 1D6. I can see how that might be confusing, but that's really all there was to it. In 2e, this was cleaned up a bit, but you still didn't have rules that stated how Hide in Shadows was supposed to interact with Surprise and the general encounter structure, and there was still the odd instance of a 1e-like independent ruling on surprise. Actually, you did. It was Automatic Surprise, or so I recall. I will have to go and look it up now to be sure. The actual mechanism was fairly simple, just poorly explained. [Edit] In 1e probably it gave the Thief a 1-3 or 1-4 on 1D6 (depending on how you interpret the example in the PHB). In 2e it definitely improved Thief's Surprise Roll from 1-3 to 1-5 on 1D10. My reasoning is that you could always take rules away and interpolate rather easily. Extrapolation always carries the risk of inadvertent rule interaction down the line, and unforseen logical and rule-based consequences. Even when something goes awry in interpolation, you could always examine the discarded rule with new insight based on experience, and formulate something simple to emulate the discarded rule, or even to reinstate it with the goal of increasing variety and fun. I can undersatnd the reasoning, as I say, but I just find it more difficult to remove AoOs than remove them, same goes for a number of other aspects. That's not to say that I think the difference is huge.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 04:20 AM	Matthew: Not quite. That was just an increased Surprise Chance if the party was completely composed of Elves and Halflings in 'Light Armour'. All it actually did was move the Base Surprise from 1-2 on 1D6 to 1-4 on 1D6. I can see how that might be confusing, but that's really all there was to it. Alright, now rule the interaction between this and the powers of Assassins and Ranger against it. Provide substantion for the ruling. Actually, you did. It was Automatic Surprise, or so I recall. I will have to go and look it up now to be sure. The actual mechanism was fairly simple, just poorly explained. I don't recall ever having seen it, and I have looked for it more than once. It doesn't seem fair that a party composed all of Thieves had to roll multiple successful Hide in Shadows Checks and Move Silently Checks for surprise whereas a normal party would have a flat 30% or better. Frequently the chances for the thieves were worse!
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 04:28 AM	Okay. 1e According to the 1e DMG Surprise pp. 61-2, a party with a Ranger is normally only surprised on a 1 in 6 (so the chance has halved). Assassins I am not really familiar with, what is the advantage they have in Surprise? According to the 1e PHB pp. 102-3 a silent and invisible Party Surprises on a 1-4 on 1D6, so if the Thief is alone and moving silently in the shadows, that's also what I would think he gets, same as if he was under the effects of the spells or an Elf/Halfling. Otherwise he gets a 1-2 on 1D6 like everbody else. [Edit] 2e According to the 2e DMG and PHB, Elves and Halflings increase the chance of their oppoents's being surprised by 4 to 1-7 on 1D10 if they meet the conditions. Similarly, silence grants a +2 Modifier, as does Invisibility, amongst other things. Surprise in 2e is a lot more open to interpretation and has more conditional modifiers, but it's still 1D10 + Modifiers.
Optimator 08-05-07, 04:38 AM	play what you want, but just dont try to force it own me. as with this thread the creator wanted to try something new(old). why did 3.x advocates all of a sudden jump into it and start what they did rather than just staying out or saying good luck? just because this is a 3.x forum? It's not us, it's your belligerence. You are, literally, objectively wrong on nearly all of your assumptions and they have been brought to your attention.
Frugal 08-05-07, 09:55 AM	PHB2's Retraining rules addressed many of the problems of "builds" forcing characters to have times of weakness followed by times of strength. Also, the most skilled character builders craft flexible characters that can advance several different ways, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the group, the DM's campaigning style, and the types of items acquired. That's a very overlooked aspect of character building, and IMO it's the most important in a game as versatile as D&D. Yeah, personally I see the re-training rules as good and bad. There's definitely some feats out there that are mostly for low-level use (combat casting comes to mind) but I'm not sure I agree with allowing you to swap them out at higher levels for something that'll be more useful to you then. I like the idea that when you gain a feat you have to balance immediate use with long-term use and figure out which is the way to go.
Frugal 08-05-07, 10:01 AM	as for interbred of 3.x that is all i hear about here is how it is so "intuitive", "internally consistant", etc how ever thing is made up of dependant systems rather than how 2E had systems that didn't connect so easily wherein each aspect had its own system. thusly having all the systems connected means that chaning one could alter how the others function. while having the systems not so closely related means changing one could have little to no effect on others. You're confusing "internally consistent" with "interconnected", having a bunch of mechanics all work the same way doesn't mean that removing 1 mechanic makes the whole thing fall apart.
Holy_Beholder 08-05-07, 01:03 PM	quick! without looking, what is the dice rolled when trying to hit with, and when doing damage for a Magic Missle? :confused: Its a d4. Its 1d4 per 2 levels, starting at 1d4 at one and maxing out at 5d4 at 9th. It also always hits. and almost always does damage(stupid force immune dragons from the epic hand book. I'm looking at you)
shadzar 08-05-07, 01:12 PM	Its a d4. Its 1d4 per 2 levels, starting at 1d4 at one and maxing out at 5d4 at 9th. It also always hits. and almost always does damage(stupid force immune dragons from the epic hand book. I'm looking at you) not you. the one that was imlying that is was bothersome to remember any rule that is used unchanged from the books. :P
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 01:37 PM	Matthew: According to the 1e DMG Surprise pp. 61-2, a party with a Ranger is normally only surprised on a 1 in 6 (so the chance has halved). Assassins I am not really familiar with, what is the advantage they have in Surprise? According to the 1e PHB pp. 102-3 a silent and invisible Party Surprises on a 1-4 on 1D6, so if the Thief is alone and moving silently in the shadows, that's also what I would think he gets, same as if he was under the effects of the spells or an Elf/Halfling. Otherwise he gets a 1-2 on 1D6 like everbody else. That is, however, interpretative and extrapolated, not a solid ruling in itself. You also didn't make them interact. Do we halve the chance of the Thief to surprise the Ranger's party? Ought we not subtract the chance the Ranger diminishes the base chance by rather than halve all surprise chances? According to the 2e DMG and PHB, Elves and Halflings increase the chance of their oppoents's being surprised by 4 to 1-7 on 1D10 if they meet the conditions. Similarly, silence grants a +2 Modifier, as does Invisibility, amongst other things. Surprise in 2e is a lot more open to interpretation and has more conditional modifiers, but it's still 1D10 + Modifiers. So a Thief who succeeds on his HiS check AND his MS check still isn't guaranteed a backstab? If he fails his MS check, does he automatically alert his enemy, or does he simply suffer the worse Surprise chance? It's not at all clear cut that it's 1d10+modifiers, although I could see where you might rule it that way. It would be a house rule, though, an extrapolation that's open to interpretation and dispute.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 02:00 PM	Matthew: That is, however, interpretative and extrapolated, not a solid ruling in itself. Well, the second is, but the first is not. Of course, that was the nature of that rules set, you had to make decisions based on precedence. You also didn't make them interact. Do we halve the chance of the Thief to surprise the Ranger's party? Ought we not subtract the chance the Ranger diminishes the base chance by rather than halve all surprise chances? According to the entry in the PHB p. 24, Rangers surprise their enemies 1/2 the time (3 in 6) and are themselves Surprised only 1/6 of the time (1 in 6), assuming the normal probability. It's fairly straight forward to interact these modifiers (indeed Gygax provides them in percentage terms) with others, though it would be extrapolation based on the examples provided. Do remember that Surprise assumes that neither party is aware of the other. If only one party is aware of the other, then obviously only one party rolls for Surprise (see pp. 102-3 of 1e PHB). However, if a silently moving Thief were to unexpectedly encounter a Ranger, I would assume that you would have to use 1D8 (as with some Monsters) to represent the Chance of the Thief Surprising the Ranger (As 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4), whilst the Ranger would Surprise the Thief on a 3 in 6. So a Thief who succeeds on his HiS check AND his MS check still isn't guaranteed a backstab? If he fails his MS check, does he automatically alert his enemy, or does he simply suffer the worse Surprise chance? Well, there's no actual need for him to pass the Hide check, as he cannot move whilst Hidden in that way. It would be rather silly to assume that failing the Hide check causes a Thief to be automatically detected. Nothing in the rules indicates that; all that occurs is that he fails to move perfectly silently (in which case he is not silenced). We must, however, be careful of conflating rules sets here, as the only condition for a successful back stab in 1e was that the Thief be behind his enemy, whilst in 2e he was required to be behind an unaware or Surprised enemy. It's not at all clear cut that it's 1d10+modifiers, although I could see where you might rule it that way. It would be a house rule, though, an extrapolation that's open to interpretation and dispute. Actually, it is perfectly clear that this is how it works in 2e, the modifiers are all laid out in the 2e DMG Surprise Section (not the 2e PHB). On the other hand, the game was made of House Rules!
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 02:48 PM	What's the difference between unaware and surprised? (2e) What's the ruling on awareness based on a failed Move Silently check? Could other classes attempt to Move Silently also? What about Boots of Elvenkind? The fact that these relatively commonplace and obvious situations had to be extrapolated is what irks me the most about 2e and 1e. A game partially about Fantasy Thieves doesn't have clear rules on sneaking around?!?!? How incredibly stupid is that? For my part, I would rather simplify a preexisting rule than make one up based on precedents that could go any of several ways.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 03:06 PM	What's the difference between unaware and surprised? (2e) What's the ruling on awareness based on a failed Move Silently check? Could other classes attempt to Move Silently also? What about Boots of Elvenkind? It's spelt out in the PHB entry on Move Silently. An unaware Character is one who does not expect to be attacked by the Thief. A Surprised Character is on who has been Surprised as per the rules on Surprise. The only ramification of failing a Move Silently Check is that you do not Move perfectly silently (so you don't get the +2 Bonus to Surprise, for instance). Boots of Elvenkind in 2e provide a 95% Chance of Moving Silently; given that they succeed you add +2 to your Chance to Surprise (3 in 10 becomes 5 in 10). Any Class can attempt to Move Silently if the DM so chooses, but don't confuse the Thief Ability with common stealth. The fact that these relatively commonplace and obvious situations had to be extrapolated is what irks me the most about 2e and 1e. A game partially about Fantasy Thieves doesn't have clear rules on sneaking around?!?!? How incredibly stupid is that? Heh, well, I think the rules are fairly clear, as far as they go. It's not like 3e has got it perfect either. Still, it was never a problem for me, so I guess I am biased. It's a different design ethic, a framework versus a fleshed out whole. For my part, I would rather simplify a preexisting rule than make one up based on precedents that could go any of several ways. Sure, and that's a valid preference. I prefer not to have to deal with the level of precision in the 3e Stealth rules, but I don't really mind either way.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 03:12 PM	Technically, the 3e rules on stealth aren't any more detailed than 2e rules are, if you're going to be ruling in all that interaction anyways; the advantage there being that it all interacts quite clearly without the need to make up rules. The straightforward application means that even where variations exist, characters can often be easily retooled to take advantage across games. So really, what "complication" is there in 3e stealth that isn't in 2e? There's nothing that you wouldn't be forced to deal with anyway.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 03:29 PM	Please note, I did not say 'complication', I said 'precision', by which I mean the number of fixed Modifiers. I prefer only to make my own decisions about difficulty (which I am still free to do in 3e anyway). The point was not, 'it's worse than 2e', but that it is not without its flaws. Actually, I am discussing 3e stealth over on GitP, if you're interested: Taking a Step Back - Opposed Rolls (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52780)
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 03:45 PM	It isn't perfect, of course, but in my view, the usability of 3e exceeds 2e for the average gamer, and especially for newbies, since it's easier to simplify than it is to extrapolate.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 03:56 PM	It isn't perfect, of course, but in my view, the usability of 3e exceeds 2e for the average gamer, and especially for newbies, since it's easier to simplify than it is to extrapolate. For people new to the game, absolutely I agree. 3e is far superior in terms of accessability, editing, presentation and intuitive mechanics. It's a much more attractive proposition to the average gamer and does a lot to help inexperienced DMs. The counterpoint to that, in my opinion, is that it may encourage DMs to never explore beyond the boundaries of the written text. Of course, slavishly adhering to the rules will almost certainly cause problems (Mounted Combat, Grappling, Drowning, Power Attack Optimisation, etc...), so there is some encouragement to 'spread your wings'. As I say, I consider all editions to be part of the same corpus, so I don't really mind the holes - they're fun to fix.
shadzar 08-05-07, 04:05 PM	So a Thief who succeeds on his HiS check AND his MS check still isn't guaranteed a backstab? If he fails his MS check, does he automatically alert his enemy, or does he simply suffer the worse Surprise chance? It's not at all clear cut that it's 1d10+modifiers, although I could see where you might rule it that way. It would be a house rule, though, an extrapolation that's open to interpretation and dispute. that would all depend on how the thief failed the check. you can't just say well the dice says you failed. no matter which edition this is the case. thusly it still boils down to the die roll + modifers and the DMs descretion as to what hapenes when failure occurs. did they trip and make loud noises? sneeze or expel some other bodily gases?
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 04:10 PM	So why even make the check in the first place? If it's up to the DM to decide anyway, why bother to roll? Matthew: I like fixing the holes as much as the next guy, but in 3e, since many of the holes are fixed uniformly, I can explore more involved holes with other gamers than I could with 2e.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 04:15 PM	I like fixing the holes as much as the next guy, but in 3e, since many of the holes are fixed uniformly, I can explore more involved holes with other gamers than I could with 2e. Heh, well, I think you have to bear in mind that I fixed most of holes in 2e to my satisfaction many years before I was introduced to 3e, so no doubt that is the root of my bias. To me, 3e just looks like a House Ruled 2e.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 04:18 PM	It is, but it's one we can discuss more thoroughly. For instance, your stealth rules in 2e aren't all that far away from what we came to use, but they're still different, so before we (you and I) can talk about anything, we'd have to talk about our differential house rules first. 3e takes care of that better.
shadzar 08-05-07, 04:19 PM	So why even make the check in the first place? If it's up to the DM to decide anyway, why bother to roll? because the check takes into account all those bonuses people love so much. when you pass, you pass. when you fail you need to know how you fail. either look it up on some chart that may not have all possibilites, or have the DM decide based on current situation. screaming out loud while attempting to move silently will be a vastly different failure than bumping into an overhanging shutter causing it to creak. most D&D NPCs aren't enemies of Solid Snake that jump at the slightest sound and go into warning mode.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 04:25 PM	Sounds fishy to me. Why not ALSO decide that the DM decides what happens when it passes? It's a wholly arbitrary house rule right from the get go.
shadzar 08-05-07, 04:29 PM	Sounds fishy to me. Why not ALSO decide that the DM decides what happens when it passes? It's a wholly arbitrary house rule right from the get go. ok why not do that in 3.x also? when the move silenty check passes......the thief moves silently. :eek: :uh-huh:
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 04:33 PM	Well, the stealth in 3e is such that when the MS check fails, the Listener hears you and knows you're there. No contraditing Surprise Chances and what not. Therefore, also straightforward the other way.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 04:52 PM	It is, but it's one we can discuss more thoroughly. For instance, your stealth rules in 2e aren't all that far away from what we came to use, but they're still different, so before we (you and I) can talk about anything, we'd have to talk about our differential house rules first. 3e takes care of that better. Perhaps, though that doesn't stop me from having interesting and useful discussion about 2e over on Dragonsfoot, so I think again it depends on what expectations we bring to the conversation. So, whilst a conversation about 3e might go along these lines: Participator 1: "How does X work?" Participator 2: "It works like this." Participator 3: "Well, except under condition Y." Participator 2: "Yes, and obviously Feat Z changes things." a conversation about 2e might go along these lines: Participator 1: "How does X work?" Participator 2: "It works like this, but that causes some problems when Y occurs, so I like to do Z." Participator 3: "That's interesting, I like to do A, which is a similar approach to what was published in supplement B." Participator 2: "What about under condition C?" Participator 3: "Well, I usually solve that by doing D." Both conversations are fun and interesting, but they come at the problem differently.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 05:01 PM	More specifically, we can have the second discussion about 3e, but we could be talking about how lighting affects stealth or how one class relates to another, beyond simply figuring out how they're supposed to work.
shadzar 08-05-07, 05:21 PM	Well, the stealth in 3e is such that when the MS check fails, the Listener hears you and knows you're there. No contraditing Surprise Chances and what not. Therefore, also straightforward the other way. ok, but what happens in 3.x when there is no "listener"? if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? moving silently is not so simple to say that every time its used will the PCs or players know IF something is their to try to somehow hide from. it is almost like illusion. how do you know you are invisible? because the gaurd you are giving the finger to doens't reach out and break it off. how do you know you're invisible when no one else is around? all of these things require an observer or they don't matter. and when the observer believes that either some illusion is not really what it seems to be, or that some random sound was made it is the observer who decides what response they will have to it. investigate it or ignore it. that is where the DM comes into play and a die roll will not suffice. the DM determines the response of any "listener" if one exists.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 05:25 PM	The question you were tackling isn't about NPC reactions to awareness of the PCs.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 05:26 PM	More specifically, we can have the second discussion about 3e, but we could be talking about how lighting affects stealth or how one class relates to another, beyond simply figuring out how they're supposed to work. Sure, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this sort of conversation doesn't take place in the context of 3e, but my experience of such discourse is that it is much less likely to develop in that direction. I wasn't meaning one was worse than the other, I was just trying to illustrate how 2e conversation tends to develop.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 05:30 PM	My experience, especially on the boards, is different. There's a lot more threads about interpretation of rules on another level, justification for balance rules, and variants, extensions, and explorations into rules not yet covered. There no point in discussing facts only because there's nothing to discuss, and such threads and conversations never last very long.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 05:33 PM	Fair enough. I don't interact with the 3e boards here very much, so I will defer to your experience.
Roxlimn 08-05-07, 05:36 PM	Most gracious. :) You have my thanks for the graceful exit. I have something for you on the GitP boards.
NoldorForce 08-05-07, 05:38 PM	not you. the one that was imlying that is was bothersome to remember any rule that is used unchanged from the books. :PThe problem was introducing a number of mechanics that work in different ways but don't need to. Then you just have math for its own sake. For instance, the above discussion implies that surprise in 2nd Edition was its own quirky mechanic, working separately from other mechanics such as thief skills (or whatever they were called) and saving throws. In 3rd Edition, all of these mechanics are done by rolling a d20, adding modifiers (including a single ability modifier), and comparing it to a Difficulty Class or someone else's roll made in the same manner. That's what I was getting at. Incidentally, it's amusing that you should mention Magic Missile, one of the iconic and ancient spells of D&D.
Matthew_ 08-05-07, 05:50 PM	The problem was introducing a number of mechanics that work in different ways but don't need to. Then you just have math for its own sake. For instance, the above discussion implies that surprise in 2nd Edition was its own quirky mechanic, working separately from other mechanics such as thief skills (or whatever they were called) and saving throws. In 3rd Edition, all of these mechanics are done by rolling a d20, adding modifiers (including a single ability modifier), and comparing it to a Difficulty Class or someone else's roll made in the same manner. That's what I was getting at. The differences were actualy only superficial for the most part. An Attribute Check, for instance, can be expressed as [1D20 + Attribute to hit DC 21], where the DC was modified for difficulty by the DM. Thief Skills similarly can be expressed as [Thief Skill/20 + 1D20 to hit DC 21]. The core mechanic of 2e was pretty much the same as 3e, it's just that it was expressed in unintuitive ways. Most gracious. :) You have my thanks for the graceful exit. I have something for you on the GitP boards. Glad to oblige. I will take a look at what you have on GitP boards as soon as I get the chance (maybe tomorrow now, though).
shadzar 08-05-07, 06:44 PM	The problem was introducing a number of mechanics that work in different ways but don't need to. Then you just have math for its own sake. that statement right there is how i feel about 3.x.
tuffn00gies 08-05-07, 09:21 PM	ok, but what happens in 3.x when there is no "listener"? You're kidding right? Why MS when there's no listener? the DM determines the response of any "listener" if one exists. I guess I missed where someone implied otherwise.
NoldorForce 08-05-07, 10:38 PM	that statement right there is how i feel about 3.x.Whaa...? Even Matthew_, whose position has been to the effect of "2nd Edition wasn't nearly as bad as people are saying it was", still mentioned that 3rd Edition is more intuitive and so forth. I'm not getting how you're saying that 3rd Edition has wonky rules that generate math for its own sake but at least implying that 2nd Edition doesn't.
Arcane Guyver 08-05-07, 11:14 PM	that statement right there is how i feel about 3.x. Please explain this, preferably with examples.
shadzar 08-06-07, 12:12 AM	Whaa...? Even Matthew_, whose position has been to the effect of "2nd Edition wasn't nearly as bad as people are saying it was", still mentioned that 3rd Edition is more intuitive and so forth. I'm not getting how you're saying that 3rd Edition has wonky rules that generate math for its own sake but at least implying that 2nd Edition doesn't. i guess because i don't see it as more intuitive. Please explain this, preferably with examples. please read the preceding 26 pages.
Arcane Guyver 08-06-07, 12:59 AM	please read the preceding 26 pages. I have, unfortunately, but it didn't help me understand your point. What mechanics do you feel 3.5 introduced that work differently than other established rules, without good reason?
ArcTan 08-06-07, 01:28 AM	it states exactly what i was telling people before the 2E revised book came out. rules change with the DM. why? because DMs interpret things differently. major example. item prices. DMs change them jsut as inflation and such in the real world happen, so not all prices in all locations on the game world will have the same price for the same item. oops i changed the rules based on common sense! :eek: ...And, like I said, the *first* version of both the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG said the same thing, and WotC even reinforced this by publishing Unearthed Arcana, a book of extremely radical variant rules, like playing D&D without hit points at all. So, again, I don't see the advantage of 2e over 3e.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 01:37 AM	so admittedly D&D is a rules heavy game and you are saying you shouldn't bother to memorize thme? If it's rules-heavy, it's better that the rules be consistent and all based on the same mechanic, so they are easy to memorize. Is English not your first language or are you just trying not to bother to understand what people write? quick! without looking, what is the dice rolled when trying to hit with, and when doing damage for a Magic Missle? :confused: You don't roll any dice to see if magic missile hits -- the primary defining feature of the spell is that it always hits -- and you roll d4's for damage, because since MM is an always-hit no-resistance spell part of the balance is that it uses the smallest possible damage die. I answered that without looking. It's not that hard. as for interbred of 3.x that is all i hear about here is how it is so "intuitive", "internally consistant", etc how ever thing is made up of dependant systems rather than how 2E had systems that didn't connect so easily wherein each aspect had its own system. thusly having all the systems connected means that chaning one could alter how the others function. while having the systems not so closely related means changing one could have little to no effect on others. You can still decide to change one part of the system without changing others, by *introducing* a barrier where none exists (like saying "From now on your Base Attack Bonus is different for ranged attacks than melee attacks"). It's just that you don't *have to*, and by making a more modular system it's more obvious when an increase in complexity wouldn't really be justified for what it would add to the game. Separate BABs for ranged and melee attacks, for instance, while it makes a certain kind of sense, doesn't add enough interest to the game to make it worth having to remember an extra layer of complexity. We already represent the difference between melee and range by making one Str-dependent and one Dex-dependent. Can you point to an example of something you actually tried to houserule that became more difficult to houserule because the system was "more interdependent"? Because I can't think of anything that wouldn't be trivial to change if you really wanted to. It sounds like you're kind of arguing in theory rather than in practice -- yeah, "The system is too interdependent" sounds like a good critique, and it's true for things like computer programs or machines where the interconnections are hardwired mechanisms you can't get at -- but when the system is something that only exists in your own mind (in a PnP RPG) and is changeable at will, how is that a problem? and i have no idea of what this Macaroni Mistake you speak of is. Are you using a translator program or something? Or are you just trolling? (It's kind of cute that people pretend to "mishear" things that they can't mishear because they're, y'know, written on the screen right in front of you and you can copy-paste them over.) The Oberoni Fallacy is the statement that because a system can be fixed, that doesn't mean the thing you had to fix wasn't a problem. It's almost a truism, but apparently years of D&D-brain-damage have actually convinced people that bad rules are a good thing because they present a "challenge" to the DM to fix them, even though this only means that the millions and millions of gaming groups who don't have access to the mythical vaunted "Good DM" who can fix everything are simply stuck with bad rules. (FWIW, I think this is as common a problem in 3e as it was in 2e -- it's only *now* that there are certain 2e apologists who are trying to make out like this is a strength of 2e.)
ArcTan 08-06-07, 01:40 AM	ok, but what happens in 3.x when there is no "listener"? if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? If it makes a sound, and no one hears it, then it's the same as if it didn't make a sound. Because nothing happens. That is, in fact, why that philosophical conundrum exists. Because if I make a Move Silently check, and no one's listening, there's no way to "fail" the check. I just tried to Move Silently, and... nothing happened. moving silently is not so simple to say that every time its used will the PCs or players know IF something is their to try to somehow hide from. ...But the DM does. That's why the DM is the one who resolves these things and not the player. it is almost like illusion. how do you know you are invisible? because the gaurd you are giving the finger to doens't reach out and break it off. how do you know you're invisible when no one else is around? Mirrors? all of these things require an observer or they don't matter. and when the observer believes that either some illusion is not really what it seems to be, or that some random sound was made it is the observer who decides what response they will have to it. investigate it or ignore it. that is where the DM comes into play and a die roll will not suffice. the DM determines the response of any "listener" if one exists. Yes. So? The rules for Move Silently checks in 3e D&D don't say that enemies instantly attack you. Move Silently is just a check to see whether or not they hear you. What happens after they hear you is still dependent on the situation, like it's always been. You're actually arguing against yourself here. Old-school AD&D has a way more restrictive set of mechanics that depend on "Surprise" than D&D 3e. (Like the idea that you can always "backstab" someone you "surprise" -- because, of course, all surprise is dependent on sneaking up from behind.)
ArcTan 08-06-07, 01:47 AM	probably because everytime i mention the fact that i play AD&D, the first thing i here out of peoples mouths is "You should really try 3.x". be it in real life, on other forums, etc. It's not their problem they have an opinion. In this case, their opinion is based on some solid evidence. kinda like some jehova's (sp) witness at an airport or some other person that tries to convert you. If you choose to see it that way, I suppose. It's really no different from saying "I use a 386 PC running MS-DOS!" and people telling you "Why don't you use a Wintel machine?" Newer isn't always better, but it *is* better often enough that people do tend to upgrade for a reason. i got tired of it several years ago and decided to come down from the high road and if i was gonna have to put up with that crap then i would dish it out just as quick as they could. Okay. That would be an explanation for your behavior if this were an AD&D forum and someone came along trolling and starting crap. But this is a WotC D&D forum and it was a 2e supporter who came along starting crap, and in a pretty unsubtle way too (Not "Let's have a conversation about differences between editions!" but "3e D&D is CRAP AND I'M NEVER PLAYING IT AGAIN!"). so instead of just answering "no thanks" and walking away from someone telling me i should try 3.x or whatnot i respond in kind with 2E assertions of my own for them. or even beat them to the punch. Okay. It doesn't work when your assertions are wrong, though. I don't give a crap when other people have preferences, to be honest. I didn't get into this thread when people were simply saying what they liked. I do get riled up when people say *factually false things* to justify their preferences. maybe if everyone else would quit crapping on 2E then i and others that feel as i do would quit towards 3.x. it is cyclical. play what you want, but just dont try to force it own me. as with this thread the creator wanted to try something new(old). why did 3.x advocates all of a sudden jump into it and start what they did rather than just staying out or saying good luck? just because this is a 3.x forum? Er, yes? Because it's a forum for a bunch of people who, presumably, play D&D 3e and are likely to get riled up when someone says they don't like it? What the hell did you expect? You have a right to post things that get people riled up. You have no right to run crying afterwards and say you didn't expect or deserve an angry reaction. no it is a WotC forum and everything can't be seperated by edition. Er, sure it can. WotC is the creator of D&D Third Edition. Earlier editions of D&D are not WotC products and therefore are not the subject of this forum, really. why do i use 2E as examples when i give ideas? because i use the information i know. ideas can always be used in the abstract form and altered for any rules set it fits in. such as the "+7 magic items at Walmart" thread. has nothing really to do with edition, just a concept of the game that isn't bound by the rules. "+7" means totally different things in AD&D and D&D 3e, actually (a 3e +7 weapon would be far more expensive and a far bigger deal). So does playing a Magic-User vs. playing a 3e Wizard. So does a "level 44 character". A lot of things are different, and blithely assuming that they're not based on ignorance is going to get you a lot of flak on a forum like this. Even worse, *talking about the differences so that you can JUDGE D&D 3e as wanting*, when you DON'T ACTUALLY SEEM TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, is going to get people really ticked. Arguing anything from ignorance ticks people off -- as it should.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 01:48 AM	i guess because i don't see it as more intuitive. please read the preceding 26 pages. Which are filled with you making broad generalizations, giving bad examples frequently based on *incorrect ideas* that make people wonder if you've ever even played a D&D 3e game, and so on.
Matthew_ 08-06-07, 10:10 AM	The Oberoni Fallacy is the statement that because a system can be fixed, that doesn't mean the thing you had to fix wasn't a problem. It's almost a truism, but apparently years of D&D-brain-damage have actually convinced people that bad rules are a good thing because they present a "challenge" to the DM to fix them, even though this only means that the millions and millions of gaming groups who don't have access to the mythical vaunted "Good DM" who can fix everything are simply stuck with bad rules. (FWIW, I think this is as common a problem in 3e as it was in 2e -- it's only *now* that there are certain 2e apologists who are trying to make out like this is a strength of 2e.) This is interesting. I don't think it's bad rules that this idea is generally applied to, but 'absent' rules or 'optional variants'. I would tend to agree that 3e has just as many, if not more, bad rules as 2e, just as a result of the sheer volume of material, but I wouldn't say that 2e apologists consider the bad rules to be a strength of the 2e system. If it makes a sound, and no one hears it, then it's the same as if it didn't make a sound. Because nothing happens. That is, in fact, why that philosophical conundrum exists. Because if I make a Move Silently check, and no one's listening, there's no way to "fail" the check. I just tried to Move Silently, and... nothing happened. Actually, in this case I would rule that the Sneak Check would be opposed by the Sneaking Character's own Listen Check. You're actually arguing against yourself here. Old-school AD&D has a way more restrictive set of mechanics that depend on "Surprise" than D&D 3e. (Like the idea that you can always "backstab" someone you "surprise" -- because, of course, all surprise is dependent on sneaking up from behind.) This is incorrect. The 1e version of Backstab only required the Thief to be behind the target. The 2e version of Backstab required the Thief to be behind a target who was Surprised or Unaware. Er, sure it can. WotC is the creator of D&D Third Edition. Earlier editions of D&D are not WotC products and therefore are not the subject of this forum, really. Hmmn, but they are owned by WotC and they do relate to the current edition of the game. Certainly they are not the main subject of this particular Forum.
Roxlimn 08-06-07, 10:16 AM	The 2e version also required a vague form of "reach" in that you had to "reach" the "back" of your target for a "backstab" to be effective, though nothing concrete is actually laid out and many people just ignored the thing outright.
Matthew_ 08-06-07, 10:28 AM	Yes, that's correct, though I don't think it is really much more vague than the 3e version. Here's the text: Backstabbing does have limitations. First, the damage multiplier applies only to the first attack made by the thief, even if multiple attacks are possible. Once a blow is struck, the initial surprise effect is lost. Second, the thief cannot use it on every creature. The victim must be generally humanoid. Part of the skill comes from knowing just where to strike. A thief could backstab an ogre, but he wouldn't be able to do the same to a beholder. The victim must also have a definable back (which leaves out most slimes, jellies, oozes, and the like). Finally, the thief has to be able to reach a significant target area. To backstab a giant, the thief would have to be standing on a ledge or window balcony. Backstabbing him in the ankle just isn't going to be as effective. I'm just passing by on my way over to GitP to reanimate the stealth discussion. ;)
Roxlimn 08-06-07, 10:33 AM	Great! According to the Sage, the ruling on "reaching a vital spot" essentially means a size limitation on Sneak Attacks. That would be two sizes when Tall and 3 size categories when Long, except when you're grappling and/or using specific "climbing on" mechanics, or Reach Weapons, or Ranged Attacks.
Solik 08-06-07, 11:12 AM	The limitations by creature type are also solidly defined in the creature type sections in the monster books (as well as any per-creature exceptions in their own entries).
shadzar 08-06-07, 02:27 PM	So, again, I don't see the advantage of 2e over 3e. then don't play it. likewise i don't see any advantage to playing 3.x. ergo....;)
shadzar 08-06-07, 02:36 PM	That is, in fact, why that philosophical conundrum exists. Because if I make a Move Silently check, and no one's listening, there's no way to "fail" the check. I just tried to Move Silently, and... nothing happened.WRONG. the tree falling could not tell if it makes a sound because it is unable to hear. the person moving silently could easily tell if he fails because he himself can notice that he is not moving silently. Schrödinger's cat.... and what of creatures in general that can't hear like the aforementioned tree. as for the rest of your posts i refuse to respond to half of the ignoracne in them. i will just say this about your mirror vs invisibility aspect. read what invisibility is. illusion. illusion is an effect of the minds perception. since mirrors have no minds they have no reason to believe or disbelieve anything. where in your 3.x edition rules are physics defined on inanimate objects and the reflection of light that state mirrors are able to reveal an illusion as false? gem of true seeing can reveal an illusion for what it truely is. so what is the reason for a gem of that nature existing if a simple mirror can do the same job?
Roxlimn 08-06-07, 02:54 PM	Actually, a 3e invisibility spell is a Glamer, so yes, it does actually change the appearance of its target. So if you're Invisible in 3e D&D, you can use a Mirror to check if you really are, although I imagine that just looking at yourself would work, too. FYI.
shadzar 08-06-07, 03:13 PM	Actually, a 3e invisibility spell is a Glamer, so yes, it does actually change the appearance of its target. So if you're Invisible in 3e D&D, you can use a Mirror to check if you really are, although I imagine that just looking at yourself would work, too. FYI. mayhaps i picked a very controversial topic for an example with invisibility. but i couldn't think of another. i always had a problem with invisibility and looking at yourself because you would have a reason to disbelieve you were invisible and would be able to see yourself, but it doesn't mean that others around you would disbelieve the illusion and not see you as invisible. yes mirrors would work and such if it has been altered from being an illusionary state to a physical manifestation.
Roxlimn 08-06-07, 03:24 PM	That would be Illusionary Invisibility, where the spell actually fools everyone including you that you're invisible. It doesn't actually mask your presence, though. Other creatures can see you, but they'll believe that you're invisible, reasoning that they can somehow see you through some unknown magical effect. More seriously, the magic you're looking for in 3e would be a Phantasm - a mental image that exists only in the mind of its subject. Figments and Glamers produce true false sensations, not merely mental impressions.
High Octane 08-06-07, 04:43 PM	mayhaps i picked a very controversial topic for an example with invisibility. but i couldn't think of another. i always had a problem with invisibility and looking at yourself because you would have a reason to disbelieve you were invisible and would be able to see yourself, but it doesn't mean that others around you would disbelieve the illusion and not see you as invisible. yes mirrors would work and such if it has been altered from being an illusionary state to a physical manifestation. The thing is that people think that all illusions work like "I don't believe it exists" and poof it is gone from view. Some illusionary magic IS like that, but it gets the tag of "Mind affecting". Even if the saving throw says "Will disbelieve" it doesn't mean it ends the illusion or even that you no longer see it. You just know for a fact it is not real, or more accurately, it has no substance, or is not as it seems. Disbelieving allows you to walk through the fake wall, but that does not mean the wall disappears for you. If you glamer your spellbook to look like an atlas to disguise it, someone can read it and then make a will save to disbelieve. If they make it, they don't see your spellbook, they just realize the atlas is not an atlas, it's another book that is modified. However, some spells like phantasmal killer will pop out of existence if you make the will save, for you at least. These illusion spells are like what you get when combining a glamer with an enchantment spell. These are favored by a lot of the more sadistic illusionists. Nothing perks up your day like forcing someone's worst fear on them. They can then dispel the illusion if they have the magic to do so, or just use true seeing.
Solik 08-06-07, 04:47 PM	WRONG. the tree falling could not tell if it makes a sound because it is unable to hear. the person moving silently could easily tell if he fails because he himself can notice that he is not moving silently. What, exactly, are you getting at with this side-discussion? I don't really follow what this has to do with anything. The whole point that Roxlimn was making with this was that the 3.x rules are objectively simpler, more consistent, and more widely applicable for stealth and surprise than the 2nd edition counterparts. You have successfully created a distraction away from that point, but it was not answered. Thankfully, the discussion between he and Matthew_ did actually go somewhere. as for the rest of your posts i refuse to respond to half of the ignoracne in them. This doesn't help your case. I'm pretty convinced ArcTan is correct. It's even worse that, right after this comment, you make a comment about the invisibility spell founded in ignorance of the rules.
arderkrag 08-06-07, 05:23 PM	The MM IV was terrible and I'm not looking forward to V. I also really loved the boxed mega adventures. The new edition doesn't support those kinds of things, and I think that sux. The new Undermountain book is cool for what it is, but the original boxes blow it out of the water in scope and scale. Boxes like Night Below, and Return to the Tomb of Horrors were truly awesome to behold. The sheer amount of information with handouts maps and the adventure books themselves cannot be matched today, and I think that blows. Agree on both these points. Also, why can't we get some realistic, stylized art like the second edition full-page spreads rather than art that looks like it belongs in a graphic novel? And please, someone, ditch the new stats block, the thing is hideous. I want to see hp breakdown in my stats block (HP: 12d10+172 - that style), thanks.
shadzar 08-06-07, 05:55 PM	What, exactly, are you getting at with this side-discussion? I don't really follow what this has to do with anything. The whole point that Roxlimn was making with this was that the 3.x rules are objectively simpler, more consistent, and more widely applicable for stealth and surprise than the 2nd edition counterparts. You have successfully created a distraction away from that point, but it was not answered. Thankfully, the discussion between he and Matthew_ did actually go somewhere. This doesn't help your case. I'm pretty convinced ArcTan is correct. It's even worse that, right after this comment, you make a comment about the invisibility spell founded in ignorance of the rules. it was illustrating a point, about how certain situations are only based fail or pass by the observers. he said if there was no one else around the move silently would automatically pass. no in fact the move silently would be pointless, but could fail. makes for a good basic training for such things testing it upon yourself. and ignoracne of one versions set of rules does not go hand in hand with ignoracne in general which i see him as having.
RadicalTaoist 08-06-07, 06:01 PM	And the ad hominem attacks come out. Accusing ArcTan of "ignorancne in general" does not support your argument, shadzar.
Holy_Beholder 08-06-07, 06:05 PM	You are as ignorant as him. You pretend to know more than you do, then admit to not knowing it and still slamming stuff you don't know. As for the move silently check, that was one little error. Whereas you didn't even pick up on the incredibly obvious text message post I made where I basically said other people text message. He can also spell, whereas yours indicates ignorance. I would advise for you to drop the "everone else is ignorant, stupid, mean, or trolling if they don't agree with me" act. This is disgraceful Shadazar, and you need to understand that. You are coming off an an irate immature ten year old with random attacks. EDIT: Whoops, Radical Taoist got there first.
High Octane 08-06-07, 06:12 PM	it was illustrating a point, about how certain situations are only based fail or pass by the observers. he said if there was no one else around the move silently would automatically pass. no in fact the move silently would be pointless, but could fail. makes for a good basic training for such things testing it upon yourself. Not as effective as you would think. In order to learn whether you have a good move silently, you would have to have a very good Listen modifier as well. Interesting though, if you are making a listen check to see if your move silently check was really quiet, is that an OPPOSED check really?
shadzar 08-06-07, 06:25 PM	And the ad hominem attacks come out. Accusing ArcTan of "ignorancne in general" does not support your argument, shadzar. i never said it substantiated any point i was making. as stated it was the reasons i refused to read and respond to the remainder of that post. ;)
shadzar 08-06-07, 06:32 PM	Not as effective as you would think. In order to learn whether you have a good move silently, you would have to have a very good Listen modifier as well. Interesting though, if you are making a listen check to see if your move silently check was really quiet, is that an OPPOSED check really? are you saying that it is impossible to tell whether you yourself can tell if you made the sound? the premise of move silently is that you THINK you are doing it. the check is to see if you really are. where a real-wrodl applicatin in the game would be testing against your own senses cannot fully apply with the dice rols sued to determine the results. i was looking at it outside of the dice, but still as something being possible. example: when the rogue was learning to move silently did he always have someone there to tell him he wasn't or was there times when he had to practice on his own and find things out for himself? walking on broken glass would probably not give good results while trying to move silently unles everyone else was also walking on it. somewhere along the line the rogue had to try it for and by himself. but the game assumes that the rogue is unable to determine for himself if he is moving silently enough for SOMEONE ELSE to not notice. guessing that is what you mean by opposed check. the point of it being pointless to do when alone vs when someone else would be around. but doesn't deny the chance of failure to actually moving "silently", when you are the only one there to make the judgment.
High Octane 08-06-07, 06:37 PM	are you saying that it is impossible to tell whether you yourself can tell if you made the sound? The wording of this is weird. What I'm saying is, just cause you can't hear yourself, doesn't mean others (with a higher listen modifier) can't hear you.
shadzar 08-06-07, 06:43 PM	The wording of this is weird. What I'm saying is, just cause you can't hear yourself, doesn't mean others (with a higher listen modifier) can't hear you. right. that is what necessitates the checks. just like invisibility functioing as an illusion would, you may think you are invisible or silent, but it doesn't mean others perceive you that way. again it goes along with the tree in the forest. its a matter of relativity.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 06:45 PM	WRONG. the tree falling could not tell if it makes a sound because it is unable to hear. the person moving silently could easily tell if he fails because he himself can notice that he is not moving silently. There's no such thing as absolute silence. I can make sounds that I myself can't hear but that other people might be able to. I can't hear the sound of my own breathing or heartbeat, or at least I think I can't, but a panther hunting me might be able to. Schrödinger's cat.... and what of creatures in general that can't hear like the aforementioned tree. Er, they're unable to make Listen checks? So Move Silently checks always succeed against them (but not necessarily Hide checks)? I still don't see what point you're trying to make, or what about this makes 2e superior to 3e. as for the rest of your posts i refuse to respond to half of the ignoracne in them. i will just say this about your mirror vs invisibility aspect. read what invisibility is. illusion. illusion is an effect of the minds perception. since mirrors have no minds they have no reason to believe or disbelieve anything. By RAW, when you're invisible you're actually invisible, not just fooling people into thinking you're invisible. I was never under the impression that 2e's invisibility rules allowed you to defeat invisibility by looking for someone's reflection in reflective surfaces. where in your 3.x edition rules are physics defined on inanimate objects and the reflection of light that state mirrors are able to reveal an illusion as false? gem of true seeing can reveal an illusion for what it truely is. so what is the reason for a gem of that nature existing if a simple mirror can do the same job? Wait, are you accusing me of saying that mirrors defeat invisibility? What the hell is that? I said that I can tell I'm invisible because I look in a mirror and see nothing, but, presumably, I know I'm actually there and I actually exist (cogito ergo sum), so hey, I must be invisible. I didn't even mean anything by it. I'm not trying to argue against any particular point of yours because now I'm not even sure what your point is.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 06:46 PM	right. that is what necessitates the checks. just like invisibility functioing as an illusion would, you may think you are invisible or silent, but it doesn't mean others perceive you that way. again it goes along with the tree in the forest. its a matter of relativity. Again, in what way is this different between the editions? 3e handles this with opposed checks. Someone has to oppose your check (be there to listen) or your Move Silently check is meaningless. It's actually a lot better than AD&D's arbitrary rules about how likely someone is to be surprised (ever, by anything).
ArcTan 08-06-07, 06:50 PM	somewhere along the line the rogue had to try it for and by himself. but the game assumes that the rogue is unable to determine for himself if he is moving silently enough for SOMEONE ELSE to not notice. guessing that is what you mean by opposed check. ...Yes. I can tell that I'm moving more silently than I was before, but I can't tell if I'm moving silently *enough* to bypass the guard, because I'm not the guard and I don't know how sharp his hearing is. ...That's kind of the point, isn't it? If you're not good enough at something, you can do something you think is flawless, but someone more skilled than you can perceive the flaws. It's the same way with Disguise checks (*I* may think I do a perfect impression of the President, but that's just because, unlike everyone else, I never noticed the President's distinctive arm-swing when he walks). the point of it being pointless to do when alone vs when someone else would be around. but doesn't deny the chance of failure to actually moving "silently", when you are the only one there to make the judgment. Absolute and total silence is impossible. That's another thing D&D represents by making it a number that just gets bigger (and opposed by bigger checks by people with higher Listen scores), not a fixed DC you have to beat, and not a fixed ratio that says how likely I am to be surprised, period. I can be the quietest person in the world, and there's some Epic-level character out there who has Superman's super hearing and can hear the sound of my heart beating and the breath going through my nostrils and the sharp whistling of my fingers as they pass through the air.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 06:51 PM	i never said it substantiated any point i was making. as stated it was the reasons i refused to read and respond to the remainder of that post. ;) What, precisely, was I being ignorant about?
ArcTan 08-06-07, 06:51 PM	Not as effective as you would think. In order to learn whether you have a good move silently, you would have to have a very good Listen modifier as well. Interesting though, if you are making a listen check to see if your move silently check was really quiet, is that an OPPOSED check really? Yes. My ears are opposing my feet. I'm trying to listen as hard as I can so as to make my feet work as hard as I can.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 06:55 PM	The thing is that people think that all illusions work like "I don't believe it exists" and poof it is gone from view. Some illusionary magic IS like that, but it gets the tag of "Mind affecting". Even if the saving throw says "Will disbelieve" it doesn't mean it ends the illusion or even that you no longer see it. You just know for a fact it is not real, or more accurately, it has no substance, or is not as it seems. Disbelieving allows you to walk through the fake wall, but that does not mean the wall disappears for you. If you glamer your spellbook to look like an atlas to disguise it, someone can read it and then make a will save to disbelieve. If they make it, they don't see your spellbook, they just realize the atlas is not an atlas, it's another book that is modified. Technically, Will (disbelief) is not the same as actually disbelieving. I can disbelieve in a mirror image even though it has no Will (disbelief). Will (disbelief) is a magical effect that says when I succeed on my Will save against a figment or glamer -- by becoming convinced that it's not real -- it turns into a translucent outline and I can see through it. However, even if the translucent-outline effect isn't there, I'm allowed to believe or disbelieve as I wish. (I can, for instance, *fail* a Will save against a figment and receive no actual proof that it's not real, but decide the most prudent thing to do will be to treat it as unreal in any case.) In your example, I could fail my Will save, actually see the spellbook instead of the atlas, but still say "Wait, why would the spellbook just be lying here?" and be suspicious of its reality.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 06:57 PM	it was illustrating a point, about how certain situations are only based fail or pass by the observers. he said if there was no one else around the move silently would automatically pass. no in fact the move silently would be pointless, but could fail. makes for a good basic training for such things testing it upon yourself. It wouldn't fail unless I was actually trying a Listen check against myself, which I wouldn't necessarily be doing. Just like I'm not constantly looking down at my body all the time to see whether I'm invisible. I'm sorry I didn't get the punchline of this little setup was supposed to be "Ha! You can Listen to your own Move Silently check!" I have a hard time following these little gotchas unless they have a point to them, you see (and I don't see how this constitutes "ignorance" on my part).
shadzar 08-06-07, 07:08 PM	I still don't see what point you're trying to make, or what about this makes 2e superior to 3e. i don't know since you brought it up how does it make 2E supperior to 3.x? the point, if you care to dig back through the series of posts on this matter, is that all these move silently checks are based of the same thing no matter what the edition. Rox and Matthew were going on about whatever that started it and Matthew mentioned the rules of 1E and 2E being the same as 3.x when it comes down to the follwoing. roll some kind of dice. add situational modifiers. compare number rolled with something to determine effects of the attempt. whether the number is simply saying you pass or fail, is compared against someone else perspective in the relative vacinity of the person using the ability makes no difference. a pass will pass. nothing bad normally happens to the person making the attempt. a fail will then prompt further investigation of the situation to determine what happens. the investigation is done by the DM. was someone around to hear this person? what was that person doing? how will that person respond to a noise? etc.
shadzar 08-06-07, 07:24 PM	where the whole move silently thing began... i think... Surprise in 2e is a lot more open to interpretation and has more conditional modifiers, but it's still 1D10 + Modifiers. some have claimed that 3.x does it all better, while others are saying it still funcitons the same way. roll dice, add modifiers. so how is that sequence any better in any edition? it isn't, it is the same thing. all i added was that the DM then decides on what happens when a failed result comes up. again doesn't matter on edition.
High Octane 08-06-07, 07:29 PM	Yes. My ears are opposing my feet. Your body is in civil war? An ArcTan divided amongst itself CANNOT STAND!
ArcTan 08-06-07, 08:08 PM	i don't know since you brought it up how does it make 2E supperior to 3.x? the point, if you care to dig back through the series of posts on this matter, is that all these move silently checks are based of the same thing no matter what the edition. Rox and Matthew were going on about whatever that started it and Matthew mentioned the rules of 1E and 2E being the same as 3.x when it comes down to the follwoing. roll some kind of dice. add situational modifiers. compare number rolled with something to determine effects of the attempt. Well, the point was that D&D 3e puts all these in the same place (Skills) and makes them the same kind of die (a d20). Which is simpler.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 08:09 PM	Your body is in civil war? An ArcTan divided amongst itself CANNOT STAND! It's easier to be silent when you're not standing.
shadzar 08-06-07, 08:11 PM	It's easier to be silent when you're not standing. as long as you didn't have the 7 bean salad for lunch. :yuck: Well, the point was that D&D 3e puts all these in the same place (Skills) and makes them the same kind of die (a d20). Which is simpler. and 2E uses the same die everytime for move silently as well. d100. always on the theiving skill chart or character sheet for rogues. 2E doesn't require anyone to check to see if they hear the person. the person fails or succeeds on his own. 3.x requires someone to listen. how would someone know to listen for someone moving silently? is every character expected to always make random listen checks as this would imply NPCs to do? when a player is told to make a listen check then there is a good chance that there is something that the PCs may or may not hear since an NPC making a move silent would require veryone else to make a listen check to compare it to correct?
Matthew_ 08-06-07, 08:52 PM	3.x requires someone to listen. how would someone know to listen for someone moving silently? is every character expected to always make random listen checks as this would imply NPCs to do? when a player is told to make a listen check then there is a good chance that there is something that the PCs may or may not hear since an NPC making a move silent would require veryone else to make a listen check to compare it to correct? I can answer this one, I think. You can make the check or assume they are 'taking 10'. The taking 10 mechanism is a formalisation of the kinds of events that the DM in 2e would just decide about. i.e. 2e Player Character 1: "Altar attempts to sneak up to the low wall." *Rolls Move Silently Check, Fails* Dungeon Master: *Decides that the Guard on the other side will not hear him* "Okay" 3e Player Character 1: "Altar attempts to sneak up to the low wall. I take 10 and add my Modifiers, that's 25 total." Dungeon Master: *Dungeon Master compares the Listen Check of the Guard on the other side of the wall, also taking 10, modified by distance and determines that the result is less than 25* "Okay." Alternate Scenarios 2e Player Character 1: "Altar attempts to sneak up to the low wall." *Rolls Move Silently Check - Succeeds* Dungeon Master: *No need to wonder* "Okay." 2e Player Character 1: "Altar attempts to sneak up to the low wall." *Rolls Move Silently Check - Fails* Dungeon Master: *Decides that the Guard on the other side has a chance to hear him* "Okay, make a Dexterity Attribute Check" Player Character 1: [I]"Okay." *Rolls Attribute Check - Fails*[I] Dungeon Master: *Knows that the Guard heard Altar, takes the appropriate action*. Alternatively, the DM could have had the Guard make a Wisdom Check or simply assigned the event a flat percentage chance.
Frugal 08-06-07, 10:46 PM	it was illustrating a point, about how certain situations are only based fail or pass by the observers. he said if there was no one else around the move silently would automatically pass. no in fact the move silently would be pointless, but could fail. makes for a good basic training for such things testing it upon yourself. Except you don't know how move silently works in 3.x apparently. There is no pass or fail in move silently, it's an opposed check with someone's listen skill. What this means is that you can't "pass" or "fail" the check, you simply determine how quietly you moved which is then compared to how well the observer hears (his listen check). So if there is no listener then it doesn't matter if you roll a 1 or end up with some infinitely high number due to modifiers. Personally, I like to roll a player's hide and move silently checks in secret as well as the related spot and listen checks because the character might not know how well they were hiding or how quietly the were moving. What I might do is allow a listen check for the player for how quietly they think they're moving, but that still doesn't tell them if there are any creatures nearby to hear them or how well they did hear him if there are.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 10:56 PM	and 2E uses the same die everytime for move silently as well. d100. always on the theiving skill chart or character sheet for rogues. 2E doesn't require anyone to check to see if they hear the person. the person fails or succeeds on his own. Which doesn't make sense. It doesn't provide for the fact that some people are a lot better at hearing things than others, either because of actual hearing acuity or training. 3.x requires someone to listen. how would someone know to listen for someone moving silently? is every character expected to always make random listen checks as this would imply NPCs to do? Listen checks aren't an active action. They're passive. when a player is told to make a listen check then there is a good chance that there is something that the PCs may or may not hear since an NPC making a move silent would require veryone else to make a listen check to compare it to correct? Sure. That's why it's better to make passive checks rolled by the DM instead of the players.
Frugal 08-06-07, 10:59 PM	3.x requires someone to listen. how would someone know to listen for someone moving silently? is every character expected to always make random listen checks as this would imply NPCs to do? Listen is usually a passive skill; it's not a skill you declare you're using it's "on" all the time. There the odd time you might declare that you're listening carefully (like pressing your ear to a door) but for the most part it's just assumed that it's on. And what's nice is that having the mechanics for move silently be an opposed check you get a range of "how good did you do" rather than the extremely coarse pass/fail mechanic of 2ed (from what I'm hearing about it). Moving silently should not be a simple yes or no question, it should be "how quietly did he move?" Then listen provides the "how well did they hear?" part of the equation so that you unequivocally know whether the NPC heard the PC (or vice-versa), which determines "awareness", the DM is still free to determine how they'll react. For instance, they might investigate the noise, they might ready weapons, they might set an ambush, etc. That's all situational but at least you know that they're aware whereas it sounds like someone failing in 2ed still leaves you completely up in the air about whether the NPCs heard them. when a player is told to make a listen check then there is a good chance that there is something that the PCs may or may not hear since an NPC making a move silent would require veryone else to make a listen check to compare it to correct? Yes, and this gets into metagaming. I know some DM's will just ask the players to make listen checks for no reason to keep them on edge. I prefer to do those rolls secretly instead, so I can tell if they players heard anything and tell them but if not then they don't even know that I made the check (helps if you just roll the dice periodically for no reason behind the screen).
DM-Scott 08-07-07, 12:20 AM	First I'd like to say I honestly skipped over most of this thread after the first few pages because it's late. I'm not sure of every thing posted in the thread so far. Second, I'd like to say I do agree with ArcTan that arguing anything based on ignorance irritates intelligent (IMO - logical) people, regardless of whatever the other poster said about anything. It's just a general fact. lol Now on to the real meat of this post. I'm not going to argue any rules or anything, but I'll toss up some real life experiences of mine about 2E and 3/.5E. Most of my 2E playing comes from the Baldur's Gate PC series, and those games will be forever hailed by me as some of the finest PC has ever offered. I also have a friend of mine who owns more 2E stuff than I could fit inside a small car. :P I however could not, nor ever would, say I think 2E is even better at doing much of anything than 3E does. If you do, it's easier to just alter 3E a little than to change an entire system. I like 3E because it's flexible and allows me to really explore deep into things from a role-playing perspective, gives me a lot of options to keep things flavorful. If I want a dwarf scout, there's nothing to stop me from making a Dwarf Ranger or a Human Fighter / Wizard (Mage) easily and enjoying them. When I played Baldur's Gate 1 - the classes were Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Thief, Mage, Paladin, Ranger. When I switched over to Baldur's Gate 2, it introduced a lot of character Kits which sort of made it feel like you had a ton of different classes. Thing is, even with the myriad of different kits in BG2, after I played the game for a while, I quickly found it boring playing them, with no way of mixing or matching to design a character I wanted. I thought it was perhaps due to the limitations of it being a PC game. I later tried to join a group for a 2E game. I will admit that the DM thrashed 3E with baseless mess, and acted like everything in 3E was intended to make Pun Pun (citing Pun Pun as a typical 3E character). Despite how I felt about this, I let it slide because a mutual friend asked me to the game. Being new to the system I did what I ask my players to do. I explained to him what kind of character I wanted to play. It was simple. I wanted to play a human man who was a student of magic, but after his father (a respected warrior) died and asked his son to take up his sword, decided to blend his magic and his swordsmanship together to form an odd style. Statistically I wanted him to be a multiclass fighter/wizard, with basic 1st level spells, and some basic fighting ability. I wanted to use spells like mage armor and grease to compensate for an inferiority to being a lesser fighter. I wanted a direct trickster sort of thing. "You can't do that." After "You can't do that" several times, I wanted to know exactly what I could do. Our mutual friend suggested I be a fighter. Despite the huge number of house rules (such as not adhering to the demi-human level restrictions), blatant inferiority of humans to everything, and the lack of anything resembling player options presented to me, I found that fighter's didn't even have greater specializations like in the Baldur's Gate games, because that's not really the rules - or not the ones he used. Instead of finding something I could play, all I found was one barrier after another to fufill even simple character concepts. I was disgusted and never even got into the game. I could find a good story somewhere else, but the system was too choking and clunky, and the races that couldn't even fit together (if dwarves CAN'T use magic, then they would die out during the wars they were supposed to rock at waging - like axes and swords versus bazookas). Later when I found my aformentioned friend with the truckload of 2E stuff, I decided to give it another chance. I started reading the manuals, and that's when I decided I would never play 2E again (except for the BG series PC games). I wouldn't even begin to try to teach many people to play 2E, whereas even my sister has played 3E and enjoyed it. The system had little core mechanical value from what I could tell, and even the ability scores were very different from each other in functionality, and relative power. Now...some of you may think I'm trying to bash 2E. Please understand, none of this is made up and despite the fact I play 3E, I also play a variety of other RPG systems, including things like Deadlands, Shadowrun, and even wierd stuff like Toon. I have no bias towards either. Now that the 2E talk is over with, allow me to tell you what I've experienced with 3E... I explained before 3E allows a lot of options and customizations in even the core rulebooks. The simple mutli-classing system allows someone to create all kinds of characters. There are ways of customizing characters through skill selection (whoa, more than 6 skills and not just thieves have them - sweeet!), feats, race and class combinations, and then advanced stuff like prestige classes. When I introduce people to 3E, I go over a couple of the classes in the PHB, describe each of them briefly, and then if they seem to like something we go from there. They ask what can they do, I give some examples. If they have a concept like a character in a movie they saw or a book they read, I ask them to describe them to me a bit and then I tell them some ways they could go about making that style of character. Instead of barriers, there were paths...and it was good. 3E seems overly simple to teach to new players. I keep my PHB nearbye if I need to quickly look up something. When getting newbies into the game, I rarely have to ask them to do more than tell them to roll the die (D20!) and tell them the result of their action. If they begin to do something beyond their character's abilities, I can describe it as being overly difficult or near impossible, or outright impossible at their current level of ability. If they want to do something way off the wall, I just ask for whatever seems like the most logical skill or ability and ask them for a check. If a player wants to use the tumble skill to tumble to run across a wall instead of jumping (think Prince of Persia: Sands of Time or some martial arts movies), I can easily ask for a DC 25-30 tumble check and be done with it. I can easily bump it up and down for different circumstances (maybe slippery, distance, etc) and simple guidelines to keep the game running smoothly and everyone having fun. It's also really easy to add stuff to the game such as feats, skill uses, spells, or even complex stuff like actions in combat, classes (base & prestige), and alternative rule sets to the system. But everyone knows how stuff works in general from table to table. Just a few stories and what I've seen of the two systems. You can take what you will from it, and reach your own conclusions. Peace out, Game on.
Matthew_ 08-07-07, 12:59 AM	Seems a bit impolite to not read the Thread and then make such a lengthy post. ;) Anyway, yeah, it's not at all surprising that you prefer 3e to your 2e experience. It's a little bizarre to me that you couldn't play a Human who started as a Mage and became a Fighter, since that is possible in the Core Rules for 2e, though with certain limitations. A lot of people have Baldur's Gate in mind when they compare 2e to 3e, it's not a wise comparison. Kudos on attempting to read the 2e Rules afterwards, sorry it didn't work out for you. There is no disputing that 3e is a clearer and more uniform system or that it allows for a much greater degree of mechanical customisation. That much we are all pretty much in agreement about. The limitations of 'By the Book' 2e lie mainly in how much of it you have access to. That is the underlying characteristic of 2e, it was essentially initially designed to fit only one paradigm and during the course of its development it strove to be able to encompass others. What this resulted in was a bloated Optional Rule Set and a huge number of House Rules, which was the intention of the designers (if you read the Forwards and Introductions to the PHB and DMG in particular you will notice the degree to which it was expected individuals would customise the rules). The game was expected to be extensively customised to fit the likes and dislikes of any given group. The major problem with this 'toolbox' approach was that there was often little common ground for different groups outside of what had been printed (which required ownership/familiarity) and that this translated badly into Adventure and Campaign Design/Sales. More importantly, it also required a really good DM to implement it. What we have in 3e is a streamlining of all those previous Optional and House Rules to make a much more concise and unified game, robust and capable of supporting a great many ideas and preferences without the need for much in the way of Optional or House Rules. Though, obviously, it has since become bloated with rules, these are much more frequently 'add ons' than rules alternatives. It is, however, a very rules heavy game and being as it draws heavily on what went before, it also leaves out many elements that were well liked by some. Essentially it is a House Ruled version of 2e, designed to embrace the widest possible audience and address the most often expressed limitations of previous editions. Not everyone will like 3e, but you can be sure that the majority of those who do will probably not like 2e in comparison. I don't mean to say if you like 3e you won't like 2e by default, what I am saying is that because 3e is a House Ruled version of 2e, that edition will not appeal to those who prefer the House Rules precisely because it lacks them (if that makes sense). [Edit] An interesting article on the subject of Heavy and Light RPG Systems can be located in the Silven Trumpeter, Issue 4, Vol. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 43-47, which can be downloaded for free from RPGnow.
DM-Scott 08-07-07, 02:37 AM	Yeah well I do apologize if it was impolite to not read through 11+ pages of the topic. I already had stuff I wanted to say about it, had to go to bed soon, and I really didn't want to dredge through all of it. Of course I'm not arguing anything, so I figured tossing in my experiences would be fine. If not, I apologize. It's a little bizarre to me that you couldn't play a Human who started as a Mage and became a Fighter, since that is possible in the Core Rules for 2e, though with certain limitations. It could only be done by dual classing which is a horrible rule because it requires you to meta-game, period. The concept I wanted involved progressing as a mage AND a fighter, but not as well as either. If I dual classed (a human's version of multiclassing) which required I reach X level and them forever stop progressing in that class, and then reach X + 1 level a 2nd class. However, should you even go through the trouble of doing this, if you use any of the abilities of your original class (such as fighting as a fighter, or casting a spell as a mage) you gained no XP for that adventure. This meant to actually play such a character without meta-gaming is impossible if you intend to advance. What I mean is, "No, sorry, I have extensive knowledge of picking locks but I'm only using magic this adventure, because I want some XP points too" is the norm. Also, I was saddened to find that fighter's couldn't gain any real abilities past "specialization" which gave minor improvements to a character, and to specialize in a ranged weapon costed double the points. At least Baldur's Gate was better in actually making fighters valid with weapon specialization through grand mastery in a weapon (5 points granting a strong damage bonus as well as extra attacks). 1st Level fighters were also never proficient in more than 4 different weapons, because they really just couldn't spend any more of their proficiency points. A human fighter/mage was incapable of existing, period. ----- I'd also like to say that I believe I understand what you mean about a house ruled 2e, but I think 3e is so much more. It's not even the same game as far as mechanics go. 3e D&D is to 2e what the final fantasy series is to D&D in general. It's an RPG, has certain similar elements (HP, Spells per Day in FF1, Fighter / Mage / Thief / Monk classes, etc) but is truly a different game. The same stories can be told, and the same monsters can be fought, but truly the "game" aspect of it is drastically different - far too different to call it a house ruled 2e. Of course, if most 2e D&D required this many house rules, then I guess it wasn't really an RPG game but an RPG template. :rolleyes: Anyway, Peace Out, Game On.
Optimator 08-07-07, 07:55 AM	That is the underlying characteristic of 2e, it was essentially initially designed to fit only one paradigm and during the course of its development it strove to be able to encompass others. What this resulted in was a bloated Optional Rule Set and a huge number of House Rules, which was the intention of the designers (if you read the Forwards and Introductions to the PHB and DMG in particular you will notice the degree to which it was expected individuals would customise the rules). The game was expected to be extensively customised to fit the likes and dislikes of any given group. It seems, to me, it boils down to that many people, myself included, don't feel this is a strength, but a weakness of 2E. I really prefer knowing exactly how sneaky I am or how well I can hear and how much outside factors should alter the checks, etc.
Frugal 08-07-07, 08:17 AM	Essentially it is a House Ruled version of 2e, designed to embrace the widest possible audience and address the most often expressed limitations of previous editions. Not everyone will like 3e, but you can be sure that the majority of those who do will probably not like 2e in comparison. I don't mean to say if you like 3e you won't like 2e by default, what I am saying is that because 3e is a House Ruled version of 2e, that edition will not appeal to those who prefer the House Rules precisely because it lacks them (if that makes sense). I'm not sure I agree with you. Obviously, the 3ed designers would have looked at what the most common house rules for 2ed were when they were designing 3ed, it just makes sense. However, I think there are a lot of paradigm shifts that aren't necessarily represented as just "house ruled 2ed". For example: Removing racial class restrictions, any race can be any class Removing level caps for race/class combinations (yes, I gather this was a common 2ed house rule) Rebalancing the classes so that all classes level at the same rate. Pesonally, this is huge, yes there are problems with the implementation but it was definitely a major step in the right direction A consistent rules set for all mechanics. Customisability. Multiclassing that works, skills and feats. Yes, I gather some was translations of kits from 2ed or captures some of the same flavour but 3ed definitely has a mindset of "make whatever you want" rather than "here's the couple of choices you have". That's just off the top of my head but it seems like for some of these you'd need a completely new edition. To make some of this simply house rules from 2ed I think you'd have to discard just about all the printed rules, at which point it really begs the question of if you're really playing 2ed D&D at all.
Matthew_ 08-07-07, 10:03 AM	Yeah well I do apologize if it was impolite to not read through 11+ pages of the topic. I already had stuff I wanted to say about it, had to go to bed soon, and I really didn't want to dredge through all of it. Of course I'm not arguing anything, so I figured tossing in my experiences would be fine. If not, I apologize. No apologies necessary; this Thread is pretty convoluted, I just found it kind of funny. It could only be done by dual classing which is a horrible rule because it requires you to meta-game, period. The concept I wanted involved progressing as a mage AND a fighter, but not as well as either. If I dual classed (a human's version of multiclassing) which required I reach X level and them forever stop progressing in that class, and then reach X + 1 level a 2nd class. However, should you even go through the trouble of doing this, if you use any of the abilities of your original class (such as fighting as a fighter, or casting a spell as a mage) you gained no XP for that adventure. Yep, Dual Classing was what I had in mind, as your description sounded like you wanted a level or two of Wizard on top of your Fighter levels. Certainly, the Dual/Multi Classing Rules for 2e were very restrictive. However, they weren't the only way to play the game. If you had access to Player's Option: Skills and Powers you could have built a Human of the type you describe. In fact, your DM could have built you the Sub Class you desired using the rules in the DMG (though those rules are not very good). In short, it was your DM's decision to disallow your Character concept. This meant to actually play such a character without meta-gaming is impossible if you intend to advance. What I mean is, "No, sorry, I have extensive knowledge of picking locks but I'm only using magic this adventure, because I want some XP points too" is the norm. Yes that sucked. I'm pretty sure that it was intended to discourage Dual Classing. Also, I was saddened to find that fighter's couldn't gain any real abilities past "specialization" which gave minor improvements to a character, and to specialize in a ranged weapon costed double the points. At least Baldur's Gate was better in actually making fighters valid with weapon specialization through grand mastery in a weapon (5 points granting a strong damage bonus as well as extra attacks). 1st Level fighters were also never proficient in more than 4 different weapons, because they really just couldn't spend any more of their proficiency points. Okay, there is a design difference here. 2e wasn't designed to allow Characters to become more diverse or specialised as they progressed, the degree to which they mechanically changed was very small, but that was the paradigm; Characters were very 'front loaded'. I often hear complaints about how you have to be Level X to get Feat Y in 3e, usually with reference to Warriors and Formation Expert or soemthing like that. In 2e you started out with the majority of the abilities you would ever have at Level 1. In 3e you gain these abilities by progressing levels. On the other hand, what you describe above applies only to the Core Rules. Baldur's Gate is based on the Player's Option Series, where it does not cost double to specialise in the Bow, you can move through five levels of Specialisation/Mastery and make use of Style Specialisation. Weapon Proficiency was revised in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to allow a Fighter to be proficient with more weapons. That said, the non proficiency penalties were only -2, -1 if the weapon was similar to another the Character was proficient in. I should also point out that if you were not using the Weapon Proficiency Rules (which were optional) Fighters were effectively proficient with all weapons. A human fighter/mage was incapable of existing, period. As I indicated, not true. Such a Character was incapable of existing in this DM's game. I'd also like to say that I believe I understand what you mean about a house ruled 2e, but I think 3e is so much more. It's not even the same game as far as mechanics go. 3e D&D is to 2e what the final fantasy series is to D&D in general. It's an RPG, has certain similar elements (HP, Spells per Day in FF1, Fighter / Mage / Thief / Monk classes, etc) but is truly a different game. You really would have to be familiar with the various iterations of 2e to see how truly mechanically similar 3e is to 2e. It basically takes all of its ideas for Combat from the Player's Option Series, and a good deal of its Skill System too (the Feat system can be found in prototype form in High Level Campaigning). The same stories can be told, and the same monsters can be fought, but truly the "game" aspect of it is drastically different - far too different to call it a house ruled 2e. Of course, if most 2e D&D required this many house rules, then I guess it wasn't really an RPG game but an RPG template. It's really none too different, converting Characters across the versions is fairly easy. You are right, though, 2e was an RPG Template rather than a complete game. However, the template itself was playable (and published adventures would tend to only use the template). It seems, to me, it boils down to that many people, myself included, don't feel this is a strength, but a weakness of 2E. I really prefer knowing exactly how sneaky I am or how well I can hear and how much outside factors should alter the checks, etc. Sure, and I know that many people feel that way. I have no problem with this. As far as marketing a system goes, 3e is a much more stable concept and it is far easier to play a complete game than a template. If you like lots of explicit rules legislated in advance, you'll like 3e. That said, it was perfectly possible to add a 'Sneak' Proficiency to the game (new proficiencies were often added and were expected to be) and improve it via Non Proficiency Slots or Character Points, which would allow you to do pretty much the same thing. Of course, there wouldnt be clear rules for how distance or brick walls would impact such Non Proficiency Checks, but it depends on what you desire. I don't really see much of an advantage of having a mathematical formula that can be altered by DM decision (via Circumstance Modifiers) over the DM simply deciding the difficulty. Just to be clear, the Thief Abilities, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows were in 2e the equivalent of 3e Supernatural or Extraordinary Abilities and should not be understood in terms of conventional stealth. I'm not sure I agree with you. Obviously, the 3ed designers would have looked at what the most common house rules for 2ed were when they were designing 3ed, it just makes sense. However, I think there are a lot of paradigm shifts that aren't necessarily represented as just "house ruled 2ed". For example: They may appear that way if you're not familiar with the full extent of the rules bloated 2e. There were some major changes, but not as many as people imagine. On the other hand, if you compare it to the Core Rules only it will appear that there was a much more significant departure. Removing racial class restrictions, any race can be any class Removing level caps for race/class combinations (yes, I gather this was a common 2ed house rule) Both very common House Rules and also Optional Rules that appear in the DMG. Rebalancing the classes so that all classes level at the same rate. Pesonally, this is huge, yes there are problems with the implementation but it was definitely a major step in the right direction Obviously this was a necessity of the revised Multi Class System. It makes no odds to me whether Classes are balanced to one experience progression or several different ones, as I prefer Dusk Blades to Fighter/Wizards (if you see what I mean). A consistent rules set for all mechanics. This is the big one that people often cite. The mechanics are more intuitive now, but is this such a big advantage and departure from what went before? It strikes me as just being a clean up of Attribute Checks, Attack Rolls and Percentage Chances, all of which can be expressed as (D20 + X to hit DC Y). It could even be said that it is slightly more limited in that it cannot model percentage chances that are not built on 5% increments. Customisability. Multiclassing that works, skills and feats. Yes, I gather some was translations of kits from 2ed or captures some of the same flavour but 3ed definitely has a mindset of "make whatever you want" rather than "here's the couple of choices you have". This is the biggest change to my mind. I'll make no bones about it; I was horrified to discover how Multi Classing worked in 3e. When I got to that point in the Chapter, I do believe I exclaimed "WTF?" I was up until that point hoping that Multi Classing/Dual Classing had been entirely dumped - which I suppose shows my preference within Class based systems. Skills and Feats are also a significant change, prefigured by the Player's Option series to be sure, but very different in implementation. There is no escaping the evidence of their roots, though. It is quite amusing to me that you consider 3e to be saying something different to 2e, though. What 3e offers, to my mind, is a much more consistant mechanical way of 'making whatever you want' spread over levels. 2e was very front loaded in terms of 'building what you want'. If you used the Skills and Powers and Spells and Magic books you could build very different Sub Class variants, but they wouldn't change very much over the course of play. Both, though, were just codifications of an expected process. That's just off the top of my head but it seems like for some of these you'd need a completely new edition. To make some of this simply house rules from 2ed I think you'd have to discard just about all the printed rules, at which point it really begs the question of if you're really playing 2ed D&D at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying D&D didn't need a new edition to progress. It certainly did. I didn't need a new edition, but that's a different thing. The idea that 'you wouldn't really be playing 2e by the time you had finished implementing Optional and House Rules', is in my opinion an interesting one. I wouldn't tend to agree, but that is because the core of 2e was very, very simple [For instance, did you know that Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Bards and Proficiencies of all types were all Optional Rules?]. What exactly constitutes D&D is very open to interpretation and was the subject of many a legal challenge. I should also point out at least one advantage that 2e has over 3e, lest I completely fail to show why I like it - 0 Level Non Classed Characters. These guys are are handled much better in 2e than the corresponding NPC Classes of 3e. The principle reason is that they were literally given as many Proficiencies as was appropriate, as well as Attack Bonuses and Hit Point Adjustments. In 3e I would have a hard job creating an Expert NPC Tracker whose Combat Ability wasn't markedly improved Skill Focus?)]. In 2e I could give him as great a 'Bonus' as I liked and as many Proficiencies as I liked without reference to Level or Class, essentially being completely free to build him as I conceived of him. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to prove 2e was the perfect game; it was a system that was very much straining against its own rules and 3e was the logical outcome to reinvigorate the fan base.
Arcane Guyver 08-07-07, 10:05 AM	It's an RPG, has certain similar elements (HP, Spells per Day in FF1, Fighter / Mage / Thief / Monk classes, etc) but is truly a different game. Heheh, I always tell folks that Final Fantasy I is one of my favorite D&D games. Hell, you even obtain prestige classes from Bahamut at a certain point. ;)
Frugal 08-07-07, 11:34 AM	Okay, there is a design difference here. 2e wasn't designed to allow Characters to become more diverse or specialised as they progressed, the degree to which they mechanically changed was very small, but that was the paradigm; Characters were very 'front loaded'. I often hear complaints about how you have to be Level X to get Feat Y in 3e, usually with reference to Warriors and Formation Expert or soemthing like that. In 2e you started out with the majority of the abilities you would ever have at Level 1. In 3e you gain these abilities by progressing levels. I can see 2 sides to this. The big thing is that some classes (or races) are way more powerful starting out than others and that's "balanced" by making them need more experience to level. What that tends to mean is that those classes dominate play early on until the weaker classes "catch up" by levelling more quickly. I'm not saying 3.x got this perfect, a lot of the casting classes start out pretty weak and then dominate play at higher levels while melee builds are the reversed, but it's much better (in my opinion). Now one of the big things I find odd is that you still have some hold outs from 2ed like starting age. It made sense when some classes started with way more abilities but it just doesn't make sense with 3.x's multiclassing. I mean you can justify a wizard being older because of studying arcane magic for so long but then another class just multiclass into wizard at level 2 and be far younger, with the same starting level of power, it just doesn't make sense. On the other hand, what you describe above applies only to the Core Rules. Baldur's Gate is based on the Player's Option Series, where it does not cost double to specialise in the Bow, you can move through five levels of Specialisation/Mastery and make use of Style Specialisation. Weapon Proficiency was revised in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to allow a Fighter to be proficient with more weapons. That said, the non proficiency penalties were only -2, -1 if the weapon was similar to another the Character was proficient in. I should also point out that if you were not using the Weapon Proficiency Rules (which were optional) Fighters were effectively proficient with all weapons. As I indicated, not true. Such a Character was incapable of existing in this DM's game. See personally, this is one of the biggest things that bugs me about 2ed, the more I hear about it the more it sounds like the game was unplayable with just the basic rule books and needed either a pile of house rules or supplemental optional rules in order to make it workable. The other big issue with this is it makes it damn near impossible to really say what 2ed really is. What I mean by this is that if you join a new gaming group and they say they're playing 3.5 then you have a pretty good idea of what the rules are going to be, maybe a few house rules or differing interpretations but you have a good idea for a starting point. But if you join a 2ed group it sounds like you need to start with asking, "do you use players options? Do you use Combat and Tactics? Do you use Fighter's Compendium? Do you use Skills and Powers? What house rules do you use? Etc, etc." It's really none too different, converting Characters across the versions is fairly easy. You are right, though, 2e was an RPG Template rather than a complete game. However, the template itself was playable (and published adventures would tend to only use the template). Yes, that's kind of what I'm getting at, but then it makes it really hard to make adventures because those options can really change the power level of a group, which makes it hard to run an adventure that's just based on the template against a group that's made use of a lot of the options. Or, it might even require significant reworking of the adventure because the way the NPCs were built might not make sense for the rules you're using. That said, it was perfectly possible to add a 'Sneak' Proficiency to the game (new proficiencies were often added and were expected to be) and improve it via Non Proficiency Slots or Character Points, which would allow you to do pretty much the same thing. Of course, there wouldnt be clear rules for how distance or brick walls would impact such Non Proficiency Checks, but it depends on what you desire. I don't really see much of an advantage of having a mathematical formula that can be altered by DM decision (via Circumstance Modifiers) over the DM simply deciding the difficulty. See, I this is a typical response about 2ed, which is valid, but it actually illustrates the issue with 2ed. You can make up rules for any game to add to the game, but the discussion is really about the system itself, not what you can add on with work. I think this is where the Oberoni Fallacy comes into play, just because you can make up rules to cover things that aren't in the rules doesn't mean that it's not still a fault of the game that it didn't cover those rules. If we're discussing the merits of the systems then "oh, but I just house ruled it like x" or "yeah, but I just threw out those rules" aren't valid responses, "yes, those rules are bad" or "no, there isn't a problem with those rules and here's why" are valid responses. To use a 3ed example, there's a lot of discussion about the change in 3.5 to make keen and improved crit not stack, talking about how you house ruled crits in 3ed doesn't help with the discussion, showing the math about how it doesn't really add very much damage can actually help make the case for allowing them to stack again. Obviously this was a necessity of the revised Multi Class System. It makes no odds to me whether Classes are balanced to one experience progression or several different ones, as I prefer Dusk Blades to Fighter/Wizards (if you see what I mean). Well yes, there's still issues with multiclassing in some ways so now the trend seems to be to go back and add in more base classes that fill in roles that didn't work well with multiclassing, like the Duskblade instead of a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight. This is the big one that people often cite. The mechanics are more intuitive now, but is this such a big advantage and departure from what went before? It strikes me as just being a clean up of Attribute Checks, Attack Rolls and Percentage Chances, all of which can be expressed as (D20 + X to hit DC Y). It could even be said that it is slightly more limited in that it cannot model percentage chances that are not built on 5% increments. That's still a pretty major rewrite of the mechanics. Oddly enough, as much as people complain about THAC0 that's actually the easiest one to convert between versions; 20 - 2ed AC = 3.x AC, converting THAC0 to BAB should be 20 - THAC0 = BAB. It is absolutely just a different (arguably more intuitive) way of representing the same thing. This is the biggest change to my mind. I'll make no bones about it; I was horrified to discover how Multi Classing worked in 3e. When I got to that point in the Chapter, I do believe I exclaimed "WTF?" I was up until that point hoping that Multi Classing/Dual Classing had been entirely dumped - which I suppose shows my preference within Class based systems. And see for me I've always hated class based systems because I always felt like they tied my hands in terms of how I had to make my character so having multiclassing and having it work (well, more or less, still many issues) was a huge boon for me. It is quite amusing to me that you consider 3e to be saying something different to 2e, though. What 3e offers, to my mind, is a much more consistant mechanical way of 'making whatever you want' spread over levels. 2e was very front loaded in terms of 'building what you want'. If you used the Skills and Powers and Spells and Magic books you could build very different Sub Class variants, but they wouldn't change very much over the course of play. Both, though, were just codifications of an expected process. I think I'd need to see more of the optional material to really get that sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying D&D didn't need a new edition to progress. It certainly did. I didn't need a new edition, but that's a different thing. The idea that 'you wouldn't really be playing 2e by the time you had finished implementing Optional and House Rules', is in my opinion an interesting one. I wouldn't tend to agree, but that is because the core of 2e was very, very simple [For instance, did you know that Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Bards and Proficiencies of all types were all Optional Rules?]. What exactly constitutes D&D is very open to interpretation and was the subject of many a legal challenge. What I meant by not really playing 2ed is that you do get to a point where you have to look at how many of the mechanics presented you're actually using compared to the amount of rules you've made up yourself. What I mean is at what point does it stop being "2ed D&D" and start being "This RPG I made up where I lifted some material from 2ed D&D"? I should also point out at least one advantage that 2e has over 3e, lest I completely fail to show why I like it - 0 Level Non Classed Characters. These guys are are handled much better in 2e than the corresponding NPC Classes of 3e. The principle reason is that they were literally given as many Proficiencies as was appropriate, as well as Attack Bonuses and Hit Point Adjustments. In 3e I would have a hard job creating an Expert NPC Tracker whose Combat Ability wasn't markedly improved Skill Focus?)]. In 2e I could give him as great a 'Bonus' as I liked and as many Proficiencies as I liked without reference to Level or Class, essentially being completely free to build him as I conceived of him. See I think this is a difference in approach, I know I can just make up an NPC if I really wanted to in 3.5, but I really enjoy making them with the existing mechanics. And if I wanted to make that tracker I could easily take a 3rd level commoner and he'd have 6 ranks, +1 WIS and +3 from Skill focus, that's +10 right there and I could take self-sufficient as my extra feat so there's another +2 there for a total of +12. Now even with hard ground it's a DC 20 survival check for tracking so that means I can make that at an 8, that's a pretty damn good tracker and he's only got a +1 BAB so not exactly good in combat.
Matthew_ 08-07-07, 12:12 PM	I can see 2 sides to this. The big thing is that some classes (or races) are way more powerful starting out than others and that's "balanced" by making them need more experience to level. What that tends to mean is that those classes dominate play early on until the weaker classes "catch up" by levelling more quickly. I'm not saying 3.x got this perfect, a lot of the casting classes start out pretty weak and then dominate play at higher levels while melee builds are the reversed, but it's much better (in my opinion). The power disparity at Level 1 was pretty small. The difference between a Level 1 Thief and a Level 1 Dwarf Fighter/Thief was not very great. There were combinations that could dominate, but they were usually 'Optional' . It's probably less of a difference than that between a 3e Fighter with 18 Strength and a 3e Fighter with 14 Strength (that said the difference between a Fighter with 18 Strength and 14 Strength in AD&D was much more substantial). Now one of the big things I find odd is that you still have some hold outs from 2ed like starting age. It made sense when some classes started with way more abilities but it just doesn't make sense with 3.x's multiclassing. I mean you can justify a wizard being older because of studying arcane magic for so long but then another class just multiclass into wizard at level 2 and be far younger, with the same starting level of power, it just doesn't make sense. Yeah, I know. Personally, I hate this aspect of 3e, but I can see why other people like it. Of course, if you use the Training Rules from the 3e DMG, then this might make a bit more sense. See personally, this is one of the biggest things that bugs me about 2ed, the more I hear about it the more it sounds like the game was unplayable with just the basic rule books and needed either a pile of house rules or supplemental optional rules in order to make it workable. The other big issue with this is it makes it damn near impossible to really say what 2ed really is. What I mean by this is that if you join a new gaming group and they say they're playing 3.5 then you have a pretty good idea of what the rules are going to be, maybe a few house rules or differing interpretations but you have a good idea for a starting point. But if you join a 2ed group it sounds like you need to start with asking, "do you use players options? Do you use Combat and Tactics? Do you use Fighter's Compendium? Do you use Skills and Powers? What house rules do you use? Etc, etc." Heh, heh. It wasn't unplayable in the paradigm for which it was created, though [i.e. Start at Level 1 of the Dungeon and progress to Level 20]. The problems came when you tried to get it to do more than that and that's where the optional rules come in. That said, if you strip the game down to its basic components (removing all Optional Rules) the game was so 'rules light' that it could handle virtually anything. However, that style of play is the direct opposite of what it developed into and the 'Rules Heavy/Rules Light' debate could go on forever. Joining a 2e group could be potentially very confusing with regard to Optional and House Rules. The smoother interaction of Optional Rules is certainly a major advantage of 3e and probably the whole reason it was developed. That said, I still prefer my House Ruled 2e game to 3e. Yes, that's kind of what I'm getting at, but then it makes it really hard to make adventures because those options can really change the power level of a group, which makes it hard to run an adventure that's just based on the template against a group that's made use of a lot of the options. Or, it might even require significant reworking of the adventure because the way the NPCs were built might not make sense for the rules you're using. Well, because they only used the very basic template (for the most part) this wasn't a huge issue. All the same, yes, some degree of customisation would be necessary if your party is using a lot of additional rules (either because it makes them too powerful or there are some stats you use that the NPCs don't have). See, I this is a typical response about 2ed, which is valid, but it actually illustrates the issue with 2ed. You can make up rules for any game to add to the game, but the discussion is really about the system itself, not what you can add on with work. I think this is where the Oberoni Fallacy comes into play, just because you can make up rules to cover things that aren't in the rules doesn't mean that it's not still a fault of the game that it didn't cover those rules. If we're discussing the merits of the systems then "oh, but I just house ruled it like x" or "yeah, but I just threw out those rules" aren't valid responses, "yes, those rules are bad" or "no, there isn't a problem with those rules and here's why" are valid responses. To use a 3ed example, there's a lot of discussion about the change in 3.5 to make keen and improved crit not stack, talking about how you house ruled crits in 3ed doesn't help with the discussion, showing the math about how it doesn't really add very much damage can actually help make the case for allowing them to stack again. Sure, but what you have to remember is that this isn't a rules change or made up rule exactly. Ordinarily, you can make an Attribute Check to accomplish some task or other (such as Sneaking). All that creating a Sneaking Proficiency does is allow you to improve it. The reason there isn't a Sneaking Proficiency in the Books, in my opinion, is because it just didn't come up often enough to matter (I mean, how often do you actually build a 3e Fighter with ranks is Hide and Sneak anyway?) Well yes, there's still issues with multiclassing in some ways so now the trend seems to be to go back and add in more base classes that fill in roles that didn't work well with multiclassing, like the Duskblade instead of a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight. When I first saw the Base Classes for 3e I thought that was what would happen, which was why I was surprised by 3e Multi Classing. That's still a pretty major rewrite of the mechanics. Oddly enough, as much as people complain about THAC0 that's actually the easiest one to convert between versions; 20 - 2ed AC = 3.x AC, converting THAC0 to BAB should be 20 - THAC0 = BAB. It is absolutely just a different (arguably more intuitive) way of representing the same thing. I guess it depends what you consider major. Attribute Checks can be expressed as [(1D20 + Attribute) to hit DC 21]. Proficiencies introduce this next aspect [(1D20 + Attribute + Proficiency Modifier) to hit DC 21]. The DM was required to apply penalties and Bonuses depending on the difficult of the task which translates as [(1D20 + Attribute Modifiers + Proficiency Modifier) to hit (DC 21 + Circumstance Modifiers)]. I wouldn't call that a major rewrite, just a change of expression. And see for me I've always hated class based systems because I always felt like they tied my hands in terms of how I [I]had to make my character so having multiclassing and having it work (well, more or less, still many issues) was a huge boon for me. Heh, and I think this is where D&D is very interesting. Lots of people play D&D who hate Class Based Systems and lots of people left the game for that reason (including me). However, once I had played a lot of Classless Systems I realised that there was no 'perfect' game and learned to just accept systems for what they are and play within their limitations. That doesn't prevent me modifying them to suit my taste (even extensively), but understanding that these games are designed to fulfill particular criteria was a huge leap forward for me. In short, if I want to play 2e, I play 2e, if I want to play 3e, I play 3e and if I want to play something else, I play something else. I think I'd need to see more of the optional material to really get that sense. No doubt. What I meant by not really playing 2ed is that you do get to a point where you have to look at how many of the mechanics presented you're actually using compared to the amount of rules you've made up yourself. What I mean is at what point does it stop being "2ed D&D" and start being "This RPG I made up where I lifted some material from 2ed D&D"? I agree, and I think the subject is a whole debate of its own. I could refer to my House Ruled Game as something other than House Ruled 2e, but that would be to neglect the glaring similarities - Six Attributes, Dungeons, Dragons, Hit Points, Levels, Fighters, Wizards, Rogues, Clerics, Experience Points, D20, Hit Rolls and Damage Rolls, etc... It's not By the Book 2e, to be sure, but it's certainly and recognisably House Ruled Dungeons & Dragons. If I was seeking to publish it, the situation would be quite different. I would have to rename it something like Tunnels & Trolls, Lords & Labyrinths or Castle & Crusades to differentiate it from the property owned by Wizards of the Coast. See I think this is a difference in approach, I know I can just make up an NPC if I really wanted to in 3.5, but I really enjoy making them with the existing mechanics. And if I wanted to make that tracker I could easily take a 3rd level commoner and he'd have 6 ranks, +1 WIS and +3 from Skill focus, that's +10 right there and I could take self-sufficient as my extra feat so there's another +2 there for a total of +12. Now even with hard ground it's a DC 20 survival check for tracking so that means I can make that at an 8, that's a pretty damn good tracker and he's only got a +1 BAB so not exactly good in combat. Yep, and that's completely valid. I have no problem with people wanting precise rules to build Characters and I can see it as a fun part of the game. However, it's not my preferred method of generating NPCs.
tankschmidt 08-07-07, 12:42 PM	The big thing is that some classes (or races) are way more powerful starting out than others and that's "balanced" by making them need more experience to level. What that tends to mean is that those classes dominate play early on until the weaker classes "catch up" by levelling more quickly. I'm not saying 3.x got this perfect, a lot of the casting classes start out pretty weak and then dominate play at higher levels while melee builds are the reversed, but it's much better (in my opinion). This isn't always true. The magic user requires the most experience to reach second level, but it's definitely the weakest class at first level. If you are comparing the rogues to the warriors (which I agree is a valid comparison) the catching up is generally accomplished when the thief and bard make second level. Moreover, I don't think the idea of casting classes being weak at low levels and dominant at high levels is so distasteful. It's one of those things that makes D&D and what it is, and if I remember, magic-users are explained that way in the original "Men & Magic" booklet. I do like what 3E did with low level casters, however; it's nice to have more than one spell. The other big issue with this is it makes it damn near impossible to really say what 2ed really is. What I mean by this is that if you join a new gaming group and they say they're playing 3.5 then you have a pretty good idea of what the rules are going to be, maybe a few house rules or differing interpretations but you have a good idea for a starting point. But if you join a 2ed group it sounds like you need to start with asking, "do you use players options? Do you use Combat and Tactics? Do you use Fighter's Compendium? Do you use Skills and Powers? What house rules do you use? Etc, etc." "Do you use Tome of Battle? Do you use Magic of Incarnum? Do you use Expanded Psionics? Can I have a +2 LA template?" I don't think too much has changed as far as this goes. I will agree that 2nd edition players are generally more free with their houserules, which leads me to my next point: I think this is where the Oberoni Fallacy comes into play, just because you can make up rules to cover things that aren't in the rules doesn't mean that it's not still a fault of the game that it didn't cover those rules. See, the nice thing about some editions of (A)D&D -- and I will agree that 2nd edition is not the perfect example, by far -- is that there aren't rules to cover a lot of situations. Let's play some 3.x: if I want to scale a wall, dive between an ogre's legs, and convince it to attack me, I have to make a climb check (DC depends on wall, I move at half -- or is it quarter? -- speed), tumble check (DC 25, I think?, half speed as well?), and then I need some kind of taunt feat? The bottom line is that if you're not hardcore rules savvy, you're going to have to crack some books to find out. In earlier editions, the DM was encouraged to make up rules as he went along. In this case, I would require a player to roll under his str score for the climb, roll under is dex for the dive, and roll under his charisma for the taunt. Next player's turn. In my opinion, it's actually a fault of the game to cover those rules. See I think this is a difference in approach, I know I can just make up an NPC if I really wanted to in 3.5, but I really enjoy making them with the existing mechanics. And if I wanted to make that tracker I could easily take a 3rd level commoner and he'd have 6 ranks, +1 WIS and +3 from Skill focus, that's +10 right there and I could take self-sufficient as my extra feat so there's another +2 there for a total of +12. Now even with hard ground it's a DC 20 survival check for tracking so that means I can make that at an 8, that's a pretty damn good tracker and he's only got a +1 BAB so not exactly good in combat. Now this is just a difference of preference. I'd rather be doing something else than grinding through those mechanics. If I wanted a tracker in AD&D, I'd grab a warrior out the Monster Manual, maybe give him a nice high wisdom, and slap a nonweapon proficiency on him. Actually, I probably wouldn't even go to all that trouble unless the PC's decided to attack him.
Frugal 08-07-07, 01:51 PM	The power disparity at Level 1 was pretty small. The difference between a Level 1 Thief and a Level 1 Dwarf Fighter/Thief was not very great. There were combinations that could dominate, but they were usually 'Optional' [in the sense that someone cherry picked the best optional rules to apply to Character X]. It's probably less of a difference than that between a 3e Fighter with 18 Strength and a 3e Fighter with 14 Strength (that said the difference between a Fighter with 18 Strength and 14 Strength in AD&D was much more substantial). Then why the difference in levelling rates? If it's just arbitrarily "this class takes more study" then that's really lame. I was under the impression it was because some classes either started more powerful or end up more powerful so you have to balance against that. The classes that level quickly should have a fairly smooth power curve while those that require more will have a much more "stair step" shaped power curve. What this means is that they have been spurts of power and then stay flat for a long time then another spurt of power. What this means in terms of game play is that at some points you're going to be way more powerful than the rest of the party while they catch up and then at other times are likely going to be left behind while you try to get your next spurt of power, then repeat. It might not be at 1st level but it will happen at some point. Heh, heh. It wasn't unplayable in the paradigm for which it was created, though [i.e. Start at Level 1 of the Dungeon and progress to Level 20]. The problems came when you tried to get it to do more than that and that's where the optional rules come in. That said, if you strip the game down to its basic components (removing all Optional Rules) the game was so 'rules light' that it could handle virtually anything. However, that style of play is the direct opposite of what it developed into and the 'Rules Heavy/Rules Light' debate could go on forever. Joining a 2e group could be potentially very confusing with regard to Optional and House Rules. The smoother interaction of Optional Rules is certainly a major advantage of 3e and probably the whole reason it was developed. That said, I still prefer my House Ruled 2e game to 3e. Well I was kind of under the impression that by 2ed they'd clued in that you might actually want to play a role and not just do hack and slash. I remember reading the cleric description in my red box copy of Basic where it said something like, "there are a wide variety of religions in the world, but since that doesn't affect playing the game at all don't worry about it." (I'd have to pull out the PHB to give the exact quote). I thought that by 2ed they'd gotten to a point where roleplaying was considered a "good thing" and not actively discouraged like the Basic set did. Heck, to hear 2ed players talking about the edition I'd certainly think that was the case. Sure, but what you have to remember is that this isn't a rules change or made up rule exactly. Ordinarily, you can make an Attribute Check to accomplish some task or other (such as Sneaking). All that creating a Sneaking Proficiency does is allow you to improve it. The reason there isn't a Sneaking Proficiency in the Books, in my opinion, is because it just didn't come up often enough to matter (I mean, how often do you actually build a 3e Fighter with ranks is Hide and Sneak anyway?) Well I suppose an attribute check basically works similarly to using the skill untrained (which would likely be the case for a Fighter), but I do like the continuum you get with how quiet were you rather than the simple pass/fail mechanic. When I first saw the Base Classes for 3e I thought that was what would happen, which was why I was surprised by 3e Multi Classing. And it definitely has gone that way to an extent. Personally, and this is just a preference, I'd rather see fewer classes and more customisability of those classes (think the Ranger's combat styles but more so, or the talent trees I've heard of in Star Wars Sage Edition, although I haven't seen how that works yet) rather than a whole boat load of different classes representing very specific concepts, I like the idea of classes being generic archetypes that you customise through the class and/or with multiclassing rather than saying, "I want to play a pirate but I can't because there's no pirate class" (not saying that's what you're saying, just that I've definitely seen that kind of mentality). I guess it depends what you consider major. Attribute Checks can be expressed as [(1D20 + Attribute) to hit DC 21]. Proficiencies introduce this next aspect [(1D20 + Attribute + Proficiency Modifier) to hit DC 21]. The DM was required to apply penalties and Bonuses depending on the difficult of the task which translates as [(1D20 + Attribute Modifiers + Proficiency Modifier) to hit (DC 21 + Circumstance Modifiers)]. I wouldn't call that a major rewrite, just a change of expression. Well, I like skills rather than just an attribute check because then you can represent training/focus in a particular field. And I'm not sure how it worked in 2ed but I thought someone said there were rules around you wanting to roll as high as possible without going over as that meant a "better" result, not sure how you'd represent that concept unless it's for an opposed roll. Heh, and I think this is where D&D is very interesting. Lots of people play D&D who hate Class Based Systems and lots of people left the game for that reason (including me). However, once I had played a lot of Classless Systems I realised that there was no 'perfect' game and learned to just accept systems for what they are and play within their limitations. That doesn't prevent me modifying them to suit my taste (even extensively), but understanding that these games are designed to fulfill particular criteria was a huge leap forward for me. In short, if I want to play 2e, I play 2e, if I want to play 3e, I play 3e and if I want to play something else, I play something else. True enough, there are inherent things with the edition and it can influence play style. It doesn't have to force a play style but the rules and the system can make certain play styles more dominant than others. And I have no problem with someone preferring 2ed, I just have a problem with it when they say they don't like 3.x for reasons that aren't true in 3.x. You seem to be familiar with the workings of the system and have then decided you'd rather play 2ed, that's perfectly valid. Yep, and that's completely valid. I have no problem with people wanting precise rules to build Characters and I can see it as a fun part of the game. However, it's not my preferred method of generating NPCs. Yeah, for me I like looking at all the options and going, "ooh, that'd be cool" rather than just pulling it all out of thin air. Plus, it means I can back up the whole build as being "legit". For instance, I was thinking of making some drow that were the result of breeding with fiends which usually resulted in them being completely insane and crazed fighters. My first thought was to make them drow with the half-fiend template and levels of barbarian, and possibly frenzied berserker, but it made them too high level for what I wanted, then I found the tainted raver template from Heroes of Horror and realised that was exactly what I wanted and I could easily tweak the power level with class levels in whatever I wanted, so I got drow half-fiend tainted ravers, it was a really cool process (for me), but I can see how that's not going to be for everyone. This isn't always true. The magic user requires the most experience to reach second level, but it's definitely the weakest class at first level. If you are comparing the rogues to the warriors (which I agree is a valid comparison) the catching up is generally accomplished when the thief and bard make second level. Moreover, I don't think the idea of casting classes being weak at low levels and dominant at high levels is so distasteful. It's one of those things that makes D&D and what it is, and if I remember, magic-users are explained that way in the original "Men & Magic" booklet. I do like what 3E did with low level casters, however; it's nice to have more than one spell. Well then you're essentially paying a premium at low levels for a payoff later. The power difference might not be that great at the start of 1st level but what level will the fighter or thief or bard be at by the time the magic user is about to get to 2nd level? He's started off weak and then is even more behind in power until he finally levels, then at some point he's going to actually get more powerful than the other party members and dominate. Personally, I despise the power level of casters at high level compared to non-casters. I agree it's ingrained in D&D but I just hate it with a passion and it's one of the reasons I've stopped playing D&D. What I find happens is that unless you want to play a caster you might as well not even be at the table come a certain level and that's just not fun for me, and I've never liked the mechanics of playing a caster in D&D so I usually go for the rogue or the fighter or barbarian instead, so it just sucks for me. "Do you use Tome of Battle? Do you use Magic of Incarnum? Do you use Expanded Psionics? Can I have a +2 LA template?" I don't think too much has changed as far as this goes. I will agree that 2nd edition players are generally more free with their houserules, which leads me to my next point: There's 3 completely optional "systems", Psionics, the tome of magic systems and tome of battle. Other than that, everything builds off the base (and even those other systems do as well). What I mean by this is that material from one supplement doesn't disrupt the rest of the party. For instance, if I play a class from Complete Adventurer that doesn't effect anyone else but my character but if you're playing 2ed it sounds like you need to know if you're using any number of different supplements before you even start character generation for the party because it will effect how everyone makes their characters. As for templates, I'd probably handle it by saying, "make a character at level x but run it by me first and I want to see the final sheet for approval", that's pretty simple and not nearly as bad as assuming that the group's using the weapon proficiency rules and building your character accordingly and then finding out they didn't use that material (or worse, assuming they didn't use that material, or not owning it, and making your character assuming you were proficient with all weapons and then finding out you aren't). See, the nice thing about some editions of (A)D&D -- and I will agree that 2nd edition is not the perfect example, by far -- is that there aren't rules to cover a lot of situations. Let's play some 3.x: if I want to scale a wall, dive between an ogre's legs, and convince it to attack me, I have to make a climb check (DC depends on wall, I move at half -- or is it quarter? -- speed), tumble check (DC 25, I think?, half speed as well?), and then I need some kind of taunt feat? The bottom line is that if you're not hardcore rules savvy, you're going to have to crack some books to find out. In earlier editions, the DM was encouraged to make up rules as he went along. In this case, I would require a player to roll under his str score for the climb, roll under is dex for the dive, and roll under his charisma for the taunt. Next player's turn. Well climb and tumble's reasonably easy to work out and the taunt doesn't have to be a feat, I'd probably just do it as a CHA check like you suggest, maybe intimidate or bluff, hard to say vs. the orge's sense motive. But the thing is, if you have a good group you still just wing some of that for the sake of moving the game along, do I need to look up the DCs, to be 100% accurate yes but if it sounds cool and things are flowing well I can just make up DCs on the spot and move on, yes that's a very 2ed mindset in that regard but I like that the framework is there so I have good guidelines on how to do this, and I can also determine how balanced a judgement might be. Plus, I can make that snap ruling to keep the game moving and then look up the rules later and tell my players at the start of the next game, "hey, I looked it up and it really works this way, so for the future that's how we're handling it". Now this is just a difference of preference. I'd rather be doing something else than grinding through those mechanics. If I wanted a tracker in AD&D, I'd grab a warrior out the Monster Manual, maybe give him a nice high wisdom, and slap a nonweapon proficiency on him. Actually, I probably wouldn't even go to all that trouble unless the PC's decided to attack him. Well what I like is that if they do attack then I'm ready. Plus, I can use this to figure out the NPC's CR, which is useful for awarding XP (which doesn't have to be combat-based either). Maybe the party's trying to elude being found, I can work out the tracker and figure out how good a tracker he should be, I can look at it and say, "woah, I just made this guy and he'd be CR 8 and the party's only 4th level, that's not going to be balanced, I should tone him down). Just making stuff up offers more freedom, and possibly quicker generation if you work well that way, but you really have to look at the balance for the character and decide if it really is something the PCs can take on and handle.
Matthew_ 08-07-07, 03:40 PM	Then why the difference in levelling rates? If it's just arbitrarily "this class takes more study" then that's really lame. I was under the impression it was because some classes either started more powerful or end up more powerful so you have to balance against that. The classes that level quickly should have a fairly smooth power curve while those that require more will have a much more "stair step" shaped power curve. What this means is that they have been spurts of power and then stay flat for a long time then another spurt of power. What this means in terms of game play is that at some points you're going to be way more powerful than the rest of the party while they catch up and then at other times are likely going to be left behind while you try to get your next spurt of power, then repeat. It might not be at 1st level but it will happen at some point. Measuring the degree of power is quite difficult, beacuse it relies on a number of factors, but let's try our Dwarf Fighter/Thief example again and I will try to explain. Thief 1 Attacks: 1 THAC0: 20 Hit Dice: 1D6 (6) Saving Throws: As Level 1 Thief Thief Skills: As Level 1 Thief Weapon Proficiencies: As Thief (2) Weapon Specialisation: No Armour Proficency: As Thief (Light) Non Weapon Proficiencies: As Thief (3) Experience Requirement: 1,250 Fighter 1/Thief 1 Attacks: 1 THAC0: 20 Hit Dice: [(1D6 + 1D10)/2] (8) Saving Throws: As Level 1 Fighter or Thief Thief Skills: As Level 1 Thief Weapon Proficiencies: As Warrior (4) Weapon Specialisation: No Armour Proficency: As Warrior (All) Non Weapon Proficiencies: As Rogue (3) Experience Requirement: 2,000/1,250 Fighter 1 Attacks: 1 [Specialised 3/2] THAC0: 20 Hit Dice: (1D10) (10) Saving Throws: As Level 1 Fighter Thief Skills: None Weapon Proficiencies: As Warrior (4) Weapon Specialisation: Yes [+1 AB, +2 DB] Armour Proficency: As Warrior (All) Non Weapon Proficiencies: As Warrior (3) Experience Requirement: 2,000 As you can see, the difference is hardly staggering; the Fighter/Thief lacks access to specialisation and cannot use his Thief Skills in none Thief Armour. He advances in both Classes equally, but spreads his experience between them, so at 5,000 XP it looks like this (rounding up HP for convenience): Thief 4 Attacks: 1 THAC0: 19 Hit Dice: 4D6 (18) Saving Throws: As Level 4 Thief Thief Skills: As Level 4 Thief Weapon Proficiencies: As Thief (3) Weapon Specialisation: No Armour Proficency: As Thief (Light) Non Weapon Proficiencies: As Thief (4) Experience Requirement: 10,000 Fighter 2/Thief 3 Attacks: 1 THAC0: 19 Hit Dice: [(3D6 + 2D10)/2] (15) Thief Skills: As Level 3 Thief Saving Throws: Level 2 Fighter or Level 3 Thief Weapon Proficiencies: As Warrior (4) Weapon Specialisation: No Armour Proficency: As Warrior (All) Non Weapon Proficiencies: As Rogue (3) Experience Requirement: 4,000/5,000 Fighter 3 Attacks: 1 [Specialised 3/2] THAC0: 18 Hit Dice: (3D10) (22) Saving Throws: As Level 3 Fighter Thief Skills: None Weapon Proficiencies: As Warrior (5) Weapon Specialisation: Yes [+1 AB, +2 DB] Armour Proficency: As Warrior (All) Non Weapon Proficiencies: As Warrior (3) Experience Requirement: 8,000 It's quite unlikely that there will ever come a point where a Multi Class Character or Single Class Character will be much better than the other, as the power increase via levelling just isn't that great. The only place where this might be different is with Spell Casting, where Single Class Characters get access to higher Spell Levels earlier. However, having access to 1-3 more Spells is not going to be significantly better than having access to some of the abilities of a different Class, in my opinion. Well I was kind of under the impression that by 2ed they'd clued in that you might actually want to play a role and not just do hack and slash. I remember reading the cleric description in my red box copy of Basic where it said something like, "there are a wide variety of religions in the world, but since that doesn't affect playing the game at all don't worry about it." (I'd have to pull out the PHB to give the exact quote). I thought that by 2ed they'd gotten to a point where roleplaying was considered a "good thing" and not actively discouraged like the Basic set did. Heck, to hear 2ed players talking about the edition I'd certainly think that was the case. Sure, but don't expect that from the Core Books. These were just a reworked version of their 1e predecessors. The actual encouragement of 'Roleplaying' mainly occurred outside of the core rulebooks (the actual word only occurs 3 times in the PHB and 7 in the DMG). Well I suppose an attribute check basically works similarly to using the skill untrained (which would likely be the case for a Fighter), but I do like the continuum you get with how quiet were you rather than the simple pass/fail mechanic. I suppose you're thinking of Move Silently here, which is akin to a Supernatural or Extraordianry 3e Ability, and in that case you are looking at a pass/fail scenario. For Attribute Checks, the DC represents what you need to achieve the task, there's no reason that failing by a great extent cannot be described as more significant than failing by a lesser (or succeeding). On the other hand, there's no need to worry about that either. And it definitely has gone that way to an extent. Personally, and this is just a preference, I'd rather see fewer classes and more customisability of those classes (think the Ranger's combat styles but more so, or the talent trees I've heard of in Star Wars Sage Edition, although I haven't seen how that works yet) rather than a whole boat load of different classes representing very specific concepts, I like the idea of classes being generic archetypes that you customise through the class and/or with multiclassing rather than saying, "I want to play a pirate but I can't because there's no pirate class" (not saying that's what you're saying, just that I've definitely seen that kind of mentality). Personally, I prefer the same, but Wizards have to make money one way or another and specialised Classes is a good way. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent us from making up our own Classes to fill these niches. All Wizards are really supplying are templates that we could alter ourselves (they even provide alteration suggestions). Well, I like skills rather than just an attribute check because then you can represent training/focus in a particular field. And I'm not sure how it worked in 2ed but I thought someone said there were rules around you wanting to roll as high as possible without going over as that meant a "better" result, not sure how you'd represent that concept unless it's for an opposed roll. That might have been a suggestion in Dragon Magazine, I know I have heard it suggested before, but I couldn't source it. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me when you could just do it in the other direction. Proficiencies could be improved the same as Skills, there was just even less chance under the Core implementation. Later on, it became easier, but the base chances were lowered. True enough, there are inherent things with the edition and it can influence play style. It doesn't have to force a play style but the rules and the system can make certain play styles more dominant than others. And I have no problem with someone preferring 2ed, I just have a problem with it when they say they don't like 3.x for reasons that aren't true in 3.x. You seem to be familiar with the workings of the system and have then decided you'd rather play 2ed, that's perfectly valid. Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel when I hear people misrepresenting this and that 'fact' about a system. I don't actually prefer 2e over 3e, I think of them as being suited for their times, so I usually only play them when using a published adventure of the relevant edition. If I want to play long term Dungeons & Dragons style campaigns, I use my House Ruled 2e Game (which as you have observed may not really be 2e at all)
tankschmidt 08-07-07, 03:40 PM	Then why the difference in levelling rates? Leveling rates exist for one reason. If you play a better class, it costs you more to level up. You can cook up any in-game reason you like. Personally, I think one of the worst changes they made for 3.x was giving every class the same experience table. Now if I want to make up a homebrew class, I have to balance every single level against other classes, whereas I used to be able to just switch up the exp chart and everything would be fine and dandy. I'm not sure what the reason for the unified experience chart was, but it sure didn't do much for class balance in the long run. There's 3 completely optional "systems", Psionics, the tome of magic systems and tome of battle. Other than that, everything builds off the base (and even those other systems do as well). What I mean by this is that material from one supplement doesn't disrupt the rest of the party. For instance, if I play a class from Complete Adventurer that doesn't effect anyone else but my character but if you're playing 2ed it sounds like you need to know if you're using any number of different supplements before you even start character generation for the party because it will effect how everyone makes their characters. I think if you come to the table with a warblade, the guy playing a fighter is going to be pretty upset. As for 2nd edition, I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the Player's Option series was just awful. I won't say anything to defend it. Well what I like is that if they do attack then I'm ready. Plus, I can use this to figure out the NPC's CR, which is useful for awarding XP (which doesn't have to be combat-based either). Maybe the party's trying to elude being found, I can work out the tracker and figure out how good a tracker he should be, I can look at it and say, "woah, I just made this guy and he'd be CR 8 and the party's only 4th level, that's not going to be balanced, I should tone him down). Just making stuff up offers more freedom, and possibly quicker generation if you work well that way, but you really have to look at the balance for the character and decide if it really is something the PCs can take on and handle. Just one more thing I wanted to say about NPC's and Monsters in 2nd editions - they had an experience point value. No calculation necessary. Why'd they change that? I don't know. Some people say that a 18th level wizard fireballing a kobold village should get no experience points. I agree, and I'd reward no experience points in any edition. Otherwise, you end up with a KoDT-style mass killing of barwenches. Giving every monster an experience point value that you didn't have to look up in the DMG was the best improvement over 1st edition.
Matthew_ 08-07-07, 03:59 PM	Leveling rates exist for one reason. If you play a better class, it costs you more to level up. You can cook up any in-game reason you like. Personally, I think one of the worst changes they made for 3.x was giving every class the same experience table. Now if I want to make up a homebrew class, I have to balance every single level against other classes, whereas I used to be able to just switch up the exp chart and everything would be fine and dandy. I'm not sure what the reason for the unified experience chart was, but it sure didn't do much for class balance in the long run. Almost certainly to facilitate easy Multi Classing, I think. I think if you come to the table with a warblade, the guy playing a fighter is going to be pretty upset. As for 2nd edition, I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the Player's Option series was just awful. I won't say anything to defend it. I dunno, that's like the Fighter Player being annoyed because a Player brought a Wizard or Cleric. Depends on the precise situation; don't get me wrong, I know what you're saying, you do have to know what is available before you play, even in 3e, but I think the basic mechanics are less open to change. As for Player's Option, well, that series elicited some strong feelings. Just one more thing I wanted to say about NPC's and Monsters in 2nd editions - they had an experience point value. No calculation necessary. Why'd they change that? I don't know. Some people say that a 18th level wizard fireballing a kobold village should get no experience points. I agree, and I'd reward no experience points in any edition. Otherwise, you end up with a KoDT-style mass killing of barwenches. Giving every monster an experience point value that you didn't have to look up in the DMG was the best improvement over 1st edition. No idea on this one; probably just for clarity. I thought they listed all the XP values in the 1e MM (I don't have a copy at the moment)?
shadzar 08-07-07, 05:00 PM	It seems, to me, it boils down to that many people, myself included, don't feel this is a strength, but a weakness of 2E. I really prefer knowing exactly how sneaky I am or how well I can hear and how much outside factors should alter the checks, etc. how much of this do you know in real life, and could the lack of that knowledge of the real world be inherantly part of the reason for wanting to know it in the game? the thing is you don't know "exactly" how sneaky or whatever you are in either because you are a poor judgement of these things. you need a system in which to measure it. the player can read all the material they want from any source, be it official or not, but it doesn't matter when in fact the character will not know any of it. the game cannot give absolutes for these things as they are immeasurable by human standards.
shadzar 08-07-07, 05:17 PM	I'm not sure I agree with you. Obviously, the 3ed designers would have looked at what the most common house rules for 2ed were when they were designing 3ed, it just makes sense. where was their sample taken? how many people did they find out these house rules form? were they only people local to the company HQ, were they only congoers, were they flyers in magazine that only select people purchased, etc? if only one source was considered then they didn't even have any basis for what was common or not. the beginning of 3.x was the player's options crap material. sorceror for example was a common type of way of giving out spells using a system without the need for memorizing spells. but which system was the most common for that? many more people i noticed were working on spell points such as video games had to give the wizard an amount of expendable power to devote to certain spells. your arguement says what was the "common" way of doing it, but without getting information from all people you wouldn't know what the majority houserules boiled down to. like voting in a democracy. example representative voting... two portions of the voting mass each are within a range that gives them one representative each. a = 8000 total b = 12000 total a has votes split: 3000 for X, 5000 for Y b has votes split: 7500 for x, 4500 for Y a's representative votes for Y because they had 5/8th of the votes. b's representative votes for X because they had 5/8th of the votes. so each X and Y are tied with a single vote, 50%. but how did the votes really go? X got 10500 votes, 52.5% Y got _9500 votes, 47.5% clearly more people voted for X than Y, so the majority is in favor of X. depending on the way something was figured as to what "common" was they could have skewed the truth to favor one group over everyone else.
Solik 08-07-07, 05:52 PM	how much of this do you know in real life, and could the lack of that knowledge of the real world be inherantly part of the reason for wanting to know it in the game? If you want to create the character from front to back, you need to know everything about that character -- obviously far more than that character itself knows. For a mostly non-mechanical example, consider a zealous character that believes he is doing good things, but he's actually evil. I, the player, have to know this to play that character correctly. the game cannot give absolutes for these things as they are immeasurable by human standards You can use objective measurements through relativity and an amount of abstraction.
shadzar 08-07-07, 06:18 PM	What I mean by this is that material from one supplement doesn't disrupt the rest of the party. For instance, if I play a class from Complete Adventurer that doesn't effect anyone else but my character but if you're playing 2ed it sounds like you need to know if you're using any number of different supplements before you even start character generation for the party because it will effect how everyone makes their characters. this is and should be true of all editions. you should work as a gorup creating characters that will work together. it is the intent of D&D tobe a group adventure not a colelction of simgle adventures going along similar paths. they are a team and should work as such. also isn't that Complete Adventurer a supplemental book and thusly you should know whether or notit is being allowed for the game before you start creating your character? or do people now just create characters without the DMs knowledge and jsut bring them to games expecting them to be automatically allowed? for me as a DM all rolling of character and...well the entire character creation must be approved by the DM. just because something is in a book doesn't mean it will be allowed. jsut because you want weapon Z because of some ability it grants or feat it stacks with later, etc doesn't mean that type of weapon will be available. example: starting equipment. i usually give starting equipment to player based on what they have as their backgrounds for the character. this often generates a much higher starting "wealth" for characteer when i freely give them equipment, but also allows the character to have a link to its past and reason for deciding to adventure. if a background doesn't fit with the game then it must be changed. like a culture that isn't present in the world as a basis for a background. this not only lets the player choose what will work with the other players, but also lets them know a bit about the world before they start playing. what things have occured in the past and are maybe happeneing in the present. this cuts down some time when actually starting out that you don't have to go through explaining the basics of the world. so just using some supplemental book in order to create a character isn't always an acceptable method. this goes for all editions and all supplemental (should be read OPTIONAL) material. so you should work with the rest of the party even though the rules allow you to not even know what they are or care about it for the sake of the game rather than ones own fun. party cohesion is important. and without considering it there has already been a disruption in the game.
shadzar 08-07-07, 06:25 PM	No idea on this one; probably just for clarity. I thought they listed all the XP values in the 1e MM (I don't have a copy at the moment)? sorry don't have MM handy, but do have MMII easily acessible. random monster for example: Baku LEVEL/X.P. Value: VIII/4900+18/hp MMII page 6. LEVEL and EXPERIENCE POINT VALUE are determined by the method indicated in THE DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE. :confused: bah, never was really fond of 1E and the only reason i keep MMII handy is for the Modrons. interpret what you will from this info.
Otto the Bugbear 08-07-07, 06:28 PM	where was their sample taken? From the players and DMs that volunteered to do so. how many people did they find out these house rules form? Counting those that contributed before breaking the Non-Disclosure Agreement, thousands. The 3rd edition book listed them all; or at least all those that didn't break the NDA. were they only people local to the company HQ No. , were they only congoers No. , were they flyers in magazine that only select people purchased, etc? No. if only one source was considered then they didn't even have any basis for what was common or not. It depends upon you definition of "one source". The "one source" they used was thousands of 2ed players and DMs, all giving input and playtesting the changes. your arguement says what was the "common" way of doing it, but without getting information from all people you wouldn't know what the majority houserules boiled down to. Unless they actually did talk to and utilize that many people (psst, they did.) And utilize the input of all those 2nd edition people when forming the new rule-set (psst, they did).
shadzar 08-07-07, 06:49 PM	From the players and DMs that volunteered to do so. so form those that volunteered? well how did these volunteers find out about the want for their input? again was this just some random thing found only in a few specific locations? i never heard about it. and no i didn't read 3.0 any kind of books for any aknowledgements. or did they just get these people from large areas that have many gamers around. not ever gaming store got this information about wanting volunteers did they? even if they did, does every town have a gaming store? all these factors are forgotten about when things like this are discussed. but i guess if a town doesn't have a gaming store or people that buy XYZ magazine, then their opinions are not worth it?
Matthew_ 08-07-07, 06:52 PM	sorry don't have MM handy, but do have MMII easily acessible. random monster for example: Baku MMII page 6. :confused: bah, never was really fond of 1E and the only reason i keep MMII handy is for the Modrons. interpret what you will from this info. Right. Yeah, that probably refers to how the Dungeon Level and Experience Value were calculated (the formula shows up in the DMG). Though that value would be altered depending on other factors.
shadzar 08-07-07, 07:16 PM	If you want to create the character from front to back, you need to know everything about that character -- obviously far more than that character itself knows. For a mostly non-mechanical example, consider a zealous character that believes he is doing good things, but he's actually evil. I, the player, have to know this to play that character correctly. You can use objective measurements through relativity and an amount of abstraction. but that persona of the character has nothing to do with a finite number implied in the previous post about needing to know "exactly how sneaky". likewise the good and evil aspect are out of game knowledge. because this character has no basis for what really is right or wrong. and what is right or wrong to one may not be to another. so the finites are the problem since there can't be a true way of measuring everything vs everything else. unless you want to measure everything againt 42. :rofl:
Otto the Bugbear 08-07-07, 07:54 PM	so form those that volunteered? well how did these volunteers find out about the want for their input? They started with the RPGA, then expanded from there. again was this just some random thing found only in a few specific locations? Again, no. i never heard about it. So what. That means nothing except you didn't hear about it. and no i didn't read 3.0 any kind of books for any aknowledgements. That's nice. or did they just get these people from large areas that have many gamers around. Large areas (the world), yes, with many gamers around. not ever gaming store got this information about wanting volunteers did they? Sure they did. even if they did, does every town have a gaming store? What's your point? Are you really going to go down the road that they didn't ask every single last gamer on the face of the planet? all these factors are forgotten about when things like this are discussed. but i guess if a town doesn't have a gaming store or people that buy XYZ magazine, then their opinions are not worth it? :rolleyes: Try thinking before posting.
shadzar 08-07-07, 10:18 PM	They started with the RPGA, then expanded from there. Again, no. So what. That means nothing except you didn't hear about it. That's nice. Large areas (the world), yes, with many gamers around. Sure they did. What's your point? Are you really going to go down the road that they didn't ask every single last gamer on the face of the planet? :rolleyes: Try thinking before posting. could you be any less of an ass or is it because you have some uncon winner thing that gives you the right to think you are omnipotent and always right so you get to be one? i hate yo tell you with your small ability to see beyond your own nose, but no every gaming store did NOT get information on volunteers being wanted for input. how do i know this? because mine did not get any information on it. :eek: well i guess that flaws your entire theory then doesn' it? my point is unlike you may wish to think, everyone was not given a chance to respond. only a select few were because i spoke to MANY people at the time of the transition from TSR to WotC control and up until 3.0 was released and we never heard of any such volunteer request. not that they didn't personally ask ever D&D player, or RPGer, or other type of gamer; but your idea that everyone had a chance is incorrect because those that didn't even know about it were in no way given a chance to give their ideas. which again leads to the must have been some localized sample taken from places they wanted input from. on purpose or improper sampling causing the "common" houserules theory to be wrong. example: going to a grocery store to take a poll of people buying soft drinks which one is better coke of pepsi. now if you only allow those buying pepsi to take the poll then you are skewing the results in favor of pepsi over coke. if you ask all persons buying soda or just coming into the store you get an unbiased sampling. therefore if only certain locations were chosen to pick volunteeers from then you wouldn't have any idea of what the common is except from those people. provide me proof of where these volunters were taken from and how they found out about it, then explain why myself and many people i know never heard about it. once you can do that you will probably understand for yourself how i mean the sampling and what was "common" to those sampled may not be true.
Ultima0071 08-07-07, 10:27 PM	Infact I still play 2.0! About to upgrade to 3.5 =P Kinda got bored:P
ArcTan 08-07-07, 11:00 PM	could you be any less of an ass or is it because you have some uncon winner thing that gives you the right to think you are omnipotent and always right so you get to be one? i hate yo tell you with your small ability to see beyond your own nose, but no every gaming store did NOT get information on volunteers being wanted for input. how do i know this? because mine did not get any information on it. :eek: well i guess that flaws your entire theory then doesn' it? my point is unlike you may wish to think, everyone was not given a chance to respond. only a select few were because i spoke to MANY people at the time of the transition from TSR to WotC control and up until 3.0 was released and we never heard of any such volunteer request. not that they didn't personally ask ever D&D player, or RPGer, or other type of gamer; but your idea that everyone had a chance is incorrect because those that didn't even know about it were in no way given a chance to give their ideas. which again leads to the must have been some localized sample taken from places they wanted input from. on purpose or improper sampling causing the "common" houserules theory to be wrong. example: going to a grocery store to take a poll of people buying soft drinks which one is better coke of pepsi. now if you only allow those buying pepsi to take the poll then you are skewing the results in favor of pepsi over coke. if you ask all persons buying soda or just coming into the store you get an unbiased sampling. therefore if only certain locations were chosen to pick volunteeers from then you wouldn't have any idea of what the common is except from those people. provide me proof of where these volunters were taken from and how they found out about it, then explain why myself and many people i know never heard about it. once you can do that you will probably understand for yourself how i mean the sampling and what was "common" to those sampled may not be true. Yeah, see, the fact that a sample is smaller than the entire population does not, by itself, cause the sample to be biased. Otherwise polling would be utterly impossible -- do you think WotC *ever* had enough money and resources to ask *every single damn player in the entire country* their opinion? Of course not. But unless you can find some evidence that whatever random sampling method they used was biased, you're talking out of your ass. They had no interest in being biased, since they were trying to sell their product to as many people as possible -- presumably they would've tried to be as unbiased as possible (all companies try to be as unbiased as possible when doing polls for their own internal research, since no one benefits from being fooled into thinking people like them when they don't). The fact that you and your friends don't like it is not proof that their sampling method is flawed, since "you and your friends" is a hell of a lot more likely to be biased than any sample they could've come up with.
ArcTan 08-07-07, 11:03 PM	but that persona of the character has nothing to do with a finite number implied in the previous post about needing to know "exactly how sneaky". So? How is having that number worse than knowing exactly how sneaky he is based on the fact that "He's a Thief" or "He's a Ranger"? Surely a world where all Thieves and all Rangers fall within an extremely narrow band of sneakiness is less realistic and less interesting where there's at least a separate "finite number" that determines each of the things the character can do. The point of Skills is that, unlike Non-Weapon Proficiencies, in real life we are all very aware that everyone who can do something has *different levels of proficiency* at it, rather than knowing how to do it being a binary thing. likewise the good and evil aspect are out of game knowledge. because this character has no basis for what really is right or wrong. and what is right or wrong to one may not be to another. This has never been true for as long as D&D has had alignment and beings who are aware of alignment (i.e. for as long as D&D has existed).
ArcTan 08-07-07, 11:06 PM	this is and should be true of all editions. you should work as a gorup creating characters that will work together. it is the intent of D&D tobe a group adventure not a colelction of simgle adventures going along similar paths. they are a team and should work as such. Yes. However, everyone in the party should not need to be intimately familiar with how the rules of my character work in order to work with my character while building their characters. The amount of work needed to make a character should be restricted to me, the person making the character, and the DM, who should ideally only have to approve my choices as balanced or not balanced rather than have to design all the stuff *he* does very carefully around my character's abilities (sadly, 3e has not yet reached this goal). Good game design, even for PnP, should be like object-oriented code -- everyone knows exactly what affects what else and knows what you can change without creating cascading changes elsewhere. I should be able to propose a change to my character and I should thereafter be the only one who has to *directly* deal with that change. Otherwise you face the problem of exponential expansion of complexity every time a new option comes into the game. We already have this with spells, but current D&D does a good job of trying to limit this *only* to things like the magic system.
ArcTan 08-07-07, 11:15 PM	See, the nice thing about some editions of (A)D&D -- and I will agree that 2nd edition is not the perfect example, by far -- is that there aren't rules to cover a lot of situations. Let's play some 3.x: if I want to scale a wall, dive between an ogre's legs, and convince it to attack me, I have to make a climb check (DC depends on wall, I move at half -- or is it quarter? -- speed), tumble check (DC 25, I think?, half speed as well?), and then I need some kind of taunt feat? The bottom line is that if you're not hardcore rules savvy, you're going to have to crack some books to find out. In earlier editions, the DM was encouraged to make up rules as he went along. In this case, I would require a player to roll under his str score for the climb, roll under is dex for the dive, and roll under his charisma for the taunt. Next player's turn. In my opinion, it's actually a fault of the game to cover those rules. ******* it, I really hate this argument. No one forces you to use rules. If the grapple rules in 3e take too long, *you can throw them out*. The introduction to the 3e DMG talks about the DM's absolute prerogatives over the game just as much as the 2e DMG -- not that it *has to* in the first place. (What's going to happen if I change the rules for grapple? Is the tracking device they installed in the book going to start beeping? Is Skip Williams going to come over and beat me up?) If people actually use the rules put in front of them, it's because they *want to*. Either because they like the rules better than any alternative they can think of, or because *they're not good at thinking up new rules*. Either reason is a valid reason not to spend years houseruling up your own quasi-homebrew system. Look, when you buy an RPG system, you're paying designers to give you something. If you don't like what they give you, *don't buy the damn thing*. Buy something else, or write something else. But don't complain that rules *exist* for something you want to make up rules for. No one can *ever* stop you from doing that. The problem is that the "good DM" the 2e apologists keep talking about is not actually that common. The "good DM"'s goodness is in the eye of the beholder, and it's a lot harder to shop around for different DMs than it is for different books -- a DM can't be taken home and read in the privacy of your own room so that you can predict how he'll react in a lot of situations. Making the game something *dependent* on having a "good DM" is a horrible weakness of the game. It means you can't move from gaming group to gaming group with any expectation of what's going to happen. It means that if you're stuck with a bad DM, you have no foundational baseline on which to argue issues of fairness or realism. It means that if you're trying to learn to be a good DM yourself, you get no guidance other than trial-and-error, i.e. you have to put your friends through the agony of a dozen really bad games before you figure it out (if you ever do). *Why* is it a good thing to *force* people to have to do this? WHY? The culture that thinks that you have to have this Darwinian process of forcing people to become gurus about adjudication on the fly and that people who can't do it have to be enslaved to them and beholden to them and value and treasure their "good DM" beyond all measure afterwards -- AARGH! I hate it. It hate it. I hate it. It's terrible for the growth of the hobby, it vastly decreases the net fun people could be having, and it turns people into obnoxious self-righteous little turds. ("Well, *I'm* the DM, and what I say goes!") Screw that crap.
Matthew_ 08-07-07, 11:16 PM	The point of Skills is that, unlike Non-Weapon Proficiencies, in real life we are all very aware that everyone who can do something has *different levels of proficiency* at it, rather than knowing how to do it being a binary thing. I think you are probably confusing Attribute Checks with Proficiencies. Non Weapon Proficiencies could be improved ad infinitum without reference to Level (i.e. they were not capped). The key differences were mode of expression and number of 'Skill Points/Proficiency Slots' available. The Dungeon Master set the difficulty modifier for any Proficiency Check and decided whether one was needed (the equivalent of 3e's 'take 10')
ArcTan 08-07-07, 11:20 PM	Leveling rates exist for one reason. If you play a better class, it costs you more to level up. You can cook up any in-game reason you like. Personally, I think one of the worst changes they made for 3.x was giving every class the same experience table. Now if I want to make up a homebrew class, I have to balance every single level against other classes, whereas I used to be able to just switch up the exp chart and everything would be fine and dandy. I'm not sure what the reason for the unified experience chart was, but it sure didn't do much for class balance in the long run. Why abstract this as "slower levelling"? Why not have the same number of levels, but have the "better" class gain less total benefit with each level they gain? Ultimately it's all about people with the same total amount of XP getting the same amount of power, right? That's the point -- any total lump of XP should represent a total amount of power, and it's needless complication to divide one 10,000 XP lump into five levels and one 10,000 XP lump into ten levels, because one class is "better" than the other. Just have 10,000 XP be the *same number of levels*, and have the class with five good levels for the cost of 10,000 divide each of those good levels into two not-as-good levels, and the one with twenty crappy levels for the cost of 10,000 combine them into ten not-as-crappy levels. XP is XP is XP, and levels should be levels should be levels. It's like Spinal Tap wanting their knobs to go to 11. Just one more thing I wanted to say about NPC's and Monsters in 2nd editions - they had an experience point value. No calculation necessary. Why'd they change that? I don't know. Because otherwise the total size of the XP pool spirals endlessly into the heavens and becomes a royal pain in the ass to keep track of. Also, it means that you can actually *give monsters class levels*, and increase or decrease the power of the *same monster* smoothly and evenly (by adding or subtracting HD and class levels), without hassle. At least, in theory it does. Some people say that a 18th level wizard fireballing a kobold village should get no experience points. I agree, and I'd reward no experience points in any edition. Otherwise, you end up with a KoDT-style mass killing of barwenches. Some people don't like everything being decided by pure DM fiat. Including some DMs, who aren't comfortable with fiating everything, because it makes a hell of a lot more work for them.
Matthew_ 08-07-07, 11:38 PM	Making the game something *dependent* on having a "good DM" is a horrible weakness of the game. It means you can't move from gaming group to gaming group with any expectation of what's going to happen. It means that if you're stuck with a bad DM, you have no foundational baseline on which to argue issues of fairness or realism. It means that if you're trying to learn to be a good DM yourself, you get no guidance other than trial-and-error, i.e. you have to put your friends through the agony of a dozen really bad games before you figure it out (if you ever do). *Why* is it a good thing to *force* people to have to do this? WHY? The culture that thinks that you have to have this Darwinian process of forcing people to become gurus about adjudication on the fly and that people who can't do it have to be enslaved to them and beholden to them and value and treasure their "good DM" beyond all measure afterwards -- AARGH! I hate it. It hate it. I hate it. It's terrible for the growth of the hobby, it vastly decreases the net fun people could be having, and it turns people into obnoxious self-righteous little turds. ("Well, *I'm* the DM, and what I say goes!") Screw that crap. Hang on there. A bad DM for 3e will still make the game rubbish. A good DM in any edition is something to value. Sure, it's a bit annoying to move groups and find that they don't play by the same rules you have been, but that's not too different from playing with a group that uses an entirely different system. 2e wasn't particularly dependent on having a 'good DM' to function, though it was dependent on having a DM that knew the rules to the game (not a particularly easy thing, as the text was poorly laid out to say the least). 3e is easier to learn and has more intuitive mechanics, but it doesn't follow that it is significantly less reliant on a 'good DM'. The criteria has changed slightly, but that's about it.
Optimator 08-07-07, 11:58 PM	Sure, and I know that many people feel that way. I have no problem with this. I know you don't, and you're a gentleman and a scholar for doing so. :) how much of this do you know in real life, and could the lack of that knowledge of the real world be inherantly part of the reason for wanting to know it in the game? the thing is you don't know "exactly" how sneaky or whatever you are in either because you are a poor judgement of these things. you need a system in which to measure it. the player can read all the material they want from any source, be it official or not, but it doesn't matter when in fact the character will not know any of it. the game cannot give absolutes for these things as they are immeasurable by human standards. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say with all that.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 12:18 AM	Hang on there. A bad DM for 3e will still make the game rubbish. A good DM in any edition is something to value. Sure, it's a bit annoying to move groups and find that they don't play by the same rules you have been, but that's not too different from playing with a group that uses an entirely different system. 2e wasn't particularly dependent on having a 'good DM' to function, though it was dependent on having a DM that knew the rules to the game (not a particularly easy thing, as the text was poorly laid out to say the least). 3e is easier to learn and has more intuitive mechanics, but it doesn't follow that it is significantly less reliant on a 'good DM'. The criteria has changed slightly, but that's about it. I was responding to a post that said it was an actively bad thing that the game had rules to cover certain relatively common instances rather than forcing the DM to make things up on the fly. Forcing the DM to make things up on the fly means demanding that the game have a "good DM" (or players willing to ignore the BS rulings of a bad DM).
Matthew_ 08-08-07, 12:38 AM	Ah right, I must have lost sight of that point by the time I reached the bottom of that post. ;) Yeah, I would agree with you there, it's no bad thing to supply multiple examples of common modifiers and certainly not actively bad to supply precise rules.
shadzar 08-08-07, 02:08 AM	Yeah, see, the fact that a sample is smaller than the entire population does not, by itself, cause the sample to be biased. Otherwise polling would be utterly impossible -- do you think WotC *ever* had enough money and resources to ask *every single damn player in the entire country* their opinion? Of course not. But unless you can find some evidence that whatever random sampling method they used was biased, you're talking out of your ass. They had no interest in being biased, since they were trying to sell their product to as many people as possible -- presumably they would've tried to be as unbiased as possible (all companies try to be as unbiased as possible when doing polls for their own internal research, since no one benefits from being fooled into thinking people like them when they don't). The fact that you and your friends don't like it is not proof that their sampling method is flawed, since "you and your friends" is a hell of a lot more likely to be biased than any sample they could've come up with. the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of whomever is saying their sample was truely random and involving all possible aspects of the gaming community, or whatever is being sampled. that is what it means when something is challenged. the one making the claim must refute the challenge. not that WotC has to make some statement on how they got the volunteers, but the person who says they did it in a way to provide an even sampling. i offered my proof. i had never heard about it. where is the proof i keep asking about that shows that everyone outside of a small specific range was given notice or chance to respond to this call for volunteers? what demographics were targeted? what locations were these people found from? did they come only from gamers or RPGers or from other type of gamers? were the RPGers tabletop or video gamers? were the tabletop gamers only D&D players, or did they play other RPGS as well? that is what i am saying. unless it can be proven otherwise there is no way we can be certain the results were not biased in order to produce the product any certain way. hey maybe they jsut read past Dragon Magazines and found those things that were discussed most often. maybe they went through "letters to the editior" and foudn the same. but that is stil not a proper sampling since people probably only wrote in if they got the magazine, took a chacne the letter would be included in it to have a response. and i doubt al the letters that were sent in survived all this time until WotC came to possess the rights to make D&D. we will never know if the sampling was biased for or against any aspect of the game, or favored system. even if it wasn't it doesn't mean the input from the "volunters" was taken into consideration. just they were given credit for participating in whatever went on.
shadzar 08-08-07, 02:23 AM	Making the game something *dependent* on having a "good DM" is a horrible weakness of the game. It means you can't move from gaming group to gaming group with any expectation of what's going to happen. It means that if you're stuck with a bad DM, you have no foundational baseline on which to argue issues of fairness or realism. It means that if you're trying to learn to be a good DM yourself, you get no guidance other than trial-and-error, i.e. you have to put your friends through the agony of a dozen really bad games before you figure it out (if you ever do). *Why* is it a good thing to *force* people to have to do this? WHY? The culture that thinks that you have to have this Darwinian process of forcing people to become gurus about adjudication on the fly and that people who can't do it have to be enslaved to them and beholden to them and value and treasure their "good DM" beyond all measure afterwards -- AARGH! I hate it. It hate it. I hate it. It's terrible for the growth of the hobby, it vastly decreases the net fun people could be having, and it turns people into obnoxious self-righteous little turds. ("Well, *I'm* the DM, and what I say goes!") Screw that crap. you fail to understand the game could not function without dependancy on the DM. there are single player games for just one person. not one player, but a single person. i forgot the "module" name but at least one i know exists. the game relies on other people. D&D is not monopoly where the DM is like the person playing the bank but doesn't have a playing piece to move around the board. if you want a DMless system then i have no idea where to tell you to look. if one exists then maybe it isn't doing so well. if one id exist it may have collapsed in favor of the other way...having a DM/GM/ST/whatever. your problem seems that you don't like houserules because they are dependant one a single group rather than being universal. thats fine. find a group that doesn't want to houserule and play with them while you can, or enjoy the one you have now. not many will play by-the-book exclusively. the game is about having fun while using your imagination. when people use their imagination they prefer not to be placed into a box and say they can't go outside it. why should 3.x be any different than previous editions? in the beginning no one knew what they were doing and all fumbled along. each new edition including 3.0 did the same thing. do you think a ruleset could be made where when first picking up the books everyone will play it the same way without making changes. thus no matter which group you find it will be 100% consistent with the last group you were in...??? the part i bolded makes it sound as if you really want to DM but can't do it on the fly like others can and have a grudge against them because of it. if that is the case then i would ask your friends for help with this problem. you are expecting too much out of the game or the players are asking too much of you as a DM. the game should move at the speed of the DM. if you can't DM on the fly and people are upset about it, then just have tons of stuff ready in advance. otherwise i have no idea what you are on about with the bold part. everyone must start at the bottom and work you way up while DMing. with practice on the fly style DMing becomes easier. just sit and read the rules and see what you think works and why and what doesnt seem to work and why. then see what you can do to change it if and when it doesn't work while playing.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 02:32 AM	the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of whomever is saying their sample was truely random and involving all possible aspects of the gaming community, or whatever is being sampled. No, the burden of proof rests on the person making an accusation of bias in the sample. While samples can be biased by accident, generally a bias involves some kind of negligence or incompetence or attempt at fraud on the part of the researcher, and saying there is bias -- without evidence -- is making a serious charge without grounds. Bad form. that is what it means when something is challenged. the one making the claim must refute the challenge. Er, no. The person accusing a generally well-regarded and successful games company of engaging in some kind of conspiracy to ignore him and his oh-so-important views is the one with the burden of proof, I'm afraid. not that WotC has to make some statement on how they got the volunteers, but the person who says they did it in a way to provide an even sampling. I frankly don't see what would have caused an *un*even sampling. What, do you think they purposely handpicked the snot-nosed video-game-playing anime-watching teenagers, just to make you unhappy? i offered my proof. i had never heard about it. Big deal. You're one dude. To be blunt, who gives a crap about you? Plenty of random surveys are being done all the time, every day. I don't hear about most of them. *I'm just one guy*. There are millions of people in this country and at least hundreds of thousands in every important demographic people want to study. The fact I don't hear about it doesn't mean crap. And it meant even less back when 3e was first being developed and the Internet hadn't become as all-pervasive as it is now. At least now if I really want to I can hear about everything I want by setting up an RSS feed to a million-and-one gaming blog sites and news sites. It wasn't so good back then. where is the proof i keep asking about that shows that everyone outside of a small specific range was given notice or chance to respond to this call for volunteers? What's the "small specific range"? What motive would WotC have to target this "small specific range"? If they had a motive, was it, perhaps, a rational one based on other market research? (Not a lot of 90-year-old women play D&D, after all.) what demographics were targeted? what locations were these people found from? did they come only from gamers or RPGers or from other type of gamers? were the RPGers tabletop or video gamers? were the tabletop gamers only D&D players, or did they play other RPGS as well? that is what i am saying. unless it can be proven otherwise there is no way we can be certain the results were not biased in order to produce the product any certain way. I can assume that they wanted to make money, like any company, and would not have *purposely* tried to skew their survey in a way that would involve them making less money. However, if they would make more money by ignoring one small (but vocal) demographic in favor of much larger demographics that will spend more money and help the community grow faster, then they're perfectly within their rights to do so. I'd even say they're *right* to do so, because in this respect what's good for the company is good for the hobby (growth).
shadzar 08-08-07, 02:33 AM	This has never been true for as long as D&D has had alignment and beings who are aware of alignment (i.e. for as long as D&D has existed). Alignment–a factor in defining a player character that reflects his basic attitude toward society and the forces of the universe. the character doesn't know what alignment he is, only what their philosphy is and how they percieve that to be in relationship to others. PCs don't just walk around saying in lawful good, or "that paladin is lawful good so he shouldn't have killed that X". players do it, but shouldn't because it would not be in character to do so. some people can't tell the difference from an in character response from an out of character one even when they are the ones speaking. out of character is above, so here is an in character way of speaking about the paladin bit... "that paladin shouldn't have killed X because it goes against his philosophy." never any fun to lose levels without knowing it because you changed alignments and never realized it. if the player doesn't know until after the fact, then how could the character know all along?
ArcTan 08-08-07, 02:50 AM	you fail to understand the game could not function without dependancy on the DM. There are degrees to everything. A baseball game to some degree depends on an umpire, but you don't need a highly-trained umpire who spends all his time studying umpiring to play a game of baseball for fun. For fun, you just need to make sure all the players have a decent understanding of the rules. And even for a professional game, the umpire does not need to *make up rules on the fly* all the time. there are single player games for just one person. not one player, but a single person. i forgot the "module" name but at least one i know exists. the game relies on other people. D&D is not monopoly where the DM is like the person playing the bank but doesn't have a playing piece to move around the board. There are degrees to everything. I'm not saying D&D should be "DM-less" in the sense that no one runs the NPCs, no one sets up the scenario, no one sets up the monsters, no one rolls dice for the environment, etc. I should of course be *allowed* to change whatever I want, as the DM. There shouldn't ever be a rule against creating variations or modifications. I shouldn't *have to* make up things just because the rules provide no guidance in a particular situation, at least not all the time, at least not if I paid cold, hard cash for *three freaking core books in hardcover*. if you want a DMless system then i have no idea where to tell you to look. if one exists then maybe it isn't doing so well. if one id exist it may have collapsed in favor of the other way...having a DM/GM/ST/whatever. You're conflating things again. There's a difference between not having a DM and being completely dependent on a DM to make everything up on the fly. Most good DMs are *better* when they have to do less work taking care of the picayune nonsense and can actually be creative about the important things. Most bad DMs can still be acceptable if they have a good ruleset cushioning them and filling in the gaps for the things they didn't think of. your problem seems that you don't like houserules because they are dependant one a single group rather than being universal. thats fine. find a group that doesn't want to houserule and play with them while you can, or enjoy the one you have now. It's not that I don't like all houserules. I dislike *not having rules* so that you *have* to houserule. Because it means many people will houserule *badly*. not many will play by-the-book exclusively. No, but that's mainly because the rules we have are still fairly bad. the game is about having fun while using your imagination. when people use their imagination they prefer not to be placed into a box and say they can't go outside it. No rule system has ever said that. However, a rule system should at least provide *structure* so that when you go outside the box you have a pattern to follow and you're not blatantly contradicting the rest of the system. If not, you might as well play Tabula Rasa and not give your money to WotC, or TSR. (Frankly, I continue to be amazed that so many people gave money to TSR, effectively for nothing in return but cover art and a big pile of paper to throw away.) why should 3.x be any different than previous editions? in the beginning no one knew what they were doing and all fumbled along. each new edition including 3.0 did the same thing. No. Over time, people learned from their mistakes, and they improved. It's this thing called progress. Of *course* RPGs are better now than when they were first invented. The people who first invented them literally knew nothing about RPGs. They had no mistakes to learn from. do you think a ruleset could be made where when first picking up the books everyone will play it the same way without making changes. No, but one could be made where you didn't have to make things up because the rules for some common occurrence simply *didn't exist*. Do you see the difference? thus no matter which group you find it will be 100% consistent with the last group you were in...??? Most 3e games have a minor baseline of consistency that 2e games did not have. Rarely do you see a group that has made up an entire table of their own to deal with Sneak Attacks, for instance. the part i bolded makes it sound as if you really want to DM but can't do it on the fly like others can and have a grudge against them because of it. Er, no. You have no reason to believe me, of course, but this isn't my problem at all. I'm pretty decent at ruling on the fly. I just don't like doing it. It's never quite as good as having a consistent system from the beginning. More to the point, I know a lot of people who *can't* do it and sitting through a game that barely holds together because the DM is scotch-taping things at every moment is deeply unsatisfying. I do not like the feeling I've had, ever since I started DMing, that I can't be a player anymore because I can see the seams whenever someone less good than me DMs. I don't like constantly itching to take the reins from someone else because I can see that they're just making things up by the seat of their pants, half of which are blatantly unfair ("But he should've been able to *make* that check! You're just screwing us over because the longer we're stuck on this the more time you have to think!") and half of which you just know will cause problems down the line ("Well, if wishes work like that, why can't we just solve the whole campaign with our next damn wish, then?") if that is the case then i would ask your friends for help with this problem. you are expecting too much out of the game or the players are asking too much of you as a DM. See, I don't think they are. I think that a good ruleset wouldn't require someone to be an improvisational genius in every group for the group to have a good time. I know that the 3e games I've seen are *easier* than 2e games -- a DM who's stuck really can make something up involving rolling a d20 with a modifier and come up with a genuinely balanced houserule, whereas everything in 2e was a crapshoot. But it could still be easier than that. the game should move at the speed of the DM. if you can't DM on the fly and people are upset about it, then just have tons of stuff ready in advance. Please stop with the patronizing grandfatherly act. I'm not here for advice on how to DM. I know how to DM. And I think half the stuff you have to know to know how to DM, you shouldn't have to know. You should not have to either be an improvisational genius or spend every evening of your work week with a notebook full of graph paper. There are a million and one things in the world that produce more fun per hour spent than DMing D&D. It shouldn't work this way. otherwise i have no idea what you are on about with the bold part. everyone must start at the bottom and work you way up while DMing. with practice on the fly style DMing becomes easier. just sit and read the rules and see what you think works and why and what doesnt seem to work and why. then see what you can do to change it if and when it doesn't work while playing. See, trial and error SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY. You should have a ruleset that basically *works*. Not a ruleset that's *perfect*, one that *works*. Where if you follow it like a blind, dumb, stupid machine the worst that can happen is that you say "Well, that wasn't my style" or "Well, that wasn't really as much fun as I thought it would be". 3e is like this. Don't poke at it *too* hard and a blind, dumb stupid machine can run it -- which means that a human DM's screwups can be saved by reverting to the ruleset. 2e is not. A blind, dumb stupid machine trying to run a 2e game will let the game collapse in the first five minutes. Which means that learning to DM and play 2e is a slow, painful, stupid process that SHOULDN'T TAKE AS LONG AS IT DOES. And, indeed, it *doesn't* with 3e, or with any number of other, less stupidly-designed RPG systems. The myth that "Everyone has to start at the bottom" and everyone has to endure endless months of torturous, painful, slow-going, incoherent sessions to have fun is just that, a myth. It should die. Good systems get games going faster and fun being had faster earlier than bad systems. A bad system is never *impossible* to have fun with -- by tinkering and houseruling and making crap up your vaunted "good DM" could turn the instruction manual to a toaster into a fun RPG. But IT'S MORE WORK. The value of an RPG system is measured by the amount of work the DM has to do to make it fun, just like the value of a script is measured by the amount of work an actor has to do to make it interesting. There are plenty of horrible scripts that get made into good movies by the director and actors working their asses off. There are plenty of horrible game systems that produce fun games by the GM working his ass off. That doesn't make the game system less horrible. And it's a creepy kind of Stockholm syndrome where a bunch of stupid 2e fans, myself included, kept sending checks to TSR for the privilege of having to *make up our own entertainment* and pay them money for it. Well, screw that. A good game system is a system that delivers value for money -- and that means that it has fun, usable stuff in it that *I don't have to fix or make up replacements for* when I pay for it.
shadzar 08-08-07, 02:53 AM	Yes. However, everyone in the party should not need to be intimately familiar with how the rules of my character work in order to work with my character while building their characters. The amount of work needed to make a character should be restricted to me, the person making the character, and the DM, who should ideally only have to approve my choices as balanced or not balanced rather than have to design all the stuff *he* does very carefully around my character's abilities (sadly, 3e has not yet reached this goal). Good game design, even for PnP, should be like object-oriented code -- everyone knows exactly what affects what else and knows what you can change without creating cascading changes elsewhere. I should be able to propose a change to my character and I should thereafter be the only one who has to *directly* deal with that change. Otherwise you face the problem of exponential expansion of complexity every time a new option comes into the game. We already have this with spells, but current D&D does a good job of trying to limit this *only* to things like the magic system. ok yes other players are not directly privy to every aspect of your character like alignment, equipment, etc. the characters are also not privy to the class, age, etc that you do not tel them. i agree with that. some people jsut can't keep in out of game knowledge out of the game and there is just some things your character may want kept secret so other players don't need to know them either. a part of player with other people is learning about their characters as you go. while the changes made to your character may only immediately affect it, it does directly affect the rest of the party. if you are the only healer and somehow drink poison and die...that directly affects everyone else for they must find a way of getting healed. you are a part of the whole when playing D&D. you can sell some junk item and you get the gold. your character is not in a vacuum and everything you do to it affects not only the other players buy the entire game world.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 02:53 AM	Alignment–a factor in defining a player character that reflects his basic attitude toward society and the forces of the universe. the character doesn't know what alignment he is, only what their philosphy is and how they percieve that to be in relationship to others. PCs don't just walk around saying in lawful good, or "that paladin is lawful good so he shouldn't have killed that X". players do it, but shouldn't because it would not be in character to do so. ...Unless they have a magical way of detecting it. Which they do. some people can't tell the difference from an in character response from an out of character one even when they are the ones speaking. out of character is above, so here is an in character way of speaking about the paladin bit... "that paladin shouldn't have killed X because it goes against his philosophy." Replacing a term used in the game with a term not used in the game is not, shock and surprise, the definition of "good roleplaying" or "immersion". The D&D world is one where Law, Good, Evil, and Chaos make up four poles of a Great Wheel of Outer Planes that *literally exist*. You can visit them. You can see how they shade into each other. No learned character would actually be ignorant of the fact that this is how their universe works. never any fun to lose levels without knowing it because you changed alignments and never realized it. if the player doesn't know until after the fact, then how could the character know all along? Er, the player shouldn't not know until after the fact. "Ha ha! You just shifted to Neutral! No more Monk levels for you!" is the classic stupid dick DM move. If you're one of those people who thinks "old-school" D&D was superior because of its potential for dick DM moves, it's just one more thing we have to disagree about. A player absolutely deserves to be informed about potential alignment shifts, just like I think I would generally be aware, in real life, if I found my basic philosophical outlook on life changing.
shadzar 08-08-07, 03:03 AM	Why abstract this as "slower levelling"? Why not have the same number of levels, but have the "better" class gain less total benefit with each level they gain? therein lies the problem. players and DMs have known that for years, yet designers only made the XP required per level the same, while there are still huge leaps in power for some classes over others. the slower rate of levelling helped the power of each class to bea about the same so some classes didn't become useless when compared to the other classes. now, as i was discussing in another thread; the core fighter is inferior to every other class and FAR inferior to spellcasters at higher levels. but now they get levels at the same XP # rather than slowing the more powerful class down to keep the fighter able to not become useless.
shadzar 08-08-07, 03:07 AM	I honestly don't know what you are trying to say with all that. there is no way there can be a finite number to define effectiveness of any given skill because of extenuating circumstances...aka situational modifiers.
shadzar 08-08-07, 03:13 AM	No, the burden of proof rests on the person making an accusation of bias in the sample. While samples can be biased by accident, generally a bias involves some kind of negligence or incompetence or attempt at fraud on the part of the researcher, and saying there is bias -- without evidence -- is making a serious charge without grounds. Bad form. i am my evidence. it was said it "started with the RPGA and went from there". where did it go from there? it was stated that 'all gaming stores knew about it'. while my local gaming store and its patrons heard nothing of the sort. are you suggesting that by some freak accident only one gaming store in the entire country didn't hear about them looking for volunteers? but a gaming store in another city also did not mention this to its gamers either because likewise they didn't hear about it.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 03:16 AM	there is no way there can be a finite number to define effectiveness of any given skill because of extenuating circumstances...aka situational modifiers. So... what? Checks can never be rolled at all, because real life is impossible to abstract into mathematical terms? The whole concept of representing realistic events on paper with numbers is bankrupt? RPGs should not exist? We should all be out talking to girls instead? I kind of agree, but I somehow doubt that's the point you were trying to make.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 03:19 AM	therein lies the problem. players and DMs have known that for years, yet designers only made the XP required per level the same, while there are still huge leaps in power for some classes over others. Then that's a problem with class design. I agree it still exists. It's because they tried to keep the new classes too similar to the old classes. A Fighter that actually worked by 3e rules should bear no resemblance to the original Fighting-Man at all, nor should the 3e Wizard look anything like the Magic-User. The problem was that the Fighting-Man and Magic-User were meant to differentiate *players*, not just characters. Fighting-Man was supposed to be what the dumb player took who wanted to do the same thing every time but be good at it. Magic-User was meant to be what the smart player took who wanted the challenge of having a character it was almost impossible to keep alive at low levels in return for godlike power at high. This is not a stable way to do power balance. You are not guaranteed to have the miraculous distribution of the right kinds of players to make up the right kind of party for this kind of thing. This kind of thing can never produce a game that evolves beyond the same petty stereotypes. Better is to have a bunch of characters who have different *flavor* and different *emphases* but are all about as competent as each other, so no one gets screwed over by picking the "bad" class. They're making great leaps and bounds in this direction with books like Tome of Battle and the new SW Saga Edition. I hope they succeed when 4e comes out.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 03:23 AM	i am my evidence. it was said it "started with the RPGA and went from there". where did it go from there? it was stated that 'all gaming stores knew about it'. while my local gaming store and its patrons heard nothing of the sort. are you suggesting that by some freak accident only one gaming store in the entire country didn't hear about them looking for volunteers? but a gaming store in another city also did not mention this to its gamers either because likewise they didn't hear about it. I never saw someone saying that every gaming store in the country was contacted. Merely that thousands were. If he said each and every single one was contacted, he was probably exaggerating.
shadzar 08-08-07, 03:41 AM	I never saw someone saying that every gaming store in the country was contacted. Merely that thousands were. If he said each and every single one was contacted, he was probably exaggerating. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13340354#post13340354 whether being serious or jsut an ass when disputing facts, that the local gaming stores i went too knew nothing about it; i can only hope he was responding in kind rather than responding with nonsense.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 03:43 AM	He did not, in fact, say that every single gaming store was contacted. Merely that they got people from large areas all over the world and many people were contacted. So you weren't contacted. I wasn't contacted either. No one ever said every single person or every single gaming store was contacted. *But a lot of people were*. The fact that you think that you're so important that if you weren't contacted, it must mean hardly anyone was or that the sample of people who were contacted was horribly biased (and filtered only to include people who played *gasp* VIDEO GAMES) is vaguely offensive.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 03:45 AM	Also, shadzar, this is yet another time you've quoted someone as saying something they obviously didn't say. If you hadn't said you were American I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you if you were a non-English speaker using Babelfish or something, but as it is I don't think you really have an excuse.
shadzar 08-08-07, 04:18 AM	wow you are illiterate. re read that post i gave a link for.... not ever gaming store got this information about wanting volunteers did they? Sure they did. sounds like he is saying every gaming store got information WotC was looking for volunteers.
ORC_Paradox 08-08-07, 04:24 AM	This concludes this flame war. A reminder that flaming and trolling is against the CoC.