Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rognar 08-17-05, 12:10 PM	This is an obviously newbie question, so please be kind if it's a really dumb one! I've been away from the game for quite some time (many many years), and have recently found my interest rekindled. I played 1e in the late 70's, but not since (too many years). I still have all my 1e books, but am curious as to how the game has changed since then. Knowing that my only exposure has been 1e, but wanting to explore some of the later versions of the game (2e and 3.5e), which would be recommended, or which would a 1e player find easier or more closest to 1e? I've read various things about 3.5e being more oriented toward skills, but don't know much about how 2e is oriented (classes, skills, etc.)? I'm sure this isn't making sense, and if need be I'll try to clarify, but any thoughts would be appreciated! Rog
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:19 PM	When you say 1st edition do you mean the original AD&D, original D&D, the basic/expert D&D box (not a first edition of anything) or what ? If its original AD&D, then 2nd edition will be pretty similar. Some things are cleaned up, a lot of small changes have been made. Most of the flavour is gone, IMO 3.x is closer to a GURPS / Rolemaster hybrid, than to AD&D. The mechanics are more consistent with each other, and theres a LOT more options and classes. The game is however rather rules-heavy, and it takes a while getting into. The gaming style is also very different from AD&D, but that is to be expected. If you can, grab a copy of both and check it out for yourself.
High Octane 08-17-05, 12:22 PM	Check your local library. You would be surprised. One of my friends managed to find a Players Handbook 3.5 version at the library and rented it out.
Rognar 08-17-05, 12:23 PM	When you say 1st edition do you mean the original AD&D, original D&D, the basic/expert D&D box (not a first edition of anything) or what ? Not the boxed set. I believe it is the original AD&D (the PHB I have is a second printing and the DMG is a revised printing 1979, if that helps any).
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:30 PM	Whats on the cover ?
amethal 08-17-05, 12:33 PM	Not the boxed set. I believe it is the original AD&D (the PHB I have is a second printing and the DMG is a revised printing 1979, if that helps any).There's not much difference between first edition and second edition. You might as well carry on with first edition, rather than switching to second. Third edition makes it much easier to customise your character, with skills and feats, but can be a bit daunting to take in at first. Of course, some things are easier - all classes use the same XP table, high rolls are always better than low rolls, you use a d20 for practically everything except hit points and damage. I'd recommend finding a group in your area that's playing 3rd edition, and trying it out. (To make life more complicated, there's versions 3.0 and 3.5) If you are feeling brave, most of the stuff that's in the 3rd edition Players Handbook (3.5 version) is available on-line for free (in a hard to follow format) in the System Reference Document (SRD). I'll try a link, but I don't have much luck with them. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 Welcome back to the game!
Rognar 08-17-05, 12:39 PM	Whats on the cover ? Here are pics of the PHB & DMG that I own: Players Handbook (http://tinypic.com/anmses.jpg) DMG (http://tinypic.com/anmu09.jpg)
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:46 PM	AD&D1st edition then :) Old school with a capital O.
Rognar 08-17-05, 12:49 PM	AD&D1st edition then :) Old school with a capital O. Is that a good thing? Would I lose anything if I just stuck to those, or do the newer rules drastically change the game for the better?
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:54 PM	AD&D is still played pretty widely, and is a lot of fun. The new rules change virtually everything. Some changes are good, some are bad. It really depends on what you like in your game. You should be able to check out most of the new D&D rules online. Personally, and this is purely my opinion, I dont think the new D&D has much to do with what AD&D was, and that the options its offer, are better handled by other games. Hence I dont play it much, except when invited to someones game. Other people love it and think its a fantastic game. Its all up to you :)
Rognar 08-17-05, 01:01 PM	AD&D is still played pretty widely, and is a lot of fun. The new rules change virtually everything. Some changes are good, some are bad. It really depends on what you like in your game. You should be able to check out most of the new D&D rules online. Okay, this may be asking a lot, and if it's better answered by referring me to a web site, then please do, but is it possible to summarize the changes between 1e, 2e, and 3x? Thanks again!
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 01:13 PM	I can do one for AD&D1 and 2. Comparisons to D20 by me wouldn't be fair, as I dont like it at all. Im sure someone will pop along and give you the rundown. The main change between 1 and 2 is the writing style. If you are used to the Gygaxian style of writing, AD&D2 will seem incredibly bland. The DMG in particular is awful and boring. It tries to focus wider than the first one, but manages to give less actual information thats usefull to the DM. Organization, 2nd edition hands down. The combat rules in particular. 2nd edition removes the weapon vs AC chart, and replaces it with a simpler one. Initiative is changed to be a D10. There's options for individual initiative rolls, where weapon speeds and such, affect things. Races are similar, though there are no half-orcs. Classes allowed to races are more open, if you are used to core book AD&D (if you want to play AD&D1, get Unearthed Arcana, it adds a lot of stuff). Non human clerics are the main thing. Level limits are higher as well for non humans (about on par with unearthed arcana, but less dependent on ability scores), but thieves no longer get unlimited advancement. Multiclassing is a bit more restrictive (elves cannot cast spells in armour anymore), and dual classing is a lot more restricted (no more fighter - ranger dual class f.x.) For the actual classes: Fighters have weapon specialization (AD&D1 has this as well, but its in Unearthed Arcana) Rangers are completely different. So much in fact that its almost a completely new class. They now use D10's for HP like fighters, their spellcasting is hugely restricted (only animal and plant based spells), but they get some stealth and two-weapon fighting abilities. Paladins are the same, though their protection from evil is weaker, and they need less XP to advance. Magic users are the same. The illusionist is completely shot, as everyone can cast illusions now. Illusionists just get slightly better at it. Clerics and druids are pretty much the same The thief is the same, but AD&D2 lets you customize your thief skills more (one of the marked improvements) The bard is totally different. You can now start from level 1, and the bard is more a wandering musician type, rather than the historically based druidical tie-in. AD&D2 doesnt have monks, cavaliers or barbarians. There's a LOT of supplements for AD&D2. Most of them are crap, but they usually have something valuable to take away. They are largely compatible with AD&D1, so you can use them just fine. Hope that helps, without being too dry :) Otherwise ask away. I cant offhand think of any websites that compare the two, though you could drop by dragonsfoot.org and ask there.
Rognar 08-17-05, 01:34 PM	Yes, I've noticed that the organization of content in the 1e books I have is not the best. I've glanced at some 3.x books, and they do seem much better organized. But I supposed if I managed to find things in the books when I was in high school, I shouldn't have much more difficulty now. Thanks for the synopsis of 1e vs. 2e. That does help. I'm not too hung up (yet) on some of the finer details and differences between the two. Sounds like 2e is closer to 1e than any of the 3.x versions are, correct?
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 01:47 PM	Certainly. In fact they are close enough, that, if you dont mind making a few tweaks, you can use material from one AD&D version in the other. My tabletop games use the 2nd edition ranger and bard, alongside the 1st edition versions, f.x.
Rognar 08-17-05, 01:59 PM	Certainly. In fact they are close enough, that, if you dont mind making a few tweaks, you can use material from one AD&D version in the other. My tabletop games use the 2nd edition ranger and bard, alongside the 1st edition versions, f.x. Good to know. How does combat differ between 1e and 2e? I've heard a lot (mostly negative) about THAC0. Is it much different than 1e combat? Again, thanks much!
a_psh 08-17-05, 03:30 PM	I'll try a link, but I don't have much luck with them. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org) is my favorite way to read the System Reference Document. It's nicely formated and cross-referenced. I find the original text files to be a bit cumbersome. Infidentally, to make a link, you can do {url=address you want to link to}name of the link{/url} (replace {} with square brackets). ... For web information on 2e vs. 3.5e... hmm... The D&D Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons) has some notes that could be considered a comparison. The best resource, however, would probably be previews from D&D websites back when 3rd Edition was just being released. ... Basically, from the perspective of logic and balance, 3.5e is a better set of rules. Some people still consider 2e (or AD&D, or oD&D, or any edition) a better game, for all sorts of great reasons: they're used to 'em, the best games they've ever played have been AD&D2, they like a particular setting that isn't officially supported anymore, &c. These are all strictly subjective reasons. Most often, people who don't play 3rd Edition on the boards say that they find 3e/3.5e to be too detailed or too restrictive. They consider the ruleset an impediment to creative DMing. Here's my take on this stuff. In 3rd Edition, the default is a grid. The book is written as if you're using minis, but that's certainly not required (I make my own paper tokens of PCs, monsters, and NPCs using images from the online D&D art galleries, other fantasy art, and my own players). There are actual tactics in battle, as a lot can be gained from positioning and maneuvering around. 2nd Edition has things like "movement rate," but isn't really written with an obvious way to run things on a map. Mostly the players and DM have to fudge things. Other than avoiding your allies' fireballs, there isn't that much reason for 2e combatants to move around or stay still. In 3rd Edition, classes are basically just packets of abilities. A lot of people will play a straight-up fighter or a straight-up wizard, but you can just as easily multiclass, and in a rather flexible way. 2nd Edition has rules for multiclassing (or a completely different "dual-classing" rule for humans), but your options are limited and you simply progress linearly, just as you would if "fighter/mage" was simply its own class. In 2nd Edition, dwarves can't be wizards, only humans can be paladins, &c., &c. In 3rd, such choices are not restricted by default - any race/class restrictions are solely up to the DM. Generally, 3e characters are a lot more flexible. Two AD&D2e fighters of the same level are only differentiated by their ability scores and their equipment. In contrast, two straight-up fighters in 3e (no multiclassing or anything), even using the exact same weapon, can have drastically different styles. For example, just looking at the classic longsword-and-shield style, one might be a simple hack-hack-hack warrior that just attacks normally, occasionally using the Power Attack feat (feats are basically special abilities that you can pick-and-choose) to score additional damage against lightly-armored foes; another might focus on trying to trip and disarm his foes; a third might be particularly good at charging; another might focus on crowd tactics; yet another might bash with his shield in addition to slashing with his sword. This isn't counting reach weapons, agile combatants, mounted combat, archery, and even unarmed fighting. Now, like in real life, I can attempt a trip attack even if I don't actually have any special training for it - the feats just allow me to do it much more skillfully. Likewise, I'd like to point out that a well-built fighter will probably be a bit more versatile than the examples above. Some abilities do require that you master others first, but you're not on one set path: you can mix abilities related to fighting on horseback with those related to archery, for example. In 2e, the fighter basically stands there and swings his sword. Sometimes he stops to drink a healing potion or yell at the cleric. While there are a lot of rules, 3e tried really hard to make the core mechanics simple and standardized: practically anything you want to do is a simple d20+modifiers roll, which you then compare to a DC ("Difficulty Class"): if you rolled at least that much, you succeed; otherwise, you don't. High is good, low is bad. Always. Saves, attack rolls, skill checks, and all sorts of special abilities all work this way. This is most pronounced in the way skills work. In 2e, a thief has a % chance to sneak (actually a separate % Hide and Move Silently). You roll that to see if you succeed or fail. How good the enemies are doesn't really factor into it very much. In 3e, you roll Hide and Move Silently checks opposed by the Spot and Listen skills of enemies observing you: a mid-level rogue can sneak through an orc camp but not into the sanctum of an elite assassins' guild. If I'm not a rogue, I can still improve my stealth skills (though it's a bit easier for a ranger or a monk than a wizard - each class has a sizable set of skills that are easier to master than the others). I can even attempt it untrained. All using the exact same simple "d20+modifiers" mechanic. If you're not a thief in 2e, you don't have a % chance to sneak. The DM could ask for a Dexterity check or say that you fail or succeed. But, short of the Dexterity check, which is a terrible mechanic because you can't really improve your skill without raising your ability scores, and it doesn't resemble the thief's abilities at all, there is no way to sneak around. And, yes, there are a lot of rules in the rulebooks in 3rd Edition. Most of them aren't necessary every day. For example, there's a rule for how to bull rush an enemy (charge and bodyslam and push him). It's pretty straightforward, but I doubt more than 2% of people on the boards know it without looking it up. Why? You just don't need it all the time. But when you're fighting on a rope bridge over some lava and things are looking bad, there's a built-in mechanic for trying to toss the Big Bad Evil Guy off the edge. In other games, the gamemaster could certainly fudge it and make up some rules for just that one time. But what if you want a character who uses the technique a lot? In that case, a good mechanic is certainly better than a spot ruling. There are also pretty sound guidelines for how to extend the rules. For example, if a skill description doesn't cover a particular situation, you can set a Difficulty Class based on how hard the task seems. Similarly, if you think there are special circumstances that affect a particular situation, there's a simple "+2/-2" rule (which basically says "If something makes it harder, add +2 to the Difficulty Class. Or, if it's a particularly important circumstance, try +4 or +6. If something makes the job easier, subtract from the DC."). Climb a rain-slicked wall gripping a rope one-handed while trying to free yourself from leg irons with the other hand? No problem! Sure, any system supports fudging. But I'd rather have a simple guideline for fudging than just make up arbitrary mechanics on-the-spot. To be fair (I don't think I am, anyway, to be honest, but I'm trying to be), it is easier to powergame in 3e/3.5e. The way to make a powerful character in 2nd Edition is to roll really high (or cheat on your rolls), beg your DM for good loot, ask for all sorts of random munchkin-y abilities to fall into your lap from nowhere (and to try to play an elf, usually), use weird supplements, and argue about spell effects. In 3rd Edition, it is possible to make a powerful character without, y'know, the cheating and underhandedness, because you can actually gain power by choosing sensibly. Sometimes this can go to extreme ends, but the core rules are pretty good. The trick is not to blindly allow characters made by cherry-picking the best of a dozen different supplements. Oh, and 3rd Edition has sensible rules for item creation that try to balance price, level, time, and experience points. 2e doesn't. If you prefer "low magic" or "special unique PCs-can't-replicate-it magic" settings and won't use those rules, you can just say that your PCs can't do it. If you want to allow the player characters to craft their own gear, however, it's better to have a good system already in place than to try to BS your own out of whole cloth. The main criticism of 3e/3.5e seems to be that there isn't much room for DM creativity. And, with regard to the rules, that's partly true... there's just not a need of it. You don't often have to assign an arbitrary percent chance to something or just guess and say "you succeed" or "you fail" (to be fair, 2e introduced books and books of charts that you could roll on to try to fix this... it was kind of terrible). You can still house-rule whatever you want, but there are 50,000 holes that you have to fill in just to run a game. I find that knowing that there are mechanics for doing things actually encourages player creativity. They're much more likely to actually consider pushing said Big Bad Evil Guy into the pit if they have a good idea of how it would work and their chances of failure or success. Now, I don't think 2e was bad. Ever since I saw how poorly and arbitrarily combat went in a Vampire game, I've thought of 2e as a pretty good attempt at stuff. But, if the DM and players are the same and they don't have 10 years of experience and attachment to one system over the other, I just don't see how 3rd Edition can be worse than 2nd. That was overlong. I hope it was at least mildly helpful. Apologies for all the scrolling..
jasper 08-17-05, 03:54 PM	Thaco was a short hand to hit ac zero. So 1e fighter had a Thaco 20. 3 e. got rid of the repeating 20 on the to hit chart 3E roll high is always good, the standard is one die a d20 and one chart to rule them all. Everyone uses the same xp chart. Some spells are different. Some magic items are different. And weapon immunity is totally different. It use to be you need a +2 weapon to get damage some monsters. Now you can have a +1 Holy weapon and smack the monster. All aging rules are tossed out. Play wise the rules mechanics have an edge when you add in the additional source material. So if dming I would suggest just the phb for the players. Leveling is quicker with generally 13 good fight equal to your party level will level you up. This was due to research of most people wanting to play to high levels 15+ but game groups falling apart (after a year and half) before they got there. 2E just change enough rules to bite if used to dming 1E. My solution is maybe buy some campaign books, or modules and just drop into your world. Game play wise if everyone knows most the rules or are willing for the dm to wing it there is very little difference in game play.
Aeolius 08-17-05, 04:00 PM	...is it possible to summarize the changes between 1e, 2e, and 3x? Here's a link to the old Conversion Manual (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_CYC_intro.asp)
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 12:33 AM	AD&D combat is largely the same mechanics. Initiative is the main change between the two. One thing thats worth noting is that AD&D makes the Class very important. Its a solid archetype that defines your character. 3.x views it more like a package of abilities, and you can combine the packages as you want (with a few restrictions). Combat is another definate change in philosophy. AD&D assumes that combat is extremely abstracted (hence, the 1 minute round, and the lack of precise maneuvering rules), while 3.x makes it a lot more concrete and "blow by blow" The introduction of a standardized skill system is worth mentioning too. Both versions of AD&D has proficiencies of course. The 3.x skill system is more gradual, and generally encourages more variety in skills, and uses skills for more core game ideas, whereas the AD&D proficiencies generally seem like peripheral things for an adventurer.
GreyLord 08-18-05, 01:54 AM	From an old schooler point of view, differences in a nutshell, which have been covered rather well already, but for more brevity. 2e differences from 1e. Should be noted 2e had a grandfather clause allowing everything from 1e to take precedence over 2e. The core rules therefore, added the bard as a core class, had various weapon speed changes, initiative changes, changed priests spellcasting and spells, and made THAC0 a core rule instead of one from supplemental material. Profficiences also were made core instead of supplemental (but OPTIONAL). Also, level limits were changed, and rules for making your own classes were added. Later 2e additional differences Also known as 2.5, they added kits (basically class modifications with as many as 30 per class or more), 3e differences from the above. Imagine Diablo on paper. Advancement occurs after a few encounters (basically kill 7 Orcs and you are 2nd level if that gives you an idea). There is no THACO or hit tables, it is all done with bonuses to hit that you get from various items. Saves were changed to the same formula. Skills are no longer optional. Everyone has skills/profficiencies, and they changed to a more complex system of skills. Skills now are based on more of a rank system. There is NO MORE multiclassing as you understand the word. Everything is now dual classing, but without the old restrictions. Everyone and their dog can be a Paladin, or Monk, or whatever they desire, in addition they can switch to being that class at a whim unless their DM houserules against it. You can switch between classes as you desire even going back to previous classes to level up. Dual classing in many cases is the norm instead of the exception. In fact, they also have something called prestige classes where it's expected. Prestige classes are basically what warhammer RPG or other systems would call advanced classes. Imagine the Bard from 1e, and imagine 120+ various classes organized around that type of thought. HP continues to be rolled on HD as long as someone advances. The rules end at 20th level. Another set of rules called "Epic Rules" then apply. There are changes to spellcasting. Psionics are completely changed. As you can tell the changes are numerous, in fact it's easier just to tell you that 3e is a completely different game than 1e. If your looking for 1e D&D or a game system that is similar to it, the most similar system now would either be Castles and Crusades or Palladium. 3.x is not compatible with previous game systems and unlike 2e core there is no grandfather clause. If I were you I'd stick with what you already own and run games that way, or prepare to change the way you game to a completely new and different system.
babysamurai 08-18-05, 05:42 AM	3rd Edition has the best rules-set. 1st Edition has the best feel. 2nd Edition sucks large amounts of schlong.
Rognar 08-18-05, 08:02 AM	Wow, thanks everyone for your thoughts and discussions of the differences between versions. It has been very helpful indeed. If I were you I'd stick with what you already own and run games that way, or prepare to change the way you game to a completely new and different system. I think I'll take GreyLord's advice, and will probably stick with what I own and know, rather than try to learn an entirely new game. As you can tell the changes are numerous, in fact it's easier just to tell you that 3e is a completely different game than 1e. If your looking for 1e D&D or a game system that is similar to it, the most similar system now would either be Castles and Crusades or Palladium. I've read some about Castles and Crusades. How does it compare? Is it a quality game system? Something worth looking into as an alternative, or not worth the time and money? Again, thanks all.
jpat93 08-18-05, 08:39 AM	I think I'll take GreyLord's advice, and will probably stick with what I own and know, rather than try to learn an entirely new game. You're of course free to stick with what you own and know, and that's a perfectly fine decision, but, as someone whose experience was mostly in 1e and early 2e, I've found the "conversion" to 3.5 to be a pretty good one. It has taken and continues to take a lot of work, in terms of learning and relearning (and unlearning), but, for me, the advantages of 3.5 in terms of precision, clarity, and logic outweigh the disadvantages. The mere (?) fact that most rolls are on a d20 and are handled according to the same logic (high roll = good/success, positive modifers improve likelihood for success) is a good reason to consider "switching." Do consider taking a look at the 3.5 System Reference Document, previously cited, which is free and which gives a good, though rather flavorless, sense of the nature of the present game. I've found the new game to have a lot of continuity with the old, despite the many and important mechanics changes.
GreyLord 08-18-05, 08:50 AM	Some people love Castles and Crusades. I think it's an okay system. It changes the way Saves works, as well as going halfway to where the 3.5 combat system is. It's a much more simplistic system than 3.x or even the 2e rules. It is also much more open, so though it puts down suggestions and recommended classes for races, you can basically be anything you want if you so desire. It has no skill or feat system thus far, though it is said that when Gary Gygax releases his Castle Zygag (I think it's due out this month) that there will be a skill system one could use if they so wish. It has more of a 1e feel however than any of the other systems that are out currently. They borrow a few things from the late 70s and early 80s Basic sets such as how the stats work (no exceptional str or cons, instead it's the 13-15/16-17/18 split), and the XP tables while similar to the older editions, are slightly different (~9000 XP to get to 4th level as opposed to ~8000 etc.). There are also the armor and weapon restrictions are much more similar to the 1e/2e rules than 3.x is. The classes of 1e are also found in C&C, though changes have been made to how the Bard works (it's more of a fighter now without any Druid or Thief skills), how the Ranger works (more nature abilities but no druidic or magic spellcasting abilities), and some other differences with other classes (such as how fighter multiple attacks work). They also included things that were found in Unearthed Arcana such as the Cavalier (however now known as the Knight, and with more Charisma and leadership abilities instead of bonuses for weapons and stat increases) and the Barbarian (but no theif-Acrobat, at least as of yet). In many ways what they've done is used the open Gaming license that 3.x has, and tried to recreate the original, though how successful or not successful is probably in the eye of the beholder. What this means is that one can probably use and transfer material from the old 1e games if they want to use them, or use items from the new 3.x games if they want. I've only played one campaign in it thus far, and a shorter one at that, so I'm not an expert at it yet in telling you how I successful I feel they were or weren't. It is an easier system to learn due to a MUCH MORE simplified rule system than 3.x is. They took the very core ideas of 3.x and simplified them. Of interest is that Gygax is designing a gigantic module with his own rules modifications to it (whilst also working on his Lejendary Adventure which is also published by the same company I believe) which will be a seven module long campaign. Hope that helps in a slight comparison.
Rognar 08-18-05, 09:10 AM	Yes, that did help as a comparison of C&C and D&D. I guess it's cost prohibitive to buy all the books for every game I want to play, and then learn all the material (and keep it straight)! Thanks much for all the help and info. Lots of great people here!
babysamurai 08-18-05, 09:38 AM	I started with 1st edition in 1986, then went on to 2nd edition in 1989, then lost interest in 2nd edition around 1994 (due to the glut of crap they started releasing), and longed for the feel of 1st edition. Then came 3rd edition, and wow, is all I can say. Think of every rule in 1st edition that got in the way of variety/options/choice/etc; well, 3rd edition fixed all that. The change from 1st/2nd edition is not as complicated as some people would make out, in fact when I first read the 3rd edition Player's Handbook, I thought it was a much simplified form of D&D. If your going to start playing again, do yourself a favour and pick up a 3rd edition Player's Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual (that's all you really need). You'll find yourself having the wonderful discovery feeling of 1st edition, but with much more coherent, logical, and fun rules.
Vaelan 08-18-05, 09:55 AM	Imagine Diablo on paper. Advancement occurs after a few encounters (basically kill 7 Orcs and you are 2nd level if that gives you an idea). There is no THACO or hit tables, it is all done with bonuses to hit that you get from various items. These are three rather... strange statements. Third edition is by no means Diablo on paper (unless you want to play it like that), advancement doesn't occur quite as fast as you imply, though it does occur more quickly than in previous editions, and nearly the only item that gives you a bonus to hit is your weapon.
GreyLord 08-18-05, 11:15 AM	These are three rather... strange statements. Third edition is by no means Diablo on paper (unless you want to play it like that), advancement doesn't occur quite as fast as you imply, though it does occur more quickly than in previous editions, and nearly the only item that gives you a bonus to hit is your weapon. No? First time I saw it, Diablo was my thought. Whirlwind seems to come directly from Diablo, as does the feat Bullrush, cleave, and other such fighter feats that would be relative to the Barbarian skills in Diablo. One could say that it was taken first from D&D then to Diablo and back again, except that the skill whirlwind...was a Diablo thing! Funny that. But yes, you don't have to play it like diablo if you don't want to. However if you DON'T advance as I've stated (yes it takes seven Orcs to advance, each orc is worth 150XP, 150 x 7 = 1050. Math isn't all that hard). Also I get bonuses from STR, as well as feats and class abilities...BUT wait, I can also get it from various other items as there are various magics all of which are stackable. And it's not just one feat, it can be multiple feats. Once you start getting into the various feats, you can have bonuses and minuses from round to round going up and down depending on which feats are in use, and even in a round it is varied between foes. I have Dodge so I get a +1 to my AC but only against that foe, and the other get's a +2 flanking as they move in behind me after I finish, and then the original which still hasn't moved also gets a +2 flanking with a +3 for Weapon finesse, and another +1 for Weapon Focus, along with a +1 for Strength and since he's going into a rage another bonus, then along with the bardic music of his high and advanced bardic friend depending on how the DM rules, and he might get more bonuses dependant upon other feats and magic items....and so forth. Just as an example of course. There is a ton more ways to get bonuses than just a weapon...unless you've outlawed feats, and other items. You disallow the bonuses from feats and it should be interesting to justify why in the world someone would ever play a fighter...or a rogue, or even be a human, at least in 3.x In my opinion of course.
a_psh 08-18-05, 02:38 PM	Now assume you have the classic party of four. CR 1/2 -> 150 XP ea. Split between four party members. 150 XP / 4 = 37.5 XP per player per orc. So a party of four first-level characters has to kill 27 orcs to level. Given that orcs are no longer the worthless enemies they were in some previous editions (they hit *hard* and, like most sentient beings, can take class levels, so expect to see some spellcasting support and a few tough leaders if you fight a whole group), your first-level party is in serious danger any time you fight an orc, and any more than four make for a rather lethal encounter. So all those orcs are nothing to sneeze at. So that's at least six or seven challenging (4-orc) orc encounters for a first-level party to get to level 2 (if you want to run the standard 4 encounters per day adventure, 2 is the recommended number of orcs). A single lucky hit from an orc has a good chance of downing you; a single lucky crit has a good chance of killing you outright. Let's take a look at the traditional first-level party fodder creature instead: kobolds. CR 1/4. A party of four needs to kill more than 50 kobolds to get to level 2. 50 kobolds... do you really want to stay at level 1 much longer than that?
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 02:42 PM	This is speaking from a basic/expert D&D perspective, but orcs arent something to sneeze at. They have D8's for HP (the same as your fighter), and fight just as well. Combined with dying at 0 HP, orcs are no laughing stock. AD&D is different of course.
GreyLord 08-18-05, 02:48 PM	Now assume you have the classic party of four. CR 1/2 -> 150 XP ea. Split between four party members. 150 XP / 4 = 37.5 XP per player per orc. So a party of four first-level characters has to kill 27 orcs to level. Given that orcs are no longer the worthless enemies they were in some previous editions (they hit *hard* and, like most sentient beings, can take class levels, so expect to see some spellcasting support and a few tough leaders if you fight a whole group), your first-level party is in serious danger any time you fight an orc, and any more than four make for a rather lethal encounter. So all those orcs are nothing to sneeze at. So that's at least six or seven challenging (4-orc) orc encounters for a first-level party to get to level 2 (if you want to run the standard 4 encounters per day adventure, 2 is the recommended number of orcs). A single lucky hit from an orc has a good chance of downing you; a single lucky crit has a good chance of killing you outright. Let's take a look at the traditional first-level party fodder creature instead: kobolds. CR 1/4. A party of four needs to kill more than 50 kobolds to get to level 2. 50 kobolds... do you really want to stay at level 1 much longer than that? Yep, cast a sleep spell by the spellcaster, with the fighters to mop up the last one if a last one is even standing...and it's all over for those Orcs from a party dealing with 4 Orcs. Truthfully it's tougher on an individual basis and even then 4 orcs aren't that much of a challenge, at least with the groups I play with. Then again, we all have different methods of playing. Our groups typically take on squads of 8 to 12 Orcs at first level regardless of edition...but then, everyone has a different way of playing. Catch 'em by surprise and they are even more worthless. Now once the characters get higher levels you could play them as crafty sneaky orcs, but then the same coudl be said of Kobolds...but then again, kobolds, you actually fight them...those be cannon fodder! :)
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 03:04 PM	Looking at the SRD, the 3.5 orc has D8+1 hit points (5-6 on average). This puts him about equal to a rogue, with clerics etc having more HP at first level. Orcs have no spells either, though they cause considerable damage. A hit can propably down anything but a cleric or fighter. They arent dead of course, but out of the fight. 4 adventurers will almost assuredly have spells, they all have max hit points, and will have access to more feats and capabilities than the orcs have. So the orcs are still going to get trounced. As for AD&D orcs being easier, this doesnt really match up. AD&D doesnt give you max HP at level 1, meaning you are quite likely to have 5-6 hit points. This makes even a straight long sword hit, very likely to kill you (death at 0 being the standard). AD&D orcs can easily be made tougher as well. Complete book of humanoids gives specific rules, but if you read through the monster descriptions and the modules, there are plenty of "tougher orcs". Just give it some more HP, better attack and more damage, and voila, you have a tougher orc. Easy isnt it :) The idea that you can only do it, if its "permitted" by the rules, is a D20 mindset
grodech 08-18-05, 03:26 PM	Just an additional note to Rognar - I was in a similar situation. I still have all my 1e AD&D books, hadn't played in a while. The difference was that when I found a new DM, 3.5e was specified, so I didn't have a choice. I was able to step into 3.5e fairly easily. Only a little retraining was necessary, and that was mostly the use of feats. I found the straight D20 easier to use. In 1st Ed, you had to have a damn chart to figure out what you needed to roll to hit something. AC went down instead of up. Now you just need to exceed the opponent's AC in order to hit him, and the level requirements for EXP are the same across the board. If I recall correctly , the different classes required differing amounts of EXP to level up under AD&D 1e. I still don't like that your hit dice is based on your class instead of your Strength and Constitution - but that's another bone to pick altogether....
Rognar 08-18-05, 03:55 PM	Just an additional note to Rognar - I was in a similar situation. I still have all my 1e AD&D books, hadn't played in a while. The difference was that when I found a new DM, 3.5e was specified, so I didn't have a choice. I was able to step into 3.5e fairly easily. Only a little retraining was necessary, and that was mostly the use of feats. I found the straight D20 easier to use. In 1st Ed, you had to have a damn chart to figure out what you needed to roll to hit something. AC went down instead of up. Now you just need to exceed the opponent's AC in order to hit him, and the level requirements for EXP are the same across the board. If I recall correctly , the different classes required differing amounts of EXP to level up under AD&D 1e. I still don't like that your hit dice is based on your class instead of your Strength and Constitution - but that's another bone to pick altogether.... Grodech, Thanks. It's good to know that even an old dog can learn new tricks. I'm not sure how close I was playing to the 1e rules (high school kids with DM who winged it a lot), but it was fun nonetheless all those years ago. Rognar
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 04:00 PM	I still don't like that your hit dice is based on your class instead of your Strength and Constitution - but that's another bone to pick altogether.... You could change it to the average of str and con, similar to Runequest.
Vaelan 08-18-05, 05:25 PM	No? First time I saw it, Diablo was my thought. Whirlwind seems to come directly from Diablo, as does the feat Bullrush, cleave, and other such fighter feats that would be relative to the Barbarian skills in Diablo. There are nothing but superifical similarities listed here. Whirlwind Attack doesn't work anywhere near the way Whirlwind works in Diablo. Bull Rush wasn't taken from Diablo, it was taken from second edition and Diablo has no meaningful equivalent. Lastly, Cleave only shares a superficial similarity to a Barbarian skill in Diablo. What you have failed to prove is how a few wholly superficial similarities make the game "Diablo on paper". (yes it takes seven Orcs to advance, each orc is worth 150XP, 150 x 7 = 1050. Math isn't all that hard) You're right. Math isn't all that hard. Apparently the whole dividing by four concept managed to throw you off though. I can also get it from various other items as there are various magics all of which are stackable. Any particular reason you aren't citing specifics here? I see exactly two items in the DMG that are not weapons that give a bonus to hit (Bracers of Archery and Boots of Speed, both items from earlier editions). Magic giving bonuses to hit isn't exactly a new concept here anyway, so I don't know what point you're trying to make. There is a ton more ways to get bonuses than just a weapon...unless you've outlawed feats, and other items. I said that you don't get bonuses from nearly any other items. Perhaps you would like to read what you quote before responding to it? Further, you have yet to establish why this is a bad thing. Would you like to try again? I would certainly hope you aren't content with such a shoddy set of tangentially-related comments.
a_psh 08-18-05, 05:36 PM	I've used both 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition. Most of my experience is in 3.5e thus far, which I have used for two Eberron games I've DMed. I've always found to be core 2nd Edition's vagueness to be overly frustrating. Trying to DM it required having to constantly make judgement calls on rules in very basic situations. 3rd fixes this and gets you a very nice standardized mechanic. Attacks of Opportunity can be a bit confusing at first, but really add an interesting dimension to battle. Unless you go all-out and use weird terrain and special maneuvers all the time, it's still pretty straightforward, I find. During the early days of the 3e roll-out, folks were claiming that it tries to go back to the OD&D dungeon crawl tradition, which 2e had somewhat abandoned. I'm not sure how accurate this is, never having played OD&D. Most of what I run these days looks nothing like a dungeon crawl, but 3rd Edition does make for some good dungeon-crawling fun, as long as the DM doesn't try to railroad the party too hard.
GreyLord 08-18-05, 06:47 PM	There are nothing but superifical similarities listed here. Whirlwind Attack doesn't work anywhere near the way Whirlwind works in Diablo. Bull Rush wasn't taken from Diablo, it was taken from second edition and Diablo has no meaningful equivalent. Lastly, Cleave only shares a superficial similarity to a Barbarian skill in Diablo. What you have failed to prove is how a few wholly superficial similarities make the game "Diablo on paper". You're right. Math isn't all that hard. Apparently the whole dividing by four concept managed to throw you off though. Any particular reason you aren't citing specifics here? I see exactly two items in the DMG that are not weapons that give a bonus to hit (Bracers of Archery and Boots of Speed, both items from earlier editions). Magic giving bonuses to hit isn't exactly a new concept here anyway, so I don't know what point you're trying to make. I said that you don't get bonuses from nearly any other items. Perhaps you would like to read what you quote before responding to it? Further, you have yet to establish why this is a bad thing. Would you like to try again? I would certainly hope you aren't content with such a shoddy set of tangentially-related comments. No dividing by 4 didn't throw me off. Killing seven orcs advances you to the next level...just like if you were a thief (lowest XP necessary for level 2) killing 84 orcs got a thief to the second level. If you have four characters you kill 28 orcs...28 divided by 4 is still...GASP...7. Yes, for a character to advance they have to kill...gasp...7 Orcs. Oh wait, what if they have 3 characters in the party!? Why in hecks name would they divide by FOUR !!!! Seeing that's not in the rules. Or what if they have two players!!! Nada, they don't have to divide by 4. Four is irrelavant...it's a basic idea of what a general party would be. It's what each character needs...which is seven Orcs in relation to the 84 (or 168 if you were a Magic User in 2e) needed in older editions. I think people are offended by me stating the obvious. Wow, hard concept for you to understand how one character per seven orcs work out. I especially like how people try to argue against the rules. Reminds me of rules lawyers that everyone loves...But instead of getting sarcastic against a 3.x fanatic...I'll gracefully bow out...simply because I could say the sun is shining in full daylight and you'd still claim it was night. I think it's not that I'm wrong, but merely you want to try to argue semantics simply so you feel like you've won...why who knows. If you want to houserule your game as you want, go ahead, that's what rule 0 is there for...but you don't have to try to ignore the rules or try to claim something that's ridiculous by it. You want to ignore feats, go right ahead, it's your game, but to try to argue that feats don't add bonuses to your to hit...well...I'm certain there are a number of real 3.x players that like choosing their feats that are glad they aren't in that game. However, as I said, it's your game, and if that's how you want to rule it (and I gave specific examples of feats, specials, and other items...but oh yeah, that's right that means you don't win the argument for arguments sake). I think my point was made, but if you want to continue to try to say things don't exist, go right ahead. Be my guest. Have the last word...it's not going to change anything.
a_psh 08-18-05, 10:52 PM	4 adventurers will almost assuredly have spells, they all have max hit points, and will have access to more feats and capabilities than the orcs have. So the orcs are still going to get trounced. I belong to the school of thought that says if the orcs don't have a first-level adept casting that sleep spell right back at you, you're doing something wrong. ;)
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 11:07 PM	hehe. Thats why its good to play classic D&D. Orcs can have wocani and shamans, chucking a few unpleasantries the other way :)
Dunelord 08-18-05, 11:46 PM	This is speaking from a basic/expert D&D perspective, but orcs arent something to sneeze at. They have D8's for HP (the same as your fighter), and fight just as well. Combined with dying at 0 HP, orcs are no laughing stock. AD&D is different of course. Fighters have d10.
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 11:58 PM	Not in basic / expert D&D (the classic red book / blue book) set that I was referring to.
Shade Harlok 09-03-05, 09:50 PM	Rognar, I've got an answer for you with a completely different approach. My answer to your 2nd or 3.5 question is .......3.5 because it's more readily available. Personally I prefered the 2nd ed game (didn't play much AD&D or B/E/C/M though I have the materials), but lets face it, 3.5 is in the stores and easy to get. To get materials printed for the older editions you'll have to search stores or online which will take time and money. The 3.x games aren't bad, heck I enjoy the game I'm running in 3.5, but I liked the freedom of missing rules for things. Skills and Powers for 2nd gave players lots of ways to make thier party of five fighters look and feel different from each other. It's just a style issue with me. As for the challenge level of orcs and kobolds and gaining a level, I'd like to remind people that average for 3d6 is about 10. That means that the average kobold is as smart as the average human. This means that they are aware of their short comings and are likely to compensate. Run them that way, or have them run against you that way, and you'll realize that they can make for challenging encounters no matter what edition your playing. Off topic now......think on this 2nd ed fun that I got to play out. A rope of climbing with intelligence was placed on a python familiar. It was hysterical! Mokrii
Otto the Bugbear 09-03-05, 10:58 PM	I was DMing when our group did the switch from 2ed to 3ed. While I've posted some rather lengthy posts about why 3ed is better, it's starting to boil down to one thing for me. 3rd edition allows me as the DM to focus more on running the story instead of running the game rules (house rules, arbitrary rulings, and the other things listed by above posters). The new rules are robust and complete enough that the game runs much more smoothly than 2ed. This allows more focus on the RP and story -- to me at least. Oh, and I agree with something said above: 3.X is a different game. It's like some company bought a failing TSR, and carried over some iconic names/descriptions/flavor for familiarity reasons, then made a whole new game from the ground up. It's kinda like that. ;) One other thing to consider here as well. 3rd edition had hundreds (perhaps over a thousand) playtesters credited in the 3.0 manuals. These were players and DMs like you and I. They were the think-tank that pulverized the rules for 2ed and skimmed off all the crap that floated to the surface and threw it away. They all had input, they tested the various changes. Some were kept, some were not. The point here is that with such a large cross section of gamers, 3ed is what they came up with. Maybe, just maybe, they did some good. At least I think so. Cheers Otto :)
weasel fierce 09-03-05, 11:29 PM	And I who thought it was their marketing department that came up with it ;)
Otto the Bugbear 09-04-05, 07:41 AM	Well, that's correct too. The company as a whole -- marketing dept. included -- came up with the idea of tearing apart the rules and deep-6ing the more cumbersome aspects and covering the gaps the previous edition had ignored. Then they got those players and DMs to test the proposed changes and give feedback. Even if all of them didn't actually test every single proposed rule, they all had the capacity to give feedback on why it was good or why it sucked. I thought that was a great idea when I first heard of it, and I still think it was a great idea. Cheers Otto :)
weasel fierce 09-04-05, 12:34 PM	The idea is good enough. For some people, its just not what we wanted. But hey, there's enough D&D out there, that we can each have our own :)
Gilean 09-04-05, 12:57 PM	The speed of advancement is so ridiculously easy to huoserule that it shouldn't even be used as an argument. Divide all experience by number wanted, such as 2 or 3 or 4. And you have reduced the pace of advancement. and it underpowers nothing.
weasel fierce 09-04-05, 02:00 PM	And you can bump up advancement in AD&D. That doesnt change what the default is.
Lina_Inverse 09-04-05, 02:53 PM	And you can bump up advancement in AD&D. That doesnt change what the default is. my party thinks advancement is slow in 3E. i dont know what you were doing,but my party just used pickpocket 6 times and gained a level,or cast a bunch of spells,or RIPPED THE ENTIRE DUNGEON APART AND SOLD IT!
Man in the Funny Hat 09-04-05, 04:12 PM	I think people are offended by me stating the obvious.I think what people are really offended by is other people who hang out on discussion boards devoted to the most recent version of the game - and then trash it. Don't get me wrong, you have the right to be obnoxious short of COC violations. Just don't expect people to enjoy it with you. They will WANT to shout you down for painfully obvious reasons.
weasel fierce 09-04-05, 04:33 PM	my party thinks advancement is slow in 3E. Speed it up for them then, since the default obviously doesnt fit what your group is wanting from a game. i dont know what you were doing,but my party just used pickpocket 6 times and gained a level,or cast a bunch of spells,or RIPPED THE ENTIRE DUNGEON APART AND SOLD IT! Im not sure what you are referring to here ? The optional xp rewards in AD&D 2nd edition ?
amethal 09-04-05, 05:25 PM	Lots of great people here!Absolutely. However, sometimes I wish they were a bit less sensitive, a bit more laid back, and more willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Still, this is the internet :)
Kursk 09-05-05, 12:00 AM	Here are pics of the PHB & DMG that I own: Players Handbook (http://tinypic.com/anmses.jpg) DMG (http://tinypic.com/anmu09.jpg) Brings back memories. I remember waiting at the store for the owner to uncrate the 1st PHB, DMG & MM! Had some really good times playing back then.
Lord Zeta 09-05-05, 12:49 AM	And you can bump up advancement in AD&D. That doesnt change what the default is. What I find funny is if were going by "default" experience point rules in 1e, you would have to add "treasure found" to the experience point totals. So just by luck if some expensive gems or even the rare chance a magic item is found ( and the DM was dumb enough to give it to them ) that 1st level character can be well on his way to 2nd level well short of "84 orcs" ( Graylord's quoted number ). Now since adding treasure to experience points was probably the #1 ignored rule in 1e, so much so that our resident 1e fans have forgotten or ignored it; we advanced levels in 1e slower then the rules ever intended. Especially at mid-to-high levels when treasure hordes could be quite large and powerful magic items had high experience point values. I already know what the counter argument is going to be. ;) Of couse 2e changed it but I try to forget 2e whenever possible. :)
a_psh 09-05-05, 03:00 AM	I don't think the 84 orcs vs. 7 orcs vs. half an orc vs. Avagadro's number of orcs thing is really that vital to a discussion of different editions. Though, yes, I would have to say that 3.x has the characters advancing a bit faster than the other _D&Ds would, by default. But how is this more significant than, say, the basic resolution mechanics (e.g. d20 rolls vs. AD&D2e chart hell... oh, I'm sooooo happy to be free from chart hell!), or character generation (character classes in 3rd tend to be flexible, even for the formerly-lame fighter, and multiclassing allows for countless possibilities, which prestige classes increase even more; some 2e "kits" may be more flavorful at the early levels, however, because prestige classes usually don't come into play til level 6 or so), or the mapping required for combat (3.x is definitely bigger on that than AD&D), &c.? My favorite thing to come out of 2e were the settings. Dark Sun and Planescape, particularly, were both very different and inventive. But I got to read much more of those than I got to actually play them. And Eberron is definitely in the same league (I'd probably say better, but it's hard to judge). I think a huge change between 3.x and older versions is self-consistency. Most of the system mechanics are designed to work out-of-the-box, more or less, without a lot of tweaking and fudging from the DM. Now, that's not to say that you shouldn't use house rules in 3.0e/3.5e games, but throwing a bunch right into your very first 3.x game without really getting to know how the basic unmodified system works leads to some pretty bad stuff.
deusxmachina 09-06-05, 01:36 AM	I've played D&D since the basic-edition Red box. I'd recommend learning 3.5 because there are probably more games and players for it, but also it'd probably be interesting reading to any D&D fan anyway. When I first got my hands on a 3.0/3.5 book and looked at the skills and feats chapters, that was fun stuff! 3.5 took a bit to really get the hang of, but it does make more sense. It may be more tactical and all that, but it also lets everyone know what can and can't be done. In earlier editions, if you wanted to do x and y and z, sometimes you'd have to ask the DM, "Can I do that?" And depending on his mood he might allow it. Now the rules are more clear-cut. I re-read my 2nd-edition books months back after playing 3.5 for the past year or two. The 2nd-edition books make no sense. After playing 3.5, you can look at 2nd-edition and easily see the parts that make you go, "Huh?" Who wrote that?" If you read and learn 3.5, for fun if nothing else, you are then able to play either version of the game when you can.
Faraer 09-06-05, 10:23 AM	What I find funny is if were going by "default" experience point rules in 1e, you would have to add "treasure found" to the experience point totals. So just by luck if some expensive gems or even the rare chance a magic item is found ( and the DM was dumb enough to give it to them ) that 1st level character can be well on his way to 2nd level well short of "84 orcs" ( Graylord's quoted number ).No, because XP is ownly gained from wealth on a 1:1 basis if its guardians are commensurate with the treasure. Expensive gems found just by luck would give little or no XP.
weasel fierce 09-06-05, 12:25 PM	The treasure charts are only for when near the maximum number of creatures are encountered. The DMG advises to cut them down severely or not use them, if only a couple of critters are met
Shade Harlok 09-07-05, 05:02 AM	I've seen lots of people bash 2nd ed, and I'm more than ready to admit that it had alot of faults, but I miss people building characters to be "interesting". It really seems to be the case that people are "planning" the course of thier characters to the extent of knowing which prestige class they want to take third and the exact way to spread skill points to do it. Does anyone else out there still develop a character thinking only one or two levels ahead? You know, perhaps a character that studies calligraphy because he likes it. It seems that the game is losing the flavor of play that it once had. Is it that the blandly written 2nd ed books forced us to add more to the game than the vibrant exciting books for 3.5? Is it just the people I'm gaming with? (doubt that they are all nucking futz) Is it that people are just to worried about making a more efficient character than the other players? Perhaps I'm just getting old (33?....hmmm...maybe) and I miss the glory days of "if you can dream it up, just make it work". Perhaps a comp prog along the lines of the Core Rules will ease the burden of how to make 30 zombies using that freaking templates that so slows down the work on my campaign. Mokrii