Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dathlue Mistwinter 06-14-05, 02:48 AM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. PS. PCs are getting to be heroes at very low levels. Talk about unrealistic. WORK YOUR WAY UP. What about that, huh? What about THAT? What the heck kind of person, at a fifth level of living, can morph into a wild shape every day? PSS. I have all the 3.5 books and 3.0 books. I went out and bought 2E yesterday. Magnifique.
weasel fierce 06-14-05, 02:56 AM	I wholeheartedly agree, though I tend not to like 2nd edition AD&D as much as 1st edition or classic D&D. However, I think this post will generate quite a bit of angry responses.
CycloneRanger 06-14-05, 03:00 AM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? It's about whatever you make it about. End of discussion. Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. No, I won't call you any of those things. Your ability to create a post and complain about the "flavor" of third edition does not make you old school, boring, adult, or anything else. It does not increase your respect, apparent wisdom, or any other attribute. These "Third Edition is all about the Numbers" threads are becoming increasingly common and increasingly annoying.
Dathlue Mistwinter 06-14-05, 03:01 AM	These "Third Edition is all about the Numbers" threads are becoming increasingly common and increasingly annoying. As they should be! I've never played a 1E or Classic campaign... although I do think I know where to find the books. Do you really think they're worth the buy?
weasel fierce 06-14-05, 03:05 AM	I've never played a 1E or Classic campaign... although I do think I know where to find the books. Do you really think they're worth the buy? Depends on the cost. AD&D1st edition players handbooks can usually be found around 10 bucks (US). I'd pay as much as 20 if it is in good condition. Same for AD&D 2nd edition. Classic D&D basic and expert books (either version) propably 5-10 dollars. The later companion and master sets tend to be more expensive. The Rules Cyclopedia, 20 dollars at least, except 30+. On the plus side, once you have it, you will never need to buy another D&D book ever ;) EDIT: I think I misunderstood the question.. as to the games.. I definately think so. AD&D1st edition has some neat things that 2nd edition doesnt (assasins for one), and some of the classes are a lot nicer (Ranger and illusionist in particular). The books are also generally well written and there are a lot of minor differences. Most people play with bits from both, so I'd definately grab it. CLassic D&D is a game all of its own, very easy, rules light and swift playing. Its more a "tinkers D&D" really. The campaign I started last sunday had 3 players who hadnt played it before (one of which had never played an RPG before) and we spent only half an hour on making characters and explaining stuff, before we could get to play. Cant beat that with any other D&D version :)
Flay Crimsonwind 06-14-05, 03:05 AM	These "Third Edition is all about the Numbers" threads are becoming increasingly common and increasingly annoying.Seconded. If you don't like it, and want to pose old school, then go play an older format and complain to your group of fellow posers there. But complaining is just obnoxious and unneeded, seeing as there are people who like it and don't want to hear people complain pointlessly about it. If you don't like it (which you don't have to) then just ignore it and shut up.
weasel fierce 06-14-05, 03:08 AM	If you don't like it (which you don't have to) then just ignore it and shut up. If you dont like his thread (which you dont have to), then just ignore it and shut up ?
Roreck 06-14-05, 03:11 AM	I say thirid edition is as much about numbers as you make it. Last session in my thirid edition campaign we rollplayed for about 5 or so hours idk I was wasn't watching my watch without a single battle but we were kinda hoping for a battle (we do enjoy rp a lot but we wanted to teach a new player how combat worked) our group was upset (at least I was) when the dm said he was to tried to roleplay the elvan tailor npc (god a gay male tailor that would have been hilarious) anyway I digress. Yes stats and numbers are important when you are doing battle but that makes sense if you are strong it shows in combat. As long as you roleplay properly I don't see that problem. My group even Roleplays during combat (like X the best solution/action but my character would do Y so we do Y) It just depends on how much you let the temptation of power corupt you edit: IMO 2nd had more numbers different saves for everything, THACO which is confusing and different XP requirements to level up for each class (why was that in there?) and of course high stats were a must so you could make a check in any of them (in thirid if you have a low stat you can make up for it with skill points)
Flay Crimsonwind 06-14-05, 03:11 AM	If you dont like his thread (which you dont have to), then just ignore it and shut up ?Sorry, just got tired of annoying people dragging these threads on and turning people off of 3.5, which gets annoying.
weasel fierce 06-14-05, 03:21 AM	No need to apologize to me :) Its no skin off my nose. As far as Im concerned it beats another paladin thread :) I think a good point to raise though, is, not so much differences between the editions, but that the rulebooks do not seem to encourage much else than dungeon hacking, and killing things. Even the character classes are geared towards the same (particularly with the boosts given to druids and thieves). Maybe its something WOTC may pursue at later points ? After all, its quite likely that they will want to expand upon their material, and go in new directions as time goes along.
Sarella Starshine 06-14-05, 03:23 AM	first of all, there is nothing what so ever in the rules that say that they CAN'T have thier character history and such be half thier character sheet. the rules guide the combat because otherwise, it will degenerate into nothing but fights about who shot who and such. there are 0 rules to 'regulate' roleplay because roleplay is not ment to be nor can it be regulated. how do you regulate something that differs so drasticly that even two people who roleplay can't agree about it? some people feel that if the angst in your character does not rivial a high school, your not doing it properly, while others feel that roleplaying and good mechanics are mutually exclusive, while still others find the previous statment completely and utterly false and derive great pleasure in pointing that fact out to anyone that mutters the previous sentence. hince the reason that xp for combat is easy to regulate, either you overcome the monster though combat (either by killing, subduing, etc.) or you don't. how can you regulate xp for roleplaying? if the people that roleplay the best get the most...then those of us who have a hard time roleplaying (yes, i do count myself among those members) will lag very far behind and will quickly stop having fun because no matter how hard we try, we won't go far. and vice versa (with the good roleplayers getting upset they have to carry those that are not good). if you do not want combat in your game, dont put combat in it. if you feel that characters are too powerful, tone them down (but make sure that when you do tone them down, they are still equal with the others), or give them less xp so they will take longer to level. YOU are in control of how YOUR game goes (though with valid player input). there is nothing what so ever in the rules that force you to play one way only.
Dathlue Mistwinter 06-14-05, 03:23 AM	You're right about the THAC0. I'm going to start a thread about how there should only be three classes. Yes, three. But customization in what you do.
weasel fierce 06-14-05, 03:46 AM	I posted it on the OOP board a while ago, but I can dig it up again. THAC0 and BAB are the exact same thing, except for one instance, with the exact same mechanics to find numbers to hit, AC hit with a given roll etc. They just renamed it and flipped the scale upside down, then some smart guy in R&D figured "hey, to make the game faster, why not double the number of attacks everyone has, and then make the hit numbers different for each, so you cant roll them at the same time. That'll really save time!" Sorry... I had to ;)
Puritan13 06-14-05, 03:57 AM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. PS. PCs are getting to be heroes at very low levels. Talk about unrealistic. WORK YOUR WAY UP. What about that, huh? What about THAT? What the heck kind of person, at a fifth level of living, can morph into a wild shape every day? PSS. I have all the 3.5 books and 3.0 books. I went out and bought 2E yesterday. Magnifique. The majority of your post really makes no sense. If half your character sheets are no longer taken up by background, it's your fault, not the ruleset. But really, the only problem I had is when you said that 2E was magnifique. Having played both editions extensively, I can say without doubt that 3.5 is the best incarnation of the D&D rules to date. The removal of THAC0 alone is enough to garner my undying support.
weasel fierce 06-14-05, 04:01 AM	The removal of THAC0 alone is enough to garner my undying support. THAC0 minus AC = number required to hit target. AC minus BAB = number required to hit target. Man, how things change :cool:
Planar Wanderer 06-14-05, 04:03 AM	One of the reasons I normally ignore threads like this is that in your opinion 2ed (and with the 3 classes thing that sounds like 1ed) was better, thats fine go with it if you enjoy it, the following is my opinion and my opinion only. Okay,one of the reasons the rules only seem to cover combat is that combat is the bit you actually want rules for to stop as it has already been mentioned the game degenerating into a I hit him, no you didn't yes I did sort of thing or even "I kill the monster, what next?" (by the way nothing stops you rolling all attacks at once, either colour code your dice or if you are short on dice like me, roll the same number of dice as you have attacks and read them left to right as they fall for moving down the series of iteratives). You do not really want rules for roleplaying, that only starts to inhibit what you can do, when the rules are vague (as they are in 3ed) then what you can do is limited only by your DM, and if he is a good DM then there will be little that your charachter can't do provided it is reasonable for his/her abillities. As far as work your way up goes, this is dependant largely on your DM and the adventures he runs, but remember the majority of people in the world are 1st level commoners, of those who have levels in other classes the majority will be first or second level warriors or adepts, PC classes are rare, the reason you hit 5th level and some of the powers given at about that point is that below that level it is quite easy to get a TPK early and screw the campaign around a bit so getting players to 5th level gets them to the point where randomenss is less likely to wipe everyone out, besides they won't be that famous at 5th level, yeah they might even get free room and board at some of the villages they helped out but the odds are most nobles won't give them the time of day. The y won't have saved the kingdom or anything by that point just wped out a few goblin infestations maybe some undead plaguing a town, little things.
fatal error 06-14-05, 04:07 AM	Umm, you can roll different colored d20s at the same time... Anyway, I too, am sick of people for come here and say 3.5 is all crunch. What do you want? Now, I don't own 1st or 2nd addition books, but from what I've heard they didn't have anything like gurps' disadvantage system to encourage roleplaying, or anything close. I just don't see why people think that just because there are more rules, there MUST be less roleplaying. There is exactly as much roleplaying as your DM puts in. And personally, I enjoy time spent 'min/maxing' my character, but that doesn't mean I leave the room whenever we aren't in a fight. I seriously don't see why playing an older edition would help your roleplaying, its just less rules on COMBAT, neither have rules on roleplaying. And oh no, my character sheet doesn't have a slot for personality history and description, heard of a second piece of paper? And please, don't go calling yourself 'old school' when you just bought 2nd edition books a week ago. And exactly what is WRONG with PCs being capable heroes at low levels, its not like they can take on dragons just because they get wild shape at level 5...
HappyDragon 06-14-05, 04:07 AM	I second CycloneRanger. It really is what you make of it. Our groups have gone entire sessions without the need of a single diie roll using 3.5 edition. As other posters have already said, there perhaps maybe isn't enough in books to encourage more roleplaying, but in some ways I prefer it that way. Means when I create characters I can have alot more control over them. One of the main reasons I prefer Eberron over Forgotton Realms is because Eberron doesn't have alot of material on it yet.....leaves alot of room for the player to fill in the blanks themselves. By the way, if the OP hasn't seen the Eberron stuff yet they may want to take a look at it. Sounds like it might be right up their alley. Cheers :)
Escef 06-14-05, 04:22 AM	This reminds me suspiciously of a World of Darkness gamer telling me that D&D is all combat. And I told him in return that I had DMed several sessions where we never picked up the dice. He was amazed. This was back in the days of 2e. Anyone who calls himself oldschool and decries that all the books talk about is combat and such really needs to be whacked upside the melon with a 1e AD&D DMG. Seriously. The game mechanics have always been about combat. One of the things I like about D&D is that it doesn't presume to tell you how to RP, or what your setting should be. (As opposed to WoD, which dictates your setting to you, pushes your RP in a certain directin, and has game mechanics that a 10 year-old could have made.)
Ranger REG 06-14-05, 05:02 AM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? You want a chapter on "Let's Pretend For Dummies"? :uh-huh: Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. You're older than old school, because I'm old school and I like 3e over 2e. :P PS. PCs are getting to be heroes at very low levels. Talk about unrealistic. WORK YOUR WAY UP. What about that, huh? What about THAT? What the heck kind of person, at a fifth level of living, can morph into a wild shape every day? Shouldn't they be heroes at low level? PSS. I have all the 3.5 books and 3.0 books. I went out and bought 2E yesterday. Magnifique. Meh. Only if you don't mind the small list of allowed multiclass combination by race, the restricted human dual-classing system, the THAC0 formula (which unfortunately I cannot wipe from my mind), the awful Nonweapon Proficiency System based heavily on attributes rather than on development, etc., knock yourself out.
Count Arioch the 28th 06-14-05, 05:07 AM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? It never existed. you're imagining things.
Count Arioch the 28th 06-14-05, 05:10 AM	If you dont like his thread (which you dont have to), then just ignore it and shut up ? If you don't like the fact that thinking a system in any way inpacts your roleplaying is anything other than ignorant, then go to the white wolf boards and whine there with the goths and emo kids.
mrshupizdumaterinu 06-14-05, 05:31 AM	Yes it is. Then again, some of the less retarded people around manadge to have excellent role-playing experiences.
Gemstone 06-14-05, 05:32 AM	Dungeons & Dragons is much about combat yes. But it always been that way. Almost every other game I've played had less focus on the combat and more focus on the other aspects of roleplaying. But you can change that if you wish. It's all depending on what kind of DM you have. FOr a few weeks ago, my players faced a greedy goblin which they tricked, and we all remember it as the best session we had for long. So... why whine when you simply can make it up?
Faraer 06-14-05, 05:48 AM	Certainly true that 3E excised non-adventuring spells and magic items (such as longevity magics), and figures 'game balance' mostly by capacity to cause/resist damage. I don't think it hurts, for the sake of those who haven't had this discussion many times before, to point out that there are alternatives to this mindset.
Hairfoot 06-14-05, 06:27 AM	To designers, whining is known as "feedback", so keep it up. 3.5 is more hack-and-slashable than previous incarnations, but it's not required. A skilled DM can make the game as rich in plot and roleplaying as any previous edition. Veterans should remember that the key to D&D's continued longevity is in targeting the teenage market, which demands the plug-and-play immediacy of game consoles and card systems like Magic: the Gathering. The kids get turned off by having to develop a character worthy of a novel before they can get to the action. Personally, I'm delighted with the new combat system. Tactical nous counts for much more than it did in 2e, where the fudgy rules made miniatures useful for a vague overview of combat, but not for detailed manoeuvring. It is disappointing, though, that PCs these days aren't just exceptional mortals - they're mediaeval Marvel superheroes. The simple pleasure of overcoming a band of orcs is gone. Now there needs to be dragon and fifteen trolls behind every door just to pose a challenge (no points for spotting the hyperbole). I'd like to see a "3.5 basic" - rules for scaling down character and monster power to alter the focus on combat and level progression. Perhaps it exists, but I haven't seen it.
DragonsArt 06-14-05, 07:06 AM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. As opposed to Save vs Poison, save vs spells, save vs. breath weapon, pick pocket chance, move silently chance, thac0, etc? They've simplified the combat system in v3+, but the rules for combat have been there since the "old days." What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What character sheet are you looking at? A home-brewed character sheet? If so, you can make a home-brewed 3rd edition character sheet that does the same. I played 2e too... heck, I played 1e. The system was more complicated then, as you had to have a chart (well... until you memorized it) for THAC0 (for those who don't know... it stands for To Hit AC 0), saves, thief skills, etc. I remember the old character sheets. There wasn't "half of your character sheet" devoted to your story. In most instances, you were writing your history on another sheet (or sheets) of paper. What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? While the combat system has been re-vamped, the roleplay possibilities are still there. If you're not experiencing them, it's either YOU who have changed, or your GROUP that has changed. I've actually had some of my best roleplaying experiences since 3rd edition. Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. You are old school! You are boring! There, I called you them. The fact of the matter is, you're stuck in remembering the old days... which, as Billy Joel says "the good ole days weren't always good..." Sure, we had to use a little more imagination and make up a bunch of stuff, since the rules back then didn't cover everything... but it was also alot more restricting as to exactly what you could and couldn't do. You want to cast and fight? Be an elf. Want to be a bard, first take fighter, then take rogue... even though it really didn't make sense... PS. PCs are getting to be heroes at very low levels. There's a HUGE difference between being the hero of the village, who repelled the kobold attack... and being the heroes of the country after slaying the evil necromancer who had swept down from the ancient fortress with hordes of undead.... and yet again, the saviors of the planes by eliminating the threat of the mind flayer invasion from another plane. 3rd edition gives the characters the oppurtunity to be heroic throughout their career. Nothing wrong with that. If your characters are world reknown heroes at 1st level, that sounds like a campaign/DM issue... not a gaming system issue. Talk about unrealistic. Unrealistic? So... are you trying to say that if I saved a child out of a burning building, I wouldn't be a local hero? I probably would. I might even be in the local paper. But would someone in another state know me? Probably not. WORK YOUR WAY UP. What about that, huh? Again... I assume it's a DM/campaign issue. I haven't been in too many campaigns (3rd edition or otherwise) where my character started off as a hero. Also... the good ole days were filled with monty hael campaigns where you had killed Zeus and had Aphrodite as your love slave. Why? Because you were young and it felt good to feel powerful. Now that some of us are older, we want to earn what we have and we have a more defined sense of what is "possible" and what is not. There's still young people playing, and yes, some of their campaigns start the characters out against some ubber villian of epic levels... even though logically, he would sneeze and kill the PCs. Or, their first mission is to kill an ancient red dragon. It happens now... it happened then... it all depends on the DM and the campaign... What about THAT? What the heck kind of person, at a fifth level of living, can morph into a wild shape every day? The druid kind, apparently. I see nothing wrong with wild shaping every day at fifth level since at 5th level (even in the older editions), wizards can fling around fireballs. Get a grip! It's a game. If you don't like the way your campaign is going... change it or quit it! PSS. I have all the 3.5 books and 3.0 books. I went out and bought 2E yesterday. Magnifique. So this proves what? That you're stuck in the past? That you're set in your way? That you have less imagination today, than you did in the "old days"? The problem isn't with the game system, it's with you. Either you are playing with a bunch of young people, DMing for a bunch of young people or you've lost your imagination. Whatever the case is, I suggest looking inward instead of outward.
J.Augustus Rose II 06-14-05, 07:19 AM	It is disappointing, though, that PCs these days aren't just exceptional mortals - they're mediaeval Marvel superheroes. The simple pleasure of overcoming a band of orcs is gone. Now there needs to be dragon and fifteen trolls behind every door just to pose a challenge (no points for spotting the hyperbole). In your games maybe. In the games I play in we've had our heads handed to us by orcs on more than one occasion. When are you people going to realize that you make the characters. If you don't want your characters to be Marvel Superheroes then don't MAKE them Marvel Superheroes. It's not so difficult to do that you need an officially published chart. Like DragonsArt said: The problem isn't with the game system, it's with you. And that goes for everyone else whose imaginations suddenly broke when 3.0+ came into being.
okaynowa 06-14-05, 07:24 AM	Said Count Arioch (28th of his line!): go to the white wolf boards and whine there with the goths and emo kids. The goths would appreciate it if you didn't send everybody to whine with them. They have exacting, excruciating standards when it comes to whining. The emo kids, now, may be more egalitarian.
Azual 06-14-05, 07:43 AM	3.5? Battle Oriented? You are like the kid yelling "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!" 3.5 really assumes that the DM and Players dont need a book to tell them how to be creative. However, I've tried to run a Greyhawk Campaign, and i have no idea what's going on in Greyhawk because noone tells me (for instance) what the king of Greyhawk is (if there is one) However, i think that in this world where people play huge amounts of video games, and as a result, they really don't gain a stong connection between their character and, as a result, they care more about game mechanics than roleplaying. (the example i often use is that many people enter combat in video games with absolutely no tactics or any ounce of care for their character's safety.) As a result, the newer characters we are getting (like many plaqyers i have recently played with) are obsessed with combat, but they dont get how to roleplay. Its funny, the best player in my group is the daughter of a 2nd Edituion D&D player. Closing Comment: This is a time when we need roleplaying advice the most, But because roleplaying doesn't sell, we will never get it.
Azual 06-14-05, 07:44 AM	J.Augustus Rose II MY AVATAR. MINE!
Hairfoot 06-14-05, 08:03 AM	If you don't want your characters to be Marvel Superheroes then don't MAKE them Marvel Superheroes. It's not so difficult to do that you need an officially published chart. Essentially, you're saying "if you're not a committed powergamer, then eschew every prestige class, new weapon, and innovative spell published, because they're targeted at an audience for whom power is everything". "You people" need to understand that there is a culture attached to the game itself, and that the current culture champions numerical might over vivid imagination. Take that to its logical conclusion, and eventually we'll all be playing D&D Minis and buying sourcebooks containing evocative illustrations and little else. Dedicated players shouldn't be left out of the loop simply because they want something more complex than tabletop Everquest.
J.Augustus Rose II 06-14-05, 08:15 AM	J.Augustus Rose II MY AVATAR. MINE! Since this is the 3.0/3.5 D&D message board I'll fight you for it because D&D is now all about combat! HAVE AT THEE! Essentially, you're saying "if you're not a committed powergamer, then eschew every prestige class, new weapon, and innovative spell published, because they're targeted at an audience for whom power is everything". "You people" need to understand that there is a culture attached to the game itself, and that the current culture champions numerical might over vivid imagination. Take that to its logical conclusion, and eventually we'll all be playing D&D Minis and buying sourcebooks containing evocative illustrations and little else. Dedicated players shouldn't be left out of the loop simply because they want something more complex than tabletop Everquest. That's not what I'm saying in the least. You have control over what your character has and doesn't have. What he uses and what he doesn't use. What his stats are and aren't. The game system does not make your character. YOU make your character. The problem is not the system, or the books, or whatever culture you think this game has. The problem is you and your inability to play the game how YOU want to without having your hand held to do it.
Hairfoot 06-14-05, 08:52 AM	The game system does not make your character. YOU make your character. But the character must operate within the game system, and if that system dictates that fifth-level characters can leap tall buildings in a single bound, then by the time you've houseruled enough to scale it back to something more...mortal, you may as well play something other than D&D. I, personally, would resent that, because I've been playing this game for twenty years, and I feel that the minimalism of early D&D has contributed to my enjoyment of the game and enhanced my meagre powers of creativity. If I started now, I wouldn't need to be original or explorative, because WotC has created a cut-and-dried fantasy theme attached to a compelling tabletop wargame. Thus ends creativity, because roleplaying takes a backseat to slaughtering the enemy hordes in the wargame, which in turn becomes the motive for level progression, item acquisition, and aspiring to PrCs.
Escef 06-14-05, 09:07 AM	But the character must operate within the game system, and if that system dictates that fifth-level characters can leap tall buildings in a single bound, then by the time you've houseruled enough to scale it back to something more...mortal, you may as well play something other than D&D. According to the SRD, it is a DC 32 jump check to leap upward 8 feet. In order to do that at 5th level you'd have to have maxed out your ranks in jump, have at least an 18 Str, and roll a 20 on your jump check. A quick check online places the high jump record at 7 feet and 10 1/2 inches. Tell me again how this is superhuman. :rolleyes:
Hairfoot 06-14-05, 09:13 AM	According to the SRD, it is a DC 32 jump check to leap upward 8 feet. In order to do that at 5th level you'd have to have maxed out your ranks in jump, have at least an 18 Str, and roll a 20 on your jump check. A quick check online places the high jump record at 7 feet and 10 1/2 inches. Tell me again how this is superhuman. :rolleyes: I mentioned hyperbole earlier.
Escef 06-14-05, 09:22 AM	I mentioned hyperbole earlier. Exaggeration (call it hyperbole if you like) is not a means to make a valid arguement. Say what you mean or mean what you say. You choose to exaggerate your arguement. It reminds me of a young lady (I use the term lady very loosely here) who told me my dragon t-shirt had gone out of style in the '80s, which was, "Like a million years ago." It also reminds me of the character of Sara proclaiming that many things that happened around her and that her antagonist had done were "unfair", to which Jareth, the Goblin King replied, "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis for comparrison is." In other words, if you want to be taken seriously and not have your arguement picked apart and have its logical inadequecies thrown back at you, than I suggest you NOT use techniques favored by children and teenagers. Edit: And I shall also point out that whatever a character's combat capacities are, they do not preclude a character from having a well developed or fleshed out personality.
Hairfoot 06-14-05, 09:30 AM	Thank you to Escef for bringing the wisdom of Jareth the Goblin King to bear. Where were you at election time?
Escef 06-14-05, 09:32 AM	Where were you at election time? I voted, what did you do?
Azual 06-14-05, 09:35 AM	Since this is the 3.0/3.5 D&D message board I'll fight you for it because D&D is now all about combat! HAVE AT THEE! :heehee :rofl: :clap:
Azual 06-14-05, 09:36 AM	I voted, what did you do? if only i was 18 :sigh:
Hairfoot 06-14-05, 09:37 AM	I voted, what did you do? I stayed on-topic.
Herecgunina 06-14-05, 09:38 AM	Your post would have a stronger case if you hadn't admitted to picking up the 2e books only yesterday and not played any previous edition. As it is, a lot of the language you're using makes it seem to me like you really WANT people to "call [you] old school". Badly enough that you make this kind of inflammatory post on a board for thousands of strangers to see. But the fact is that a day of 2nd ed gaming and championing it to the 'heathens' does not an Old School Gamer make.
Escef 06-14-05, 09:40 AM	I stayed on-topic. No, you didn't. Where were you at election time?
Planar Wanderer 06-14-05, 10:03 AM	3.5? Battle Oriented? You are like the kid yelling "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!" 3.5 really assumes that the DM and Players dont need a book to tell them how to be creative. However, I've tried to run a Greyhawk Campaign, and i have no idea what's going on in Greyhawk because noone tells me (for instance) what the king of Greyhawk is (if there is one) You know there is the living greyhawk supplement. For the most part however this would be an issue of "who cares?" if it has an impact make it up, the DM designs the gameworld, or if you use a prepublished setting then buy the campaign setting, which has information like that in it, if it doesn't have an impact then don't worry about it. (and for the record greyhawk is an entire world so I doubt very much it has one king)
StormKnight 06-14-05, 11:06 AM	I do think the system has an influence on what kind of games you play with it. D&D 3.5 has a very detailed combat system, with tons of special abilities, spells and feats devoted to helping out combat. When you create an advance a character, you get all these cool feats and abilities, you want to USE them! If you are going to play a game that's very light on combat, why bother using a system with all the massive overhead and complexity of D&D for it? For example, the Space-Fantasy/Romance themed BESM game I've been running for my girlfriend would be just plain silly in D&D; there's a fight maybe every third session, and its usually over in a few attacks. If we were using D&D, this game would probably have fallen flat; it would take way too long to resolve things, and too much of the character would be tied up in combat abilities for it to feel worthwhile. That said, while I think the mix of what goes on will depend on the game, there's no reason you can't have a lot of role-playing in ANY game. Personalities and characters can develop along with whatever else is going on; its up to the players whether or not they do. While original D&D was certainly simpler, I think this "old D&D was more about roleplaying" notion is completely absurd. I played a fair bit of 1st edition D&D; back in the time I NEVER, EVER met a group that did anything other than fight monsters, defeat traps, gather treasure. Ever. If you did, great for you, but that's the players, not the game.
The Axeman 06-14-05, 11:15 AM	3.5 does emphasize combat more so than earlier versions. I wish they would publish more guidelines for awarding XP for role-playing rather than "roll-playing". But really, the DMG can't make you a good story teller, it only helps but what it could do if they would just do it...is make it easier for the more combat oriented DMs to set up a game where role playing is emphasized over or as much as combat.
sologdin 06-14-05, 11:20 AM	the new edition is more of a skirmish/tactics game than the older versions, but the changes were necessary. i.e., i don't know how many times, playing the older versions, that someone said "i run through the pack of gnolls to attack the shaman in the back!" all we had was a very untidy sketch of a map on graphing paper, with nothign to note positions, no precise movement rules, and no attacks of opportunity, etc. made for confusing, but good times. the new rules are much more precise, and since the game is equally about combats and assuming a role, it is appropriate.
darkness ninja of light 06-14-05, 11:40 AM	I pretty much agree with everyone else here. D&D is what you make of it. The rules are simply guidelines that give you what options you have. If you feel that your players aren't very good at making backgrounds, then help them out a bit. I know that when I started, I would make a long background for my character but it was very badly done. My character was made as immature as I was. Now I try to install realism and intrigue into my characters. Every character I make usually has one unrelated aspect to her (such as a perform check for a non-bard or such, and with good reason). Other players I played with hardly made backgrounds at all. Now our group is starting to put much more emphasis on characters and backgrounds. It's just a matter of getting better at the non-rules portion of D&D. As for level 5 heroes, if you're looking for adventure, as most characters do in D&D, then yeah, you're going to be a hero occasionally. It's not like you've just sat around doing nothing your entire life. Occasionally even a young inexperienced person can save a town. You've heard of the tale where the boy plugs a leak in a dam with his finger to save his village, right? It's not like the characters just poofed into existance at level 5. They've done something. If you want books that give lots of role playing tips, then check out the "Races of" books, monster books, campaign settings, terrain books, etc. etc. etc. Lots of stuff.
weasel fierce 06-14-05, 02:04 PM	If you don't like the fact that thinking a system in any way inpacts your roleplaying is anything other than ignorant, then go to the white wolf boards and whine there with the goths and emo kids. Im sure Flay Crimsonwind, whom my post was in response to, appreciates your valiant defense of his online post, that we already talked about.
weasel fierce 06-14-05, 02:06 PM	According to the SRD, it is a DC 32 jump check to leap upward 8 feet. In order to do that at 5th level you'd have to have maxed out your ranks in jump, have at least an 18 Str, and roll a 20 on your jump check. A quick check online places the high jump record at 7 feet and 10 1/2 inches. Tell me again how this is superhuman. :rolleyes: Try calculating how many normal men it takes to defeat a level 6 or 7 fighter, with the "average" magical gear he is supposed to have.
GreyLord 06-14-05, 04:12 PM	The Other day when we were trying to play a Tolkienlike game...my DM said that Aragorn was like a Ranger... I said no...as simply being just a ranger was waaay to wimpy. He had to have started as maybe a Ranger, taken a level or two of Sorcerer, and then gotten the Barbarian class from living in the wild so long, and then when able, took on the Prestige class of Samurai. My DM said Rangers and Aragorn were archtypes... Screw that...Aragorn could never have been a Ranger, afterall, Tolkien must have meant Ranger/Sorcerer/Barbarian/Samurai...I plan on getting an epic Prestige class soon. We then started discussing Gandalf. He said Gandalf was a Wizard. I said NO WAY...that would be tooo Wimpy. Gandalf first must have had at least two levels of Fighter so he could specialize in the Sword, then gotten the Wizard Class, though since he didn't use a spellbook it must have been Sorcerer. He then advanced in Sorcerer until he could become an Eldritch Knight. Then obviously Gandalf got Epic and gained a few levels of Archmage...so Gandalf...a wizard...NO WAY... Gandalf is obviously a Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Archmage. We then started out on Bilbo...who he tried to convince me was a thief. Once again...he must have started out with the NPC class of Commoner, then taken on some levels of theif, but then learned about Sting so got to have a few levels of fighter, and finally since he took up the talent of singing later on...a Bard. So Bilbo was a Commoner/Rogue/fighter/bard. Forget that Burgular junk. My DM tried to convince me that these were the archtypes...obviously archtypes suck...since they are so wimpy and constraining. Then we started to discuss Kung Fu Movies. Here I stated that there was no such thing as just Ninjas...they all must have had some class before to start them off to get so hot. I argued that they must have had either the Rogue or Scout classes, though some might also be Monks. Later they probably also picked up another Prestige class or two. Finally he gave up on that and we started discussing the old D&D times...with guys like Gord...or Drizzt. Gord a Rogue...no way. He was so constrained before, but really, no he would have to be powergamed now. So to make him much better, he'd probably have been a half-elf or elf just for the bonuses, then if half elf taken the half-elf paragon prestige classes, then gone over and gotten the elf paragon prestige classes for the bonuses to his stats...then then taken two levels of fighter for the extra feat and specialization, then gotten a level or two in something like bard, then started his Rogue class...ending up as a Elf (remember this is +2 Dex, with the prestige class up to +4) Paragon/Fighter/Bard/Rogue. And Drizzt, we have his 3e stats that expressely show he's no ranger anymore...afterall, Rangers alone are wimpy. At this point the Dm gave up. This is why 3.5 rocks...Gandalf in old editions is some stinky wizard...but in 3.5 he's much more powerful and refined to fit exactly as he is in the books...as a Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Archmage. Much more fitting than simple Wizard. And about Ninjas...besides that fact that they have so many nifty classes and prestige classes... they just jump around and kill people. Yes...This post is tongue in cheek.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-14-05, 04:50 PM	I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet. I think, however, what the OP is getting at is that the art of roleplaying is dying down (in general), and all the number crunching and rules certainly aren't helping. In which case I would agree. However, every system is what you make of it, and it's usually a matter of opinion. I myself prefer 1st edition. I don't mind playing in any edition, but most everything except 1st edition and the original boxed sets (either one) is too rules-heavy for my tastes, and is a headache to run. I respect the DM's who can actually handle that much information.
BladeDrinker 06-14-05, 05:00 PM	Try calculating how many normal men it takes to defeat a level 6 or 7 fighter, with the "average" magical gear he is supposed to have. That's why some people like low level games. I seem to recall that a 7th level fighter could beat the crap out of a village in 2E as well. The Other day when we were trying to play a Tolkienlike game...my DM said that Aragorn was like a Ranger... The other day I went to a library and asked for a non-tolkien fantasy book. I was told that they didn't exist. There were four books on the shelf. One was labeled The Hobbit, or The Thief. Another was labeled The Fellowship of the Ring, or The Fighter. The third was labeled The Two Towers, or The Cleric. And the last was labeled The Return of the King, or the Wizard. I turned to the librarian and told her that I had already read each of those sacred texts numerous times, and that I yearned to read something new. "Something new?" She said incredulously. "How could anything be better than Tolkien?" "Perhaps there is nothing better than Tolkien," I said, "but is there no room on your shelf for Ursula K. Le Guin? Is there no place for the works of some writer I hear of named Robert Jordan, or even perhaps for a book by C.S. Lewis?" "No. I seriously doubt you have memorized the holy canon in its entirety, even if you have read every book once or twice." "I have read the hobbit six times!" /sarcasm off. I have basically come to the conclusion that most people either a) powergame and never roleplay, or b) just talk to each other about their characters and never actually enter any combat. The game rules don't discuss talking because they assume you know how to do it. There is no need for the PHB to give people rules for how to roleplay their character, because you don't need any :censored: rules! That doesn't mean you shouldn't or can't roleplay. On the other hand, what kind of story would Beowulf be if he never fought Grendel or the dragon? A pretty lame one. Combat shouldn't be the only part of your gaming sessions, but you should have an encounter at least every session or so. It isn't the responsibility of the DMG to give the encounters flavor and roleplaying possibilities. It is the responsibility of the DM to introduce interesting recurring villains.
devinmdp 06-14-05, 05:13 PM	Having played every edition of AD&D and D&D, my thoughts... First, 3rd edition has attracted a subset of crunchers simply because you can do it in 3rd edition. It is almost impossible to 'minimax" a PC in 2nd edition because, sans Players Option, you really didn't have many choices. You are usually a single class with a very set progression. There were some limited multi-class choices available, but not enough to spawn a whole subindustry of optimization. But just because a system opens up choices and allows one to do A doesn't mean that, defacto, B is deemphasized. Because 3rd edition allows optimization doesn't take away from roleplaying per se. It is true that 3rd edition has attracted a group of players (usually younger) with a video game mentality, and these folks are attracted to the crunching aspect and not much interested in RPing. But you have to ask yourself two questions: 1. If D&D were still 2nd edition, would these folks have ever bothered to pick up and play the system? 2. Isn't there a great likelihood that as the crunchers mature, they will start to RP? Second, I think in some respects old timers tend to wax nostalgic for earlier editions. Guess what? Go crack open a full set of 2nd edition rule books. You will find most of the things that old timers complain about for 3rd edition: 1. Almost every rule is geared towards combat 2. Charts and tables dominate the page count 3. The system is bloated and requires too many rulebooks Third, how exactly do you design a rule set to promote roleplaying? Is the only way to promote RPing in a given ruleset to skimp on combat oriented rules? Why would one preclude the other? The fact is, you can't really legislate (in a rules sense) RPing. It can be suggested and advised, but after that it is a craft that must be experienced and learned. D&D sprouted from a wargaming origin and it has always emphasized this. Always. Devin
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-14-05, 05:15 PM	@GreyLord: Sad thing is, some people actually think that way.
Wildonion 06-14-05, 06:55 PM	I have played 3.5, 3.0 and 2nd and I found that there is some truth to what you say. It really does seem like combat is the core of 3.5. I do understand that it is all in how you play the game but combat still feels like it is the center of the 3.5 universe. Also, Some Quick questions: 1) What edition do the red and blue box games belong to? 2) is there an online store I can find first edition stuff?
=-Nonsensical-= 06-14-05, 06:59 PM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? What do you want? A splatbook telling you how to hold a conversation? Or perhaps a feat that allows you to tie your shoelaces? How much RP is in the game is completely up to you and your DM. If you want to play through a peaceful year in the life of a pig farmer that involves zero combat, there is nothing in the system to stop you. Personally I prefer to place someone a little more adventurous and exciting. PS. PCs are getting to be heroes at very low levels. Talk about unrealistic. WORK YOUR WAY UP. What about that, huh? What about THAT? What the heck kind of person, at a fifth level of living, can morph into a wild shape every day? For that matter, what kind of person can morph into a wild shape at any level of living? When did you last see someone sling a fireball? Slay a dragon? Please, never talk about realism on these boards. This is about Dungeons and Dragons, not about the real world.
Dathlue Mistwinter 06-14-05, 10:56 PM	The Other day when we were trying to play a Tolkienlike game...my DM said that Aragorn was like a Ranger... I said no...as simply being just a ranger was waaay to wimpy. He had to have started as maybe a Ranger, taken a level or two of Sorcerer, and then gotten the Barbarian class from living in the wild so long, and then when able, took on the Prestige class of Samurai. My DM said Rangers and Aragorn were archtypes... Screw that...Aragorn could never have been a Ranger, afterall, Tolkien must have meant Ranger/Sorcerer/Barbarian/Samurai...I plan on getting an epic Prestige class soon. We then started discussing Gandalf. He said Gandalf was a Wizard. I said NO WAY...that would be tooo Wimpy. Gandalf first must have had at least two levels of Fighter so he could specialize in the Sword, then gotten the Wizard Class, though since he didn't use a spellbook it must have been Sorcerer. He then advanced in Sorcerer until he could become an Eldritch Knight. Then obviously Gandalf got Epic and gained a few levels of Archmage...so Gandalf...a wizard...NO WAY... Gandalf is obviously a Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Archmage. We then started out on Bilbo...who he tried to convince me was a thief. Once again...he must have started out with the NPC class of Commoner, then taken on some levels of theif, but then learned about Sting so got to have a few levels of fighter, and finally since he took up the talent of singing later on...a Bard. So Bilbo was a Commoner/Rogue/fighter/bard. Forget that Burgular junk. My DM tried to convince me that these were the archtypes...obviously archtypes suck...since they are so wimpy and constraining. Then we started to discuss Kung Fu Movies. Here I stated that there was no such thing as just Ninjas...they all must have had some class before to start them off to get so hot. I argued that they must have had either the Rogue or Scout classes, though some might also be Monks. Later they probably also picked up another Prestige class or two. Finally he gave up on that and we started discussing the old D&D times...with guys like Gord...or Drizzt. Gord a Rogue...no way. He was so constrained before, but really, no he would have to be powergamed now. So to make him much better, he'd probably have been a half-elf or elf just for the bonuses, then if half elf taken the half-elf paragon prestige classes, then gone over and gotten the elf paragon prestige classes for the bonuses to his stats...then then taken two levels of fighter for the extra feat and specialization, then gotten a level or two in something like bard, then started his Rogue class...ending up as a Elf (remember this is +2 Dex, with the prestige class up to +4) Paragon/Fighter/Bard/Rogue. And Drizzt, we have his 3e stats that expressely show he's no ranger anymore...afterall, Rangers alone are wimpy. At this point the Dm gave up. This is why 3.5 rocks...Gandalf in old editions is some stinky wizard...but in 3.5 he's much more powerful and refined to fit exactly as he is in the books...as a Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Archmage. Much more fitting than simple Wizard. And about Ninjas...besides that fact that they have so many nifty classes and prestige classes... they just jump around and kill people. Yes...This post is tongue in cheek. Okay, I have never multiclassed ever. Even with my chaotic characters. I believe that determination in your profession is what makes you great. Sure, you'll have variety, but you won't be able to cast WISH to help you defeat a great dragon if you're level 20 with only three levels wiz/sor before you went insano with cleric fighter barbarian and rogue levels.
GreyLord 06-15-05, 12:18 AM	Of course my Aragorn would not be able to...but the Gandalf Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Archmage will be able to cast wish even before he gets all those levels...what do you think I'm going to do with all that treasure that rulebooks say I get...spend it on item creation...and waste all that XP??? Better to let others spend their XP and spend my money that I won't be spending on a Castle anyways. Saying of course my DM allows a cheese spell like that to be prolific enough for one to find anyways. The Rules work in my favor...I should have 733t junk by the time I'm 20th level...Wish??? Heck...why'd you want such a wimpy spell...when you can have a staff of Arch Wizardry with +5 to your DEX and AC, along with a +20 Damage and Flaming Strike with twenty charges which can be used on Wishes/Shapechange/Meteor Swarm or Time Stop? Once again...tongue in cheek.
Palomides 06-15-05, 01:01 AM	THAC0 minus AC = number required to hit target. AC minus BAB = number required to hit target. Man, how things change :cool: Sorry but THACO was not as simple as you mention it. There was a series of 20, 6 in total. 2 which were a modified rolls and 4 which needed to be natural. And after that you needed natural 20 plus modifers ie 21,22,23 etc. Concerning the subject of the post, I played AD&D 1st, 2nd and 3.5 and 3.5 is the best of all. It could be better. I see in the future, maybe 4.0, feats that you improved through skills development (and maybe buy with skills points). But that is not the point here, the point is that there is no difference in roleplay between any editions of D&D. What 3.5 infuence in term of roleplaying is that a character with low charisma could not work is way easily the roleplaying diplomacy or any other bad stat skill into good roleplay. In old D&D editions what was the point to have good scores to certain stats if you could roleplay around it. That has changed and I think it's for the best.
weasel fierce 06-15-05, 01:14 AM	Sorry but THACO was not as simple as you mention it. There was a series of 20, 6 in total. 2 which were a modified rolls and 4 which needed to be natural. And after that you needed natural 20 plus modifers ie 21,22,23 etc. In AD&D1 yes. In AD&D2, there are no repeating 20's. In old D&D editions what was the point to have good scores to certain stats if you could roleplay around it. That has changed and I think it's for the best. Turned upside down, what is the point of roleplaying, if you have good scores and will succeed anyways. Or opposite, why bother, if you're going to fail anyways ?
the artful dodger 06-15-05, 03:58 AM	Turned upside down, what is the point of roleplaying, if you have good scores and will succeed anyways. Or opposite, why bother, if you're going to fail anyways ? What kind of scores are we talking about here? It's virtually impossible to have scores that guarantee you a success rate of say, either more than 85% or less than 15%. IIRC, the main point to having good scores in AD&D was being able to qualify for the good classes and getting an experience bonus. ;)
weasel fierce 06-15-05, 04:02 AM	Having a high bonus, coupled with a maxed out skill at say, diplomacy, will make a lot of tasks rather routine. A low charisma, coupled with few points in the skill, will make things virtually impossible, in the same regard. old-school, Charisma determines reactions, as well as retainer morale. The other stats have more direct applications, which need little explanation. But yes, with paladin, bard and druid requirements.. charisma is rather a big "enabler", propably a bit too much so. Cheers!
wordserpent 06-15-05, 05:36 AM	Personally I like what the 3.x version of D&D has done with the stats and their modifiers. In the older version of (Advanced)D&D you needed high stats not only to get into the "really neat clases" but you needed high stats just to function with any effectiveness at all. This is why when you look at most 1st and 2nd edition characters they all have scores of 16 or better in their prime requsites. With the new stat system your character doesn't need to be a devine scion with uber-stats just to be able to survuive the first few levels. A character can not only get by, but actually do fairly well with one or two 14's. As for Charisma having more in-game effects, I say it's about time. Charisma used to be the biggest dump-stat around (and it still is for many clases) but at least now it is used for more than simple reactions and morale (which has dissappeared). As for the lack of Roleplaying Rules vs. Combat Rules in the newer editions, I cannot think of any RP rules except random reactions which were kind of ridiculous when you think about it. Imaginre walking into a town that your character just saved from certain destruction and being attacked by the local populace because the DM rolled a "1" on the NPC reaction's table? Now I can see itf the PC's are mistaken for enemies because of their battered and bloody armor or the fact that they are wearing captured equipment of an enemy, but to base such things on a die roll without rhyme or reason is just silly, yet the older editions were full of such useless rules. D&D has evolved from edition to edition and in the eyes of many people it has gotten better. The older editions all went rules-crazy as the company that published the rulesbooks realized that the best way to make money was to publish more stuff. But the was the rules are now, A DM can run a full game and offer Her or His players a decent array of options by using only three rulebooks (which can be bough at a reasonable price).
the artful dodger 06-15-05, 09:08 AM	Having a high bonus, coupled with a maxed out skill at say, diplomacy, will make a lot of tasks rather routine. A low charisma, coupled with few points in the skill, will make things virtually impossible, in the same regard.That's not my experience. Especially for skills like Diplomacy the DM has a fair bit of leeway to set the difficulty of the check, both if he wants it high or low. Skills like Climb are something else, I guess, but then a lot of those are easily made obsolete by spells.
StormKnight 06-15-05, 10:30 AM	They just renamed it and flipped the scale upside down, then some smart guy in R&D figured "hey, to make the game faster, why not double the number of attacks everyone has, and then make the hit numbers different for each, so you cant roll them at the same time. That'll really save time!" While functionally the same, BAB is generally more intuitive than THAC0. THAC0 uses negative numbers, which many people find harder to deal with, and is completely contrary to EVERYTHING else in the system where a high number is good. I also don't think multiple attacks has anything to do with "making the game faster" - its a mechanic to increase the power of physical combat based character as compared to spellcasters. The differing attack values also help make AC still meaningful with highly differing attack and AC values - sure, the huge attack bonus of the fighter's FIRST attack can hit easily, but can the second? It doesn't seem like you usually would want to roll the attacks all at once anyway - often you may want to change targets, or switch to a move if your first attack took down the foe. Third, how exactly do you design a rule set to promote roleplaying? Is the only way to promote RPing in a given ruleset to skimp on combat oriented rules? Why would one preclude the other? The more rules you have for combat, the more time will be taken up figuring out options and tactics in combat. The more abilities you have based combat, the more time you'll spend figuring out your combat abilities. If combat is a lot of fun, you're more likely to spend time during the game in fights.
Sephyrill 06-15-05, 11:18 AM	It is not so that 3.x is a combat-only or powergamer's choice system. For sure you can do great roleplay with D&D 3.x if you have the right players. The only problem is, that all that "Lego-esque" Characters you can build and which really give you great possibilities of specializing also can be abused for powergaming Munchkinism yery easily once someone becomes adept to the rules. Maybe the characters are too powerful at high levels and maybe you level up so quickly that the player's hunger for more (Levels, Exp, Equipment, Prestigeclasses) increases steadily. Another problem is that many players build their characters for combat efficiency alone or hope that they can d20 their problems away with their maximised social skills. sometimes you think they play a computer RPG and make their characters for such things... I have never played 2nd ed, but I know the rules and heared that it takes you years to come to 10th level. That decreases that hunger which is normal for human beings. They learn patience and ways to roleplay through problems since they don't have some cool class speciality or hot spell to solve anything. Roleplaying is learned in the first few levels when your character has nothing but a small weapon, his background, his friends, his goals and his brain. he MUST be creative. And you don't need that high stats in 2nd ed unless you want to become a Paladin or a bard. I would say the stats don't matter that much and you can play a good character with virtually any abilities you rolled. The penalties for low stats were not harsh, they had only effects on how you should play your character. Oh and that "if you have a 16 in your main stat you get 10% Exp bonus" Rule is to be thrown away.
weasel fierce 06-15-05, 12:58 PM	I also don't think multiple attacks has anything to do with "making the game faster" - its a mechanic to increase the power of physical combat based character as compared to spellcasters. My post was sarcastic, in that a design goal was to make the game faster and easier, but the multiple attack mechanics run counter to this. But the was the rules are now, A DM can run a full game and offer Her or His players a decent array of options by using only three rulebooks (which can be bough at a reasonable price). You can run games with just the three rulebooks for any version of D&D. Heck, with my Rules Cyclopedia, I do not intend to ever buy another classic D&D book, except for modules. oAD&D ? Everything you need is in the 3 basics, except stuff like the cavalier, if you want them. Its true that 3.x does not require high stats, but the standard dice roll method is STILL the high powered array from AD&D (4D6, drop lowest, arrange to taste), and most people take it even higher (reroll 1's. reroll anything below 12 etc). Stats of 12-13 are still considered worthless by a lot of people as they cut into your feats allowance, as well as bonus spells. So it changed on paper, but in practice, stats are still inflated. Basic D&D still does better in this regard (bonuses start at 13, and only demihumans have a stat requirement (a measly 9 at that). If charisma is a dump stat, then the DM is not doing his job. I dont see any reason whatsoever that charisma should be less effective or valuable in an AD&D or basic D&D game, than in 3.x. Heck, in AD&D, even fighter types cannot afford to dump charisma as it cuts into their retainers and morale, which will leave you high and dry in most old modules.
BladeDrinker 06-15-05, 01:51 PM	The only problem is, that all that "Lego-esque" Characters you can build and which really give you great possibilities of specializing also can be abused for powergaming Munchkinism yery easily once someone becomes adept to the rules. Maybe the characters are too powerful at high levels and maybe you level up so quickly that the player's hunger for more (Levels, Exp, Equipment, Prestigeclasses) increases steadily. Another problem is that many players build their characters for combat efficiency alone or hope that they can d20 their problems away with their maximised social skills. sometimes you think they play a computer RPG and make their characters for such things... All of those things are the fault of the DM and/or the players. The point of these threads is not that "there are too many people focused on powergaming", which I agree with, but rather that "third edition is responsible for powergaming". It doesn't matter what edition you play- if your players just want hack and slash and the DM wants to roleplay, then the game will suck. If your players want to write up a backstory and they are interested in roleplaying their characters, then you can roleplay in any edition. Powergaming is the fault of powergamers, not 3E.
Sephyrill 06-15-05, 08:56 PM	for sure it is not the fault of the system alone. All I wanted to say was that 3.x lures more easily to powergaming than the previous editions. I don't know if powergaming was effectively possible in 2nd ed. If you have a "low power" system then there will be a less percentile of Powergamers, easy thing :) oh and I know how much it sucks if you love roleplaying (and the half of your group too) but one half of your group are true powergamers which try to hide behind... "obvious backgroundstories"
Rogue1stclass 06-15-05, 10:11 PM	Hey, I've got all my 1e, 2e, and basic stuff out. What pages are the RP rules on?
weasel fierce 06-15-05, 10:14 PM	Powergaming is the fault of powergamers, not 3E. I quite agree that good players can make any system worth playing, and poor ones can massacre anything. However, there is a distinct difference in powergaming generally if you compare games like D&D 3.5 or Exalted to games like Call of Cthulhu.
LordHell 06-15-05, 10:22 PM	I played 10 years of AD&D, and I love both systems. AD&D had way more flavour than D&D. D&D is more wargamey mechanically based. The fact that 90% of the combat rules, feats, etc, almost require miniatures makes this so. AD&D left me as a DM with way more room to be inventive in combat, because quite simply the cumbersome 3rd edition rules wern't there. Yes, you heard me, cumbersome 3rd edition rules. After playing AD&D for a few years things like Thac0 and all that were pretty easy to remember, and I started playing when I was roughly 10. Now in D&D you have to deal with an almost tabletop war game situation with Attacks of Opportunity, 5ft steps, reach, and so forth. There really isnt any swinging from lampshades and kicking an enemy orc, or having an epic wrestle, because all these things are almost dictated by some rule or another. Before in AD&D the players were free to do all this because of the lack of rules governing these areas made these actions into roleplay, D&D 3rd edition turns them into game mechanics that just bog things down. On the other hand, because everything is so mechancally based, it makes life easier on the players. There ARE rules that dictate this and that, so they have a standing point against DMs and the tactical situation makes it more clear about what a player can and can't do. It still feels more wargamey and less roleplay to me - though.
Lord Gwydion 06-15-05, 10:42 PM	My post was sarcastic, in that a design goal was to make the game faster and easier, but the multiple attack mechanics run counter to this. Weasel, while I agree with most of what you said, I gotta ask--Isn't knowing exactly how many attacks you have in a round faster than the 2E system where at some levels have 3/2 attacks? We were always questioning the DM back in those days, "Wait, do I start the fight with two attacks, or only one this round?" or "Wait, last round, did I attack once, or twice? I don't remember..." :confused: Also, in OD&D/1st Ed AD&D, none of us realized that we could have derived THAC0 from the tables in the books, so there was always lots of cross-referencing your class, level, and the target's AC on the chart. And when some characters got the ability to make multiple attacks, they could only do it if they cross referenced the chart and saw that they could only miss on a 1. Now, I know exactly how many attacks I can make in any round. Now I just roll and add one pre-calculated number. Much nicer. Of course, I know you know this. I was just pointing out that I don't think the current system of multiple attacks as BAB goes up is necessarily slower than the old versions.
LordHell 06-15-05, 11:07 PM	Weasel, while I agree with most of what you said, I gotta ask--Isn't knowing exactly how many attacks you have in a round faster than the 2E system where at some levels have 3/2 attacks? We were always questioning the DM back in those days, "Wait, do I start the fight with two attacks, or only one this round?" or "Wait, last round, did I attack once, or twice? I don't remember..." :confused: Also, in OD&D/1st Ed AD&D, none of us realized that we could have derived THAC0 from the tables in the books, so there was always lots of cross-referencing your class, level, and the target's AC on the chart. And when some characters got the ability to make multiple attacks, they could only do it if they cross referenced the chart and saw that they could only miss on a 1. Now, I know exactly how many attacks I can make in any round. Now I just roll and add one pre-calculated number. Much nicer. . Now, while you as a player may have it easy in 3rd Edition, the DM has to flick back and foward working out flat footed armour class, touch armour class, study minatures on a grid, deal with attacks of opportunity, deal with reach, deal with size, deal with grappling, tripping, sundering, the list goes on and on and on. Also, factor in all the non-core material like swift actions, immediate actions, and it becomes a nightmare. Then there is the whole stop-start motion of 3rd edition combat. AD&D combat you stated your actions at the start of the round and then it all played out, which gave it a lot less start-stop motion. 3rd Edition combat is bogged down with so many combat rules that rolling initiative every round would make it unplayable, and you end up with this hard-to-believe start-stop combat situation. It doesnt matter how good a DM you are at making up flavour text, the requirement of minis and the intejections with so many game mechanics in combat take away a lot of the roleplaying in combat that AD&D had. In D&D 3rd edition I find to have exciting combat, you have to have it on the edge of a pit or something. AD&D combat could be exciting all the time with the shere roleplay.
weasel fierce 06-16-05, 12:17 AM	Weasel, while I agree with most of what you said, I gotta ask--Isn't knowing exactly how many attacks you have in a round faster than the 2E system where at some levels have 3/2 attacks? Yeah, the split attacks were a pain in the nuts. Also, in OD&D/1st Ed AD&D, none of us realized that we could have derived THAC0 from the tables in the books, so there was always lots of cross-referencing your class, level, and the target's AC on the chart. You can use THAC0 though, which makes it easy. For my current oD&D campaign, everyone has the AC / hit numbers written on the sheet, so you just look at the AC and it will say what you need to roll. Of course, I know you know this. I was just pointing out that I don't think the current system of multiple attacks as BAB goes up is necessarily slower than the old versions. To be fair, It depends a lot on what you are used to propably. With the info written down on the sheets, I find that old school combat is a breeze, but if you arent used to it, it'll propably be a lot more crunchy to run with. Im sure in the hands of experienced players (and more importantly DM), 3.x combat can be a breeze as well.
Farland 06-16-05, 12:22 AM	Since when were 1e and 2e less battle oriented? Answer: they weren't. D&D is a combat-based game, always has been, and I'm betting always will be. Now how much RPing you do is up to the DM and the Players, and that has very little to do with the system.
weasel fierce 06-16-05, 12:25 AM	Of course, the original three book set of D&D didnt have rules for anything BUT combat. Well, combat and spells :cool:
Lord Gwydion 06-16-05, 02:13 AM	To be fair, It depends a lot on what you are used to propably. With the info written down on the sheets, I find that old school combat is a breeze, but if you arent used to it, it'll propably be a lot more crunchy to run with. Im sure in the hands of experienced players (and more importantly DM), 3.x combat can be a breeze as well. Weasel, I'm co-opting your reply to me to reply to Lord Hell. :) I do DM 3.0/3.5 as well as play. And yes, there are lots of new options just within the core rules compared to earlier editions, and the ever expanding line of completely optional books. I've found that taking more complete notes as a GM means combats go smoothly (until someone tries something really weird, in which case things would slow down no matter what edition you use). As Weasel Fierce says, with it all written down on the sheet, it's a breeze. Unfortunately, this also means more preparation time. Used to be, I could just write down the name of a monster, it's hit points, AC, and weapons, and be good to go. If the monster had lots of special attacks or magic, I'd just pop open the book to that page, and I'd have the info I needed. And I had all the B/E/C/M monsters memorized as far as which book they were in. Giant Ferret? Companion. Purple Worm? Expert. Now please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that 3.5 combat is faster than older editions necessarily. Or that it's better. It's not necessarily slower, or worse, either, though. It depends on what you're used to. If I had the ability to remember which monsters were listed in which box set, I think DMs these days can find a way to remember how grappling, sundering, disarming, and attacks of opportunity work. And if they don't, they can look it up in the book, just like they had to do if they didn't write something down on their character sheet or DM notes when they played older editions. As others have said, a lack of rules for "how to roleplay" doesn't mean the system is shying away from it. Likewise, speed of play in combat is more a function of familiarity with the rules than with anything else. How hard is it to become familiar with the rules of a particular edition? That's what we're really debating here. 3.5 has more listed options spelled out in detail (making it more difficult to familiarize with for some), while older editions had inconsistant and seemingly arbitrary rules for the options presented (making it more difficult to familiarize with for others).
VirgilCaine 06-16-05, 02:40 AM	Said Count Arioch (28th of his line!): The goths would appreciate it if you didn't send everybody to whine with them. They have exacting, excruciating standards when it comes to whining. The emo kids, now, may be more egalitarian. LOL. Or, perhaps, more appropriately, COL.
weasel fierce 06-16-05, 02:51 AM	Because you know.. there are no negative stereotypes associated with D&D players at all :rolleyes:
Yak of Darkness 06-16-05, 03:19 AM	Now please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that 3.5 combat is faster than older editions necessarily. Or that it's better. It's not necessarily slower, or worse, either, though. It depends on what you're used to. If I had the ability to remember which monsters were listed in which box set, I think DMs these days can find a way to remember how grappling, sundering, disarming, and attacks of opportunity work. And if they don't, they can look it up in the book, just like they had to do if they didn't write something down on their character sheet or DM notes when they played older editions.Thank you. :) I'm really kind of baffled at the lists of things being brought out about 3.5 combat that are supposed to be so complex. Reach? Intuitive to me. Attacks of opportunity? Mostly intuitive, and there's a chart in the DMG (and on the DM's screen) to help you out if you don't feel comfortable winging it. Five-foot steps? Are you joking? And as for special maneuvers in combat--either they only come up in rare cases, in which case the DM should read up about it beforehand (if I make an NPC or use a monster that has sundering as a specialty, I'll spend a few minutes looking at those rules before the session in question, and if I didn't like them, I'd change the monster), or they're an ability of one or more of the PC's, in which case the DM should know about them anyway (Would you DM a game for a wizard PC without knowing how spells work? Then why would you DM for a trip-focused fighter without ever looking at the trip rules). Either way, it should only delay actual gaming in the case of a DM brain fart, or a truly rare situation (the non-adamantine weapon using fighter randomly decides to sunder a weapon for the first time at ninth level). If you're used to 3.5 combat, it becomes easy. I've been playing 3.5 for less than two years, and I can competently DM a session with multiple combats (among more than two sides) without slowdown, because I've internalized most of the common rules over many (or just a few) sessions, can wing almost all the rest thanks to the fact that they're fairly intuitive, and look up the special "once every few levels" case before the session begins, because I control what the PCs face. If you're used to 2e, looking at all these unfamiliar rules probably makes it look like the game's just too complex to handle. I, on the other hand, look at backwards-counting THAC0, "every rule is its own exception to the rule" multiclassing, and concepts like level limits and racial/gender maximums for strength (how much of this is 1e, 2e, OD&D, or whatever, I don't know . . . they're not my systems ;) ) and can't help but shake my head at how crazy you people are. It's not a matter of a new edition of books suddenly and unexpectedly killing roleplaying with all of these newfangled "rules"--it's just a matter of perspective and what you're used to.
Roxlimn 06-16-05, 11:17 AM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. Which part of a DC 35 Knowledge check to know whether the king has the power to veto a law is battle oriented? How about a DC 24 Search check to find a clue that will lead PCs to a major noncombat NPC? How many combat rules are elucidated in pages 129 to 168 of the DMG dealing with creating campaigns? Indeed, compared with every other edition previous to it, D&D 3.5 is less about combat, not more. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? What about it? Campaigns set in Eberron, Faerun, and Greyhawk are still about who you know and how you know them. It may not be so for many groups, but the material itself strongly suggests that a good word is a powerful tool. Indeed, having played adventures and modules in all the editions, I would have to say that the game is evolving rather away from combat rather than to it. It used to be that you can't get through almost any area of Temple of Elemental Evil without a fight. In Return to Temple of Elemental Evil, you can get by so easily without fighting that infiltrating to a level at which you are in serious danger of getting killed in plain combat is a real danger. It even says so in the module. Whether you use Bluff, Diplomacy, or just plain old Hide and Move Silently, getting by obstacles in the game without fighting has never been easier. Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. I call you Dathlue Mistwinter, and evidently, someone who needs to read through the rules better. PS. PCs are getting to be heroes at very low levels. Talk about unrealistic. WORK YOUR WAY UP. What about that, huh? What about THAT? What the heck kind of person, at a fifth level of living, can morph into a wild shape every day? Well, PCs in 2e modules were considered heroes when they were 5th level, too. Heck, in 1e, 5th level was a fair enough level to encounter dragons and such - not wyrmlings, mind you, but adult dragons. By the time you reached 9th level, you were supposed to be powerful personages in the world - name level, as it was then called. This was not reasonably less true in 2e. In 2e, once you got to level 9, you were in the big time. In 3e, levels mean less in terms of relative power. The fact that everything scales has changed all that. 7th level PCs are just as likely to need to run away from a Kobold as 1st level PCs, provided that the Kobold was correctly statted out. PSS. I have all the 3.5 books and 3.0 books. I went out and bought 2E yesterday. Magnifique. I happen to have a CD compilation of all the 2e books, including the Player's Options disasters. Having reviewed them recently, I don't see how they are less combat oriented than 3e. In fact, they are much more combat oriented, and I can demonstrate this quite easily. Turned upside down, what is the point of roleplaying, if you have good scores and will succeed anyways. Or opposite, why bother, if you're going to fail anyways ? You roleplay because it's fun, not because it will have any in-game effect. Indeed, assuming that you roleplay appropriately, the end effect should rightly mirror what the dice tells you closely enough that it shouldn't matter which resolution device you choose. old-school, Charisma determines reactions, as well as retainer morale. The other stats have more direct applications, which need little explanation. Charisma in 3e determines how many followers you get and what levels those followers will have relative to your level. It also modifies whatever Diplomacy checks you may have to make, and those kinds of checks can rack up quite quickly, depending on where you are. In pitched Battle, Charisma is also responsible for rally checks and various actions to improve the morale of your unit. I believe that a minimum Charisma is also necessary for some of the more powerful Commander Auras. Some rule variants can have Charisma modify some Will saves instead of Wisdom. As for Charisma having more in-game effects, I say it's about time. Charisma used to be the biggest dump-stat around (and it still is for many clases) but at least now it is used for more than simple reactions and morale (which has dissappeared). Actually, it hasn't. It's now optional. Morale rules can be perused in the new Heroes of Battle supplement. If charisma is a dump stat, then the DM is not doing his job. I dont see any reason whatsoever that charisma should be less effective or valuable in an AD&D or basic D&D game, than in 3.x. Heck, in AD&D, even fighter types cannot afford to dump charisma as it cuts into their retainers and morale, which will leave you high and dry in most old modules. By the rules in AD&D, additional followers from your name levels tended to die rather fast and furious. I once played a Paladin, a Ranger, and a Fighter in Queen of the Demonweb Pits, in that order. Except for Paladin, I dumped Charisma rather gratuitously in that campaign. Nevertheless, the proceeds I got from pumping my other stats was more than what the Rogue got from having a bunch of cannon fodder following him around. Now, while you as a player may have it easy in 3rd Edition, the DM has to flick back and foward working out flat footed armour class, touch armour class, study minatures on a grid, deal with attacks of opportunity, deal with reach, deal with size, deal with grappling, tripping, sundering, the list goes on and on and on. Also, factor in all the non-core material like swift actions, immediate actions, and it becomes a nightmare. Nonsense! Flatfooted and touch AC are figured in every stat block in Dungeon, and I make a practice of doing the same. They are listed right after normal AC. Furthermore, you don't need Miniatures on a grid. Any representation on any grid will do. I use pencils and graphing paper in a pinch, but gridded white boards and tokens are incredibly useful for their price. As for the AoOs, the reach, the size, the grappling and so on... ...well, as much as it may surprise everyone, I had to ad hoc much of the same in 2e, and believe you me, it was a nightmare - then. With PO - Combat, and now 3e, things have become much, much simpler. Then there is the whole stop-start motion of 3rd edition combat. AD&D combat you stated your actions at the start of the round and then it all played out, which gave it a lot less start-stop motion. 3rd Edition combat is bogged down with so many combat rules that rolling initiative every round would make it unplayable, and you end up with this hard-to-believe start-stop combat situation. I would beg to disagree. AD&D combat was not significantly less stop-action than 3e in that you also resolved your actions on a per-turn basis, and it was equally likely for you to fireball an opponent before your fighters charged in to close on the same round. I know because I played a Wizard in Temple of Elemental Evil and I "abused" the stop-action to the tiniest fraction that I could. 3e is not bogged down by as many rules as you think, IMO. We tried rolling Initiative every round, but it just didn't make any sense now, just as it didn't make any sense back then. Not rolling every round actually makes more sense in a continuity sort of way. As for the rules bogging down combat, I don't see where this would ever actually be the case. As long as you know what you should be rolling for, no significant delay occurs. As a suggestion to beginner DMs, I would highly recommend simply vetoing rules you are not familiar with. Rules like AoO and grappling. As you play, learn the rules one by one. Eventually, you'll get it all and you will not need to further consult the books on basic rules. It doesnt matter how good a DM you are at making up flavour text, the requirement of minis and the intejections with so many game mechanics in combat take away a lot of the roleplaying in combat that AD&D had. In D&D 3rd edition I find to have exciting combat, you have to have it on the edge of a pit or something. AD&D combat could be exciting all the time with the shere roleplay. Which part of AD&D combat could you roleplay that you can't in 3e D&D? Indeed, I strongly feel that the introduction of Mini-type rules increased the tendency to roleplay combat amongst my players, not the other way around. Think of the nightmare that a player in 2e would have caused if he tried to pick up an opponent Fighter with his hands! Practically the entire thing would have had to be ruled ad hoc and it had better be consistent in the future or there would be hell to pay.
Hairfoot 06-16-05, 12:31 PM	Well, PCs in 2e modules were considered heroes when they were 5th level, too. Heck, in 1e, 5th level was a fair enough level to encounter dragons and such - not wyrmlings, mind you, but adult dragons. By the time you reached 9th level, you were supposed to be powerful personages in the world - name level, as it was then called. This was not reasonably less true in 2e. In 2e, once you got to level 9, you were in the big time. True, but you used to spend a lot more time at the one level, instead of rocketing to the top of the bell curve at about level 7 and plateauing. As one of the WizOs commented in another forum, 3.x was designed so that players don't have to wait to "get out of the basement". And players should have every right to do that. I can understand the desire to play a comic-book hero, duking it out with dragons and demons. The frustration for me is that I prefer characters to be more Indiana Jones than X-Men. In modern D&D you only spend a short time living by your wits before the feats and class features load up and you're ready to take on super-baddies. I like feeling a bit vulnerable. It's not as exciting to have a mid-level superhero vanquished by a super-monster as it is to have a competent and experienced character genuinely threatened by a common-ish opponent. I think what Old&D players miss is that it felt more "realistic". A skilled PC was up there with, say, a talented special forces soldier, but not with Spiderman. The common refrain is that such players should play something other than D&D, but that's not fair. If D&D is a triumph of flexible roleplaying, it should be easy to accomodate all styles. The neat new combat system is largely responsible for the upsizing of PC power. To get the most from the miniature game you need lots of stuff going on - fighters mowing down a dozen opponents in a round, mages incinerating enormous beasts, monks running up walls to kick the head off an arch-demon. It's also economics. Computer-gamer market, computer-gamer style. Bored now. Want a power-up. Another feat, another class feature, another magic weapon. The closest thing to an old-style class is the bard, which is why it's so often tagged as broken and underpowered. We're polarising around the idea of character roleplaying, which is much the same as ever. The difference, as I see it, is that cleverness has become less important in game strategy. Instead of thinking around problems, you go and get the power-up which lets you defeat your enemies head-on, which results in an arms race between monsters and PCs, and the perception that it's now all about the combat.
StormKnight 06-16-05, 01:10 PM	There really isnt any swinging from lampshades and kicking an enemy orc, or having an epic wrestle, because all these things are almost dictated by some rule or another. Before in AD&D the players were free to do all this because of the lack of rules governing these areas made these actions into roleplay, D&D 3rd edition turns them into game mechanics that just bog things down. I'm not sure what you're saying...that characters would swing from lampshades because they didn't have rules for it, but won't if there are rules for it? In earlier D&D, anything a PC did outside of "attack" you had to come up with an on-the spot ruling for. How this is superior to having rules for some of these actions and needing to come up with on-the spot rulings for is beyond me. What's swinging across the room on a chandelier? Probably using Tumble, with a circumstance bonus for having a way of actually getting out of reach of the enemies. AD&D had way more flavour than D&D. D&D is more wargamey mechanically based. The fact that 90% of the combat rules, feats, etc, almost require miniatures makes this so. Most of this was present in earlier D&D to! Heck, most movement rates and distances were flat out listed in inches so you knew how far to move the minis. Spell area of effects and breath weapons had precisely defined sizes. And if you played without minis then, it was going to be just as hard (or easy, depending on your POV) to figure out who should be caught in the fireball as it is now. My post was sarcastic, in that a design goal was to make the game faster and easier, but the multiple attack mechanics run counter to this. Sorry Weasel, I missed the sarcasm! Boy, I sure don't see any "run faster and easier" :) To me, they made D&D combat a lot more tactical and interesting, but a lot more complicated. I like feeling a bit vulnerable. It's not as exciting to have a mid-level superhero vanquished by a super-monster as it is to have a competent and experienced character genuinely threatened by a common-ish opponent. I think what Old&D players miss is that it felt more "realistic". A skilled PC was up there with, say, a talented special forces soldier, but not with Spiderman. I disagree. A spellcaster WAS a super-hero, capable of leveling armies or great foes with single spells. The big change was that non-caster were brought up in power, and given more interesting things to do in a fight. The common refrain is that such players should play something other than D&D, but that's not fair. If D&D is a triumph of flexible roleplaying, it should be easy to accomodate all styles. Um...D&D a triumph of flexible roleplaying???. Ok, easy answer. Its not. Its quite limited and inflexible. Its never been anything else. But really, there aren't ANY games out that there (at least that I've played) that can really scale well all the way from brave but untrained individuals to mythic heroes who can do battle with ancient gods. And if players are not relying on their wits, the DMs doing something wrong! You can always scale the challenge level to assure the PCs can't just get by on their stats.
Roxlimn 06-16-05, 01:10 PM	Hairfoot: page 40 DMG, sidebar - Variant: Faster or Slower Experience "You control the pace of character progress, and the easiest way to do that is through experience awards. Obviously, if you want the characters to progress faster, simply make every award 10%, 20%, or even 50% and larger. If you want characters to progress slower, give awards that are some suitable fraction of the original award." The pace of character progression in D&D has never been so explicitly in the hands of the DM as ever before. You can engineer as much as a 90% reduction in XP gain for however many levels you want. In fact, I tend to close groups around level 12 and start at level 3, giving largely freeform awards as I see fit for various challenges overcome. This, too, is detailed in the DMG. In "modern" D&D, you can take however much time as you want playing at the levels that you want. I used to play D&D (before it became AD&D) and even the old boxed set where elf and dwarf were classes. I even played the white pamphlets. I never find myself at a loss to recreate the "feel" from 1e using 3e mechanics, something that I found quite difficult to do with 2e. The neat new combat system is largely responsible for the upsizing of PC power. To get the most from the miniature game you need lots of stuff going on - fighters mowing down a dozen opponents in a round, mages incinerating enormous beasts, monks running up walls to kick the head off an arch-demon. I disagree. Tactically speaking, it isn't sensible to send your Fighter over to mow opponents your Mage should be dealing with. Indeed, the Mage should be incinerating the dozens of opponents and it's the Fighter that needs to be dealing with the Enormous Beasts. The Minis specificity in movement and placing almost demands that this be so. Fighters simply aren't as effective a mob control character as a Mage is, and a Mage isn't as good a dueling character as a Fighter is. Moreover, I find that the higher in level you go, the less significant the grid becomes. When your Mage can incinerate things from half a mile away and your Fighter can close with hardly any trouble at all, the thing begins more and more to resemble the gridless fighting we used to see in 2e. The most times the grid was significant was between levels 3 and 9. Beyond that, the flying and the powers just make the grid more or less superfluous, not better. The closest thing to an old-style class is the bard, which is why it's so often tagged as broken and underpowered. Closest in what sense? The bard is one of the most powerful character classes in the game. People who label it as broken and underpowered do so from a lack of understanding of very basic game elements. We're polarising around the idea of character roleplaying, which is much the same as ever. The difference, as I see it, is that cleverness has become less important in game strategy. Instead of thinking around problems, you go and get the power-up which lets you defeat your enemies head-on, which results in an arms race between monsters and PCs, and the perception that it's now all about the combat. I agree. Clever strategy is now less important to winning battles than before, but I think that this is all to the good, not a bad thing. If anything, less stringent requirements on the battle-savvy front opens up the game to people who would rather play politics or drama rather than hack up enemies on the mat. These people simply aren't interested in thinking up solutions to battle-oriented questions, and would much rather acquire the power up they need from intrigue or gratuitous leveling just so they can get the battles over with and get to the meat of the action from their point of view - which can be anything from stealth to comedy to political infighting or negotiation. This makes the new edition less geared towards battle, not more. Having said that, the difficulty level of encounters in 3e designed scenarios by the book are notoriously hard. In the case of Dragons, especially, the CRs are frighteningly underleveled making Dragons the stuff of nightmares for PCs in this edition, no matter what level they fight one, as long as the CR is "appropriately matched." Even more, with the introduction of the new DRs, new tactical options and terrain features, plus the interaction of a wider variety of abilities and powers, thinking through a tough encounter has never been more complicated and stimulating, for those people who choose to make it so. Demonstrably, fighting a powerful enemy with even 2 CRs above your party level can either be a tough challenge, or a total party kill, depending on how skilled your players are, and the DM is free to assign whichever enemies he chooses, and award as many XPs as he deems fit! You don't have to play the game the way you don't want to. Indeed, the game is more flexible now than it ever was before. Methinks that the presentation of options that allow other people to play the game the way they want to is blinding you to the fact that there's absolutely nothing stopping you from playing the game the way you want to, and that suggestions for such play are found in the cores almost regardless of what your play style is.
weasel fierce 06-16-05, 02:18 PM	You can modify the game to be something else than it is, but if what you want is old D&D or AD&D, then you are easier off playing that, rather than trying to bend 3.x into it (or just buying Castles&Crusades) Making up rules in AD&D ? Sure we did. Assuming that there is a fixed rule for every situation where you try to persuade someone is ridiculous. Expecting the DM to look it up every single time is far worse, IMO. I'd rather have a DM who comes up with a quick decision and gets on with it, rather than flipping through the books for minutes to find the "official (tm)" answer. We tried rolling Initiative every round, but it just didn't make any sense now, just as it didn't make any sense back then. Not rolling every round actually makes more sense in a continuity sort of way. Why do you feel it does not make sense ? Rolling each round represents the ebb and flow more interestingly I think than using a single roll. It also avoids issues where a player gets shafted because he had a bad roll.
Roxlimn 06-16-05, 02:42 PM	weasel fierce: But we aren't modifying 3e into something else than it is. Using your Lego set to build a firetruck instead of a dumptruck is fully within the play intent of playing with Lego, and frequently, you can find alternative instruction on how to make the concept firetruck using dumptruck parts. Indeed, the options I discussed involved using optional tweaks that were mentioned within core rules themselves. Inasmuch as 3e is made to be the most flexible system ever, none of these modifications makes 3e into "something other than it is." Rather, these options are inherent to what 3e can be. You don't need to play with all the options, just the ones you want. Making up rules in AD&D ? Sure we did. Assuming that there is a fixed rule for every situation where you try to persuade someone is ridiculous. Why? Expecting the DM to look it up every single time is far worse, IMO. True. I don't need to do that, however. I'd rather have a DM who comes up with a quick decision and gets on with it, rather than flipping through the books for minutes to find the "official (tm)" answer. 3e agrees with you. It's better to come up with an ad hoc ruling on the spot and look up the actual rules afterwards rather than bog the game down with research. Unfortunately, only 3e stipulates this guideline explicitly, so I'm afraid you're actually voicing a support for 3e rather than for older editions of the game. Why do you feel it does not make sense ? Rolling each round represents the ebb and flow more interestingly I think than using a single roll. It also avoids issues where a player gets shafted because he had a bad roll. That's exactly the point. Rolling badly in 2e isn't always bad. In fact, sometimes I would like to roll badly so that I get to act after everyone else and pull off the best area attack. Sometimes, I want to roll badly so I can shake off an effect before my turn. It's silly. As a Fighter, I would often want to go last in a round, so I can stay put and force everyone else to approach, and then get last attack now and first attack later, to more quickly dispatch of an enemy who was a real threat. In modular style rounds, you acknowledge the fact that combat is actually an ongoing round-robin of actions with arbitrary delienations on where the round begins and ends. No double round attacks on unlucky people. No effectless stuns and spell effects on account of luckily "rolling bad." Even better, you can actually reset yourself so that you're "first," if that temporal position was somehow useful. I get "ebb and flow of battle" quite enough from the die rolls. I don't need random initiative rolls every round any more than I need defense rolls for every attack roll. Having said that, 3e also supports the every round initiative roll, if you are so inclined.
weasel fierce 06-16-05, 02:51 PM	Inasmuch as 3e is made to be the most flexible system ever, none of these modifications makes 3e into "something other than it is." Rather, these options are inherent to what 3e can be. You don't need to play with all the options, just the ones you want. Most flexible system ever ? I believe that title is already taken by GURPS. 3.x D&D may be the most flexible D&D edition so far, though. 3e agrees with you. It's better to come up with an ad hoc ruling on the spot and look up the actual rules afterwards rather than bog the game down with research. Unfortunately, only 3e stipulates this guideline explicitly, so I'm afraid you're actually voicing a support for 3e rather than for older editions of the game. Thats funny. Im looking at my Moldvay Basic D&D book here, and it states rather explicitly that the DM must be prepared to rule on situations that are not covered by the book, either through ability tests, percentile chances or whatever he sees fit. Page 60 if you want to look it up. Why is it important that the book tells you that you can come up with stuff ? Heck, even AD&D1st edition, much derided for its standardized fashion and writing style, spells out in capital letters that the letter of the rules should never override capital sense. That's exactly the point. Rolling badly in 2e isn't always bad. In fact, sometimes I would like to roll badly so that I get to act after everyone else and pull off the best area attack. Sometimes, I want to roll badly so I can shake off an effect before my turn. It's silly. As a Fighter, I would often want to go last in a round, so I can stay put and force everyone else to approach, and then get last attack now and first attack later, to more quickly dispatch of an enemy who was a real threat. This represents nicely that you hold off, parrying the enemy blow, then making a rapid counterattack, hopefully catching him off balance for a finishing thrust. In 3.x, the above is entirely impossible. Why is this better ? I get "ebb and flow of battle" quite enough from the die rolls. I don't need random initiative rolls every round any more than I need defense rolls for every attack roll. Having said that, 3e also supports the every round initiative roll, if you are so inclined. You could ditch initiative rolls alltogether, and simply have a fixed value. GURPS does this and it works well enough, if you prefer this sort of thing.
Roxlimn 06-16-05, 03:08 PM	weasel fierce: Most flexible system ever ? I believe that title is already taken by GURPS. 3.x D&D may be the most flexible D&D edition so far, though. So amended. I didn't think I'd have to specify though. Thats funny. Im looking at my Moldvay Basic D&D book here, and it states rather explicitly that the DM must be prepared to rule on situations that are not covered by the book, either through ability tests, percentile chances or whatever he sees fit. Yes, but it doesn't particularly help him on the hows and whys of it, does it? Why is it important that the book tells you that you can come up with stuff ? Heck, even AD&D1st edition, much derided for its standardized fashion and writing style, spells out in capital letters that the letter of the rules should never override capital sense. And again is singularly unhelpful in actually helping you flesh out rules for even the most common of scenarios. This represents nicely that you hold off, parrying the enemy blow, then making a rapid counterattack, hopefully catching him off balance for a finishing thrust. Two rounds of attacks, though? That sounds quite excessive to me. In 3e, you did a Total Defense Action, then came up with a full attack action against his normal AC (or -2 from a charge!) as against typically only a single attack from the enemy against your Total Defense Action. Seems more reasonable. In 3.x, the above is entirely impossible. Why is this better ? No it's not. It's entirely possible. Variable initiative is an acceptable variant rule. You could ditch initiative rolls alltogether, and simply have a fixed value. GURPS does this and it works well enough, if you prefer this sort of thing. Personally, I find the excessive detail of GURPS distracting. I find that I can't do the smallest conceptual modification without changing up a bunch of numbers. d20 is more my style, but that's a matter of preference.
VirgilCaine 06-16-05, 03:16 PM	Thats funny. Im looking at my Moldvay Basic D&D book here, and it states rather explicitly that the DM must be prepared to rule on situations that are not covered by the book, either through ability tests, percentile chances or whatever he sees fit. Page 60 if you want to look it up. Why is it important that the book tells you that you can come up with stuff ? Heck, even AD&D1st edition, much derided for its standardized fashion and writing style, spells out in capital letters that the letter of the rules should never override capital sense. You misunderstand. The 3e book says that you should make a ruling to get on with the game and look it up later. The 1e book says you will have to make up rules for things not in the book. The 3e text implies to me that there is greater versatility and compensation in the rules, rather than in 1e where it is basically, "Here is how to hit things, you're on your own for anything else" (not in so many words exactly).
LordHell 06-16-05, 05:26 PM	Many people have missed my point. Probably because I didn't explain myself very well. The D&D 3rd edition system isn't particulary complicated or hard to master. It's the fact that there are now so many combat rules that are dictated by miniatures, it gives the game a much more Tabletop Wargame feel than AD&D. Now if you want to roleplay something out in combat, there is always a rule attached, bringing mechanics to the forefront. Where as in AD&D it was a DM's inventiveness and creativity that dictated combat. Im not bashing D&D 3rd edition, it is a wonderful accomplishment in my mind and I use both 3.0 and 3.5, but it left behind a certian feel and style than AD&D had. Maybe some of you don't miss it or see it, but I certainly do.
Ranger REG 06-16-05, 05:34 PM	Im not bashing D&D 3rd edition, it is a wonderful accomplishment in my mind and I use both 3.0 and 3.5, but it left behind a certian feel and style than AD&D had. Maybe some of you don't miss it or see it, but I certainly do. Explain. What certain feel and style are you talking about?
the artful dodger 06-16-05, 05:38 PM	Now if you want to roleplay something out in combat, there is always a rule attached, bringing mechanics to the forefront. Where as in AD&D it was a DM's inventiveness and creativity that dictated combat. No offense, but didn't that inventiveness and creativity just get used to create a rule for the situation, equally bringing mechanics to the front? My AD&D DM, after a couple of years behind the screen, had a pretty thick binder full of all these situations that had warranted an on the spot ruling, just so he wouldn't have to come up with a rule for a similar situation again because he forgot the previous one (and to maintain some consistency, obviously). The main difference seems to be that players in 3E are much more aware of what mechanics will be involved in a given situation, even if it's the first time it comes up, and DMs can fall back on written rules (which saves time and prevents arguments).
Rogue1stclass 06-16-05, 07:21 PM	Ever try to punch somebody in 2e? Let me describe for you the pleasure of this little feat. You'd roll to hit, and if you did...here, let me quote from page 98 of the PHB: If the attack roll is successful, consult Table 58 to find the result of the attack: Cross-index the character's modified attack roll with the proper attack form. If, for example, a character successfully punched with an 18, the result would be a rabbit punch (if he rolled an 18 on a successful wrestling attempt, the result would be kick). What does a rabbit punch do? 1 point of damage and 3% chance of knockout. 75% of that 1 point, incidentally, is temporary. Oh, and if the character has Punching Specialization from the Fighter's Handbook, he can modify that result +/- 1, allowing him to choose, per the example in the quote, a result of a 19 or a 17 on Table 58. You wanna talk about stopping play to grinding halt, try punching with your off hand in 2e. Or, better yet, in 1e. In 1e, to Pummel someone, you rolled to hit. How did you do that? Well... (from 1e DMG, page 72): Base Score to Hit: The base score on percentile dice is opponent AC value times 10 to arrive at a percentage chance to hit, i.e. AC 10 = 100%, AC 9 = 90%, all the to AC ratings of 0 and minus numbers which indicate no chance or negative chance to score a hit. Yep, you used a competely different mechanic. A percentile based system with reciprecating strikes and counter blows. It was actually pretty neat in its way, but what the hell it had to do with the rest of D&D I have no idea. Oh, and the retainers/followers bit is in 3e as the Leadership feat. Previous editions were fun. I played 10 years of each 1e and 2e AD&D, with just D&D thrown in along the way. I resisted the switch to 3e, because 2e had been so flexible. I still miss it at times, because 3e makes you put a lot more thought into everything. But I don't think I could go back now if I wanted too. The d20 is just do damn...useful. Anyway, the point is, there is no special magic golden age of D&D. Or, more correctly, if their was, it had nothing to do with ruleset availible at the time.
J.Augustus Rose II 06-16-05, 07:47 PM	Explain. What certain feel and style are you talking about? The feel and style of nostalgia.
StormKnight 06-16-05, 08:07 PM	The D&D 3rd edition system isn't particulary complicated or hard to master. It's the fact that there are now so many combat rules that are dictated by miniatures, it gives the game a much more Tabletop Wargame feel than AD&D. You don't need minis any more now than you did then. If the you aren't using minis and the party fighter says she wants to rush past the orc gaurds to get at their shaman, you have to decide whether that succeeds and what penalties it causes no matter WHICH system you are using. Having attacks of opportunity just gives you an extra tool to use to make it work out well. Now if you want to roleplay something out in combat, there is always a rule attached, bringing mechanics to the forefront. Where as in AD&D it was a DM's inventiveness and creativity that dictated combat. In one of the last combats my group was in, they decided to have the stronger characters shove the deactivated gaurdian golem out into the hall while the sorceress used ghost sound to make it sound like it was still working in order to scare of their ambushers. Or could they not do that since 3rd ed. doesn't permit such creativity?
Dathlue Mistwinter 06-16-05, 08:11 PM	Can I have the "Most appalling, hated, controversial post on the first page of D&D General" award? Most popular too, not including stickies. DUB THINE.
Dathlue Mistwinter 06-16-05, 08:13 PM	Sorry but THACO was not as simple as you mention it. There was a series of 20, 6 in total. 2 which were a modified rolls and 4 which needed to be natural. And after that you needed natural 20 plus modifers ie 21,22,23 etc. There needs to be a forum on THAC0. People are spelling it wrong, too. it's T H A C 0 (that's a zero). Post #100 in my own thread. I'll be back for #1000, #10000, and #100000.
GreyLord 06-16-05, 08:22 PM	There needs to be a forum on THAC0. People are spelling it wrong, too. it's T H A C 0 (that's a zero). Post #100 in my own thread. I'll be back for #1000, #10000, and #100000. The way you spell it differentiates between those that actually played and those who didn't play but are claiming to?? :eek: Personally, I played 2e and he lost me on the series of 20, 6 in total part. We always had THAC0 mean To hit Armor Class 0 (zero). In their defense, my wife who loves 3.5 still claims she can't figure out THAC0. Of course she flunked 3rd grade math... (hope she doesn't see this post!), though she finds the tables easy enough to read. :)
Thuragrun 06-16-05, 08:28 PM	:banghead: This game is what you make of it :banghead: I have probably been playing as long or longer than anyone on these boards and I find 3.x to be VASTLY superior. I love that there is a cold, hard way to see if you are capable of damn near any imaginable action. It may be harder on the DM in terms of preping but it is twice as rewarding. No one if forcing you to play hack and slash (but I do enjoy the occasional hack and slash). I also find that all the classes, PrCs, feats, templates, and skills make for better RP and more flavorful characters. Yes, it lends itself to battle heavy, hack and slash games, but then the players hit their 15th birthday and actually RP (no offense to the kids here). JMO
Lord Gwydion 06-17-05, 02:49 AM	Roxlimn said: That's exactly the point. Rolling badly in 2e isn't always bad. In fact, sometimes I would like to roll badly so that I get to act after everyone else and pull off the best area attack. Sometimes, I want to roll badly so I can shake off an effect before my turn. It's silly. As a Fighter, I would often want to go last in a round, so I can stay put and force everyone else to approach, and then get last attack now and first attack later, to more quickly dispatch of an enemy who was a real threat. And Weasel Fierce responded: This represents nicely that you hold off, parrying the enemy blow, then making a rapid counterattack, hopefully catching him off balance for a finishing thrust. In 3.x, the above is entirely impossible. Why is this better ? The thing is, except for the "and get first attack later" (which isn't guaranteed rolling intiative every round) you still can do that in 3rd Edition. Characters can delay until later in the round if they choose (useful if the Sorcerer wants to pop off a fireball before you charge into melee). You can also "shake off an effect" if it only lasts one round by delaying until after the caster's turn, since most single round effects go from caster's turn to caster's next turn. In older editions, it was up to the roll of the dice if you went first or last. There wasn't a rule for delaying your action--you had to hope you rolled low when you wanted to go later, and hope you rolled high when you wanted to go first. Now, players have a bit of control over it (although not complete control). Then again, my groups never bothered rolling initiative after the first round anyway, prefering an orderly organization to assist the DM each round over the more random ebb-and-flow feeling that it brought. Talking about slowing down combat, and rolling init. each round can do it.
weasel fierce 06-17-05, 03:31 AM	Rolling init can slow combat I guess. Right now, I run B/X D&D, which uses an unmodified D6 for init's. Not much to misunderstand or delay there. You misunderstand. The 3e book says that you should make a ruling to get on with the game and look it up later. The 1e book says you will have to make up rules for things not in the book. The 3e text implies to me that there is greater versatility and compensation in the rules, rather than in 1e where it is basically, "Here is how to hit things, you're on your own for anything else" (not in so many words exactly). Stuffing more rules into the game, however, does not make things any easier, unless the DM can actually memorize them all. And if the intention is not to memorize them, but to make adhoc rulings on the spot, then I'd rather use that space on something more usefull really. The overall D20 mechanic can be summed up on a single page. Using a big chunk of the book to give specific DC's for climbing up a ladder while picking your nose under archery fire is meaningless. No DM in his right mind is going to look it up if it comes up in play, leaving him using the old school method. Hence, the space is wasted. If the DM is to put this information to use, then he must either memorize it, or look it up in the book, thus slowing down play. AD&D and BX D&D assumes that the only things that really need spelled out rules is combat, as its such a major part of dungeoneering and the main area where player characters are in danger, as well as magic, because well, its D&D. If you truly need to have it spelled out, each of them have proficiency / general skill rules, which work in a standardized fashion (for AD&D2nd edition, you even get nifty little charts with random numbers, which should make any 3rd edition player feel right at home), but those were optional. Ever try to punch somebody in 2e? Let me describe for you the pleasure of this little feat. You'd roll to hit, and if you did...here, let me quote from page 98 of the PHB: yeah, AD&D's unarmed combat rules are rather.. odd and arcane. BX D&D makes it easy. Hitting someone is D2 damage. No babble with "unreal" damage or percentage rolls. How is beating people handled in 3.x anyways ?
Ranger REG 06-17-05, 04:19 AM	The feel and style of nostalgia. You want nostalgia? Go back to the previous editions, before 2e. :smirk: The only nostalgia I get is the return of Oriental Adventures (missing throughout the 2e Era) and Dragonlance (from D&D to the gawd-awful SAGA, it has returned to its root game). :cool:
J.Augustus Rose II 06-17-05, 07:34 AM	You want nostalgia? Go back to the previous editions, before 2e. :smirk: The only nostalgia I get is the return of Oriental Adventures (missing throughout the 2e Era) and Dragonlance (from D&D to the gawd-awful SAGA, it has returned to its root game). :cool: I don't do the nostalgia thing myself but you can tell that 99% of the anti-3.0+ crowd here is looking at the past through rose colored glasses.
StormKnight 06-17-05, 10:12 AM	Using a big chunk of the book to give specific DC's for climbing up a ladder while picking your nose under archery fire is meaningless. I agree with you in many ways; there is an awful lot of space devoted to explaining exact DCs and situations that most experienced GMs will probably just rule on the spot anyway. However, I suspect (though I haven't been one in a long time) that most INexperienced GMs find it very useful to have a rulebook that gives them a lot of detail and explanation of how to do things. Even if they don't go look it up, having read through it and had it explained can make it much easier in actual play. Sitting down to run a game when its a totally new experience can be quite a challenge, and I can see where they would want to give players all the help they can. AD&D and BX D&D assumes that the only things that really need spelled out rules is combat, as its such a major part of dungeoneering and the main area where player characters are in danger, as well as magic, because well, its D&D. As far as AD&D goes, I would say that there is a bit of a difference between "not needing spelled out rules" and "not needing any rules at all". AD&D had NOTHING for anything other than combat. Want to scale a wall? Nope, sorry, not unless you are a thief. (I have no idea what this BX D&D is, so I really can't comment on that at all). I don't do the nostalgia thing myself but you can tell that 99% of the anti-3.0+ crowd here is looking at the past through rose colored glasses. Absolutely!! D&D 3.x has lots of things that could have been better done or more to my taste, but saying that its 'more combat oriented' or that earlier editions 'encouraged more roleplaying' just seems kind of silly to me. Heck, one of the problems I had with 3.0 was when we tried playing we figured we'd just play old-style D&D; fight monsters, gather treasure. But then our characters had all these other skills and abilities, we felt like we really wanted them to be doing stuff other than just fighting.
Reinforcements 06-17-05, 11:23 AM	Now seems as good a time as any to throw myself bodily into this discussion. Stormy there mentioned, sort of, what I think is the fundamental difference between 3rd Edition and 2nd (myself having never played 1st). That being: 3rd Edition is all about options, 2nd is all about restrictions. When other editions say, "No," 3rd Edition says, "Yes." (tee hee) With regards to combat, I fail to see how this discourages role-playing. Using tactics in battle hardly precludes role-playing; in my mind, it enhances it, as there is now a reason to fight like a real person with your character's abilities might. It's nice to know that if I want to push someone off a cliff, trip them, or grab the magic necklace they're wearing there are actually rules to dictate what happens when I do so. Going back to the "options" thing, it's also nice that my fighter is not now somehow completely incapable of scaling a wall, being stealthy, or listening for slight noises. In any case, I agree that many of the anti-3rd people are probably seeing previous editions in shades of pale pink, and have yet to come up with any good arguments. Sorry, but, "There are rules for combat!" doesn't cut it. On a slightly unrelated note, I think any assertion that 2nd Edition had better mechanics than the d20 system is ludicrous, but I don't think anyone's arguing that anyway. I'm just saying.
weasel fierce 06-17-05, 02:44 PM	I don't do the nostalgia thing myself but you can tell that 99% of the anti-3.0+ crowd here is looking at the past through rose colored glasses. Past ? My basic and AD&D campaigns are going fine. Stormknight - BX refers to the classic D&D game, split into the Basic and eXpert sets. It coexisted along with AD&D, and is propably the most rules light and straight forward D&D version to date. Going back to the "options" thing, it's also nice that my fighter is not now somehow completely incapable of scaling a wall, being stealthy, or listening for slight noises. In any case, I agree that many of the anti-3rd people are probably seeing previous editions in shades of pale pink, and have yet to come up with any good arguments. Sorry, but, "There are rules for combat!" doesn't cut it. Anyone can be stealthy, climb walls and listen for noises. But be stealthy while carrying 600 gold coins, or climb a steep wall with no rope ? That requires a thief. To use your argument, 3.x doesnt have rules for taking a dump. does that mean that your adventurer is doomed to die from constipation ? No, it just means that rules werent required. On a slightly unrelated note, I think any assertion that 2nd Edition had better mechanics than the d20 system is ludicrous, but I don't think anyone's arguing that anyway. I'm just saying. I wholeheartedly agree, but thats simply because AD&D2nd edition is so poorly done. As far as AD&D goes, I would say that there is a bit of a difference between "not needing spelled out rules" and "not needing any rules at all". AD&D had NOTHING for anything other than combat. Want to scale a wall? Nope, sorry, not unless you are a thief. Again, not true. Both editions of AD&D gave rules for non-thieves climbing. As well, both had non weapon proficiency systems in place. The idea that 3.x somehow saved roleplaying is as blatantly untrue as the idea that it destroyed it, but seems to revolve a lot around skill systems. (thus, by line of that argument GURPS is the best RPG made, as it uses skills exclusively). However, both classic D&D, AD&D1st edition and AD&D2nd edition has skill systems as well as weapon proficiency systems (D&D even had the fun weapon mastery rules). Hence that argument falls to ground. Stormy there mentioned, sort of, what I think is the fundamental difference between 3rd Edition and 2nd (myself having never played 1st). That being: 3rd Edition is all about options, 2nd is all about restrictions. When other editions say, "No," 3rd Edition says, "Yes." Hence the rise of "Can I play a neo-beholder dwarf succubus halffiend who is a paladin and swashbuckler" threads ? :cool: However, I am wondering, since you refer to AD&D2, what restrictions you are talking about ? The book has plenty of suggestions on how to go about using other races, creating your own classes, and how to change or ditch the level and class restriction limits. So apart from the above, what restrictions did you have in mind ? There are plenty of other things that people attack the older editions on, either because they like the new game better in that area, because they dont really know but WOTC tells them its better (aka Games Workshop syndrome), or because they never actually played AD&D, but they heard from one of the above that it was bad. However, getting into that sort of thing has been discussed ample times, and I think we would get the thread locked, if this turned into a full blown edition war thread. Those who want to, can PM me, and I'll be happy to share my thoughts on those topics.
Roxlimn 06-17-05, 03:40 PM	However, both classic D&D, AD&D1st edition and AD&D2nd edition has skill systems as well as weapon proficiency systems (D&D even had the fun weapon mastery rules). Hence that argument falls to ground. In terms of detail and robustness, can you claim that these systems were anywhere as good as the 3e system?
J.Augustus Rose II 06-17-05, 03:50 PM	Past ? My basic and AD&D campaigns are going fine. Don't fool yourself into thinking that by playing an older version of the game to this date makes you immune to the nostalgia factor. Chances are you're suffering from it more than anyone else.
soulknife 06-17-05, 03:54 PM	the reason you probably think 3.5 is battle oriented is because thats what you mainly see in the books. You mostly only see battle rules because the role playing part of the game should be with out or little restrictions.
StormKnight 06-17-05, 04:33 PM	Stormknight - BX refers to the classic D&D game, split into the Basic and eXpert sets. It coexisted along with AD&D, and is propably the most rules light and straight forward D&D version to date. Ah, thank ye. I originally started with Basic, picked up the second set (Advanced?), then went to AD&D. Then dropped D&D for Runequest :) However, both classic D&D, AD&D1st edition and AD&D2nd edition has skill systems as well as weapon proficiency systems (D&D even had the fun weapon mastery rules). Hence that argument falls to ground. Did they? Like I said, I had basic, advanced, the 1st edition DMG and PHB. None of those had anything resembling skill systems. Heck, they didn't even have the concept of attribute checks. Did other expansions add them in? (Sorry, that's off topic, but I'm kind of curious). To use your argument, 3.x doesnt have rules for taking a dump. does that mean that your adventurer is doomed to die from constipation ? No, it just means that rules werent required. Normally, no rules are required for perfectly routine, ordinary tasks. That doesn't mean no rules are required for things that have a high uncertainy of success/failure and that will play a frequent part of an adventuring game. Furthermore, many of these things HAD rules - specifically "a thief has an X% chance of doing this". It just gave no idea what chance anyone else had! the reason you probably think 3.5 is battle oriented is because thats what you mainly see in the books. I know this isn't directed at me, and I feel like I'm sounding like a broken record, but I think 3.5 seems battle oriented because it IS battle oriented. Very battle oriented. But...earlier D&D was as much or more battle oriented.
BladeDrinker 06-17-05, 04:38 PM	First, 3rd edition has attracted a subset of crunchers simply because you can do it in 3rd edition. It is almost impossible to 'minimax" a PC in 2nd edition because, sans Players Option, you really didn't have many choices. You are usually a single class with a very set progression. There were some limited multi-class choices available, but not enough to spawn a whole subindustry of optimization. By "Players Option" do you mean the kits that appeared in so many 2E books? For example, there are four kits in Spellbound. (Red Wizard, Berserker, Hathran, and Vremyoni.) As you say, kits cannot be taken and then dropped like some DM's allow PrC's to be, but some are obviously more powerful than others. I really don't see how anyone can say it wasn't possible to powergame in 2E by picking what you think is the most powerful kit and avoiding a rich, flavorful kit that suits your character but you think is underpowered. There were also oodles of spells available in the Wizards Spell Compendiums vols. 1-4, and also in the various other accessories. Does anyone really think all of these were perfectly balanced? Milticlassing and dual-classing were also very funky in 2E, and could rather easily exploited, especially at high levels. (If you think epic levels are bad now, they were even worse in 2E. That's fine by me, but a pain for those who like that type of game.) Powergaming has always been an option, or at least it has since 2E when I started playing. Because of the rigorous restrictions placed on players as far as what or what they could not play, it was less obvious. But people could still find ways to focus on stats rather than roleplaying. When they did it was the fault of the players, not the system. But just because a system opens up choices and allows one to do A doesn't mean that, defacto, B is deemphasized. Because 3rd edition allows optimization doesn't take away from roleplaying per se. Agreed. I don't expect any edition to tell me how to roleplay, and if it does I will be far more irritated with that than I am with PrC's now.
Scipion Emilien 06-17-05, 04:55 PM	Personnaly i love the skill system, it easy to use and remove some oddities i found in AD&D. In AD&D, the chance of stealing are a pourcentage, so a thief will have the same chance to steal something from a 1st lvl commoner and a thief guild master. In D&D, this theif will have a +10 chance, so he will steal easily to a 1st lvl commonner but the guild master will remain a challenge. I found too that 3e is more role play oriented because of his many options. I played a human fighter with 14-14-12-12-10-10 as his stat. I had a really hard time figuring his particularity. No bonus, no malus, he was as identical to others fighters for the classes. In 3e, the same fighter will have carateristic bonus that help to figure what is the character traits. With his feat and skills i could make him different of any others fighters. It s true that the options giving by the 3.x could be exploit by powergamers, but it could be wonderful if use to fit the personna of a character. And personnally, the strong rule of D&D i found it a progress from AD&D. The rules are there, you don't have to created them! So you could focus more on role playing and story telling than on creating a new rule that will be fair for all. And i don t know what lord hell found great into the confusion that occur often in AD&D without the use of miniature. Perhaprs it allow you to improvise for the good of all, but it can be seen as restrictive and intimidating for players to do others things than those that are into the rules. I will not recount how many time my DM of AD&D refuse that i do a particular thing because it's not into the rules. At the end, i were doing nothing creative because i had no wish to do an argumentation with my DM. And even if 3.X is more battle oriented than AD&D, i found that D&D is more role play than AD&D too with all of his possibilities.
GreyLord 06-17-05, 04:57 PM	Some people who are claiming to have played older editions of D&D apparantly didn't really read the rules...have forgotten the rules...or never played as is apparant in some of their responses. Did they? Like I said, I had basic, advanced, the 1st edition DMG and PHB. None of those had anything resembling skill systems. Heck, they didn't even have the concept of attribute checks. Did other expansions add them in? (Sorry, that's off topic, but I'm kind of curious). This person apparantly never read even up to page 12 of the 1e DMG for example...not to say of other reading material in the editions he mentioned. (Or am I too old school and they changed it in the newer editions of the 1e DMG?) In fact, somethings are spelled out so clearly in some editions that for someone to state something like that means they either never played it (much less even looked at the books) OR they've forgotten so much that they can't really be relied upon to say how good or bad a system really was. I think there are a lot of people on these boards that claim they knew the older editions and played them when in reality they haven't ever even browsed a set of the rules. In fact sometimes when the people claim THAC0 was too hard for them to understand...the only thing that's convinced me that they might even be telling the truth is that my wife can't seem to understand THAC0 (but as I say, she also flunked 3rd grade math), of course she abhors 3e...she loves 3.5 though, probably because we used the 3.5 basic set as an introductory set and the way they set it up helps her to understand all the modifiers better than other versions.
devinmdp 06-17-05, 04:58 PM	Let's not forget in earlier editions of D&D, every fighter was pretty much exactly like any other. Platemail. Longsword. Shield. Run up to bad guys. Swing to hit. Wait for the mages and clerics to have fun casting spells. Roll to hit again. Weeee! In 3rd edition, there are so many different types of fighters you can be even while remaining in the single fighter class. Even only using core feats and skills. You can design an effective swashbuckler fighter type and a tank fighter type. You can specialize in tripping or sundering or grappling. Et al. Devin
StormKnight 06-17-05, 06:14 PM	Some people who are claiming to have played older editions of D&D apparantly didn't really read the rules...have forgotten the rules...or never played as is apparant in some of their responses. This person apparantly never read even up to page 12 of the 1e DMG for example...not to say of other reading material in the editions he mentioned. (Or am I too old school and they changed it in the newer editions of the 1e DMG?) I'll look it up when I get home. Can you give me any place in the DMG to look specifically? (Its been over 10 years, I might not remember things right...but I'll be very suprised if there are any skill rules in there!)
GreyLord 06-17-05, 06:20 PM	Well, for starters...mayhaps you should read the post as a good start is already given...
StormKnight 06-17-05, 06:51 PM	Well, for starters...mayhaps you should read the post as a good start is already given... I did read the post, and assumed you just saying metaphorically "anyone who knows anything about AD&D should know it had skill rules", not literally giving guidelines for where to find them. I'll take a look. (DMG? Bit of an odd place for them!)
weasel fierce 06-17-05, 08:33 PM	The secondary skills were in the DMG. Non weapon proficiencies for AD&D 1st edition were in the Dungeoneers and Wilderness survival guides. For AD&D 2nd edition, they were, of course, in the players handbook. Basic D&D had them in the Gazeteer series, and later codified in the Rules Cyclopedia (the last full edition of that line). In terms of detail and robustness, can you claim that these systems were anywhere as good as the 3e system? Detail ? I hope not. I dont want a detailed skill system in D&D. If I want that, give me GURPS instead, where the skills are actually worked as the basis of the system. The only difference between the NWP and the skill system is that NWP's are faster to pick (no real math involved), but advance slower. Incidentally, one of the alternate skill systems in Unearthed Arcana is an NWP like system where you get less skills, but they are automatically maxed out. Blue Rose uses the same idea as well. Let's not forget in earlier editions of D&D, every fighter was pretty much exactly like any other. Platemail. Longsword. Shield. Run up to bad guys. Swing to hit. Wait for the mages and clerics to have fun casting spells. Roll to hit again. Believe it or not, but humans with swords tend not to be all that different.
CycloneRanger 06-18-05, 02:20 AM	I remember D&D having a different feel to it a long time ago as well. It seemed that the game wasn't about maximizing this and that. I didn't worry about "prestige classes" and a fighter with a flail was really cool. In fact, any basic class was cool. I seem to feel the same way many other posters here do - on the surface. Until you realize, however, that the above paragraph was not about first edition, or second edition, but third edition. Why? Because that was when I first started playing. Everything was fresh; the game just seemed much more open. This, I now realize, was because I didn't know everything yet. Anything was possible, even mages who could make two attacks without penalty because my friend noticed that a quarterstaff was a "double weapon". I feel the same way about Warcraft 2. I just remember it being so much more fun than either Starcraft or Warcraft 3, though both of the latter are undeniably better games. When you first start something, everything seems more open. This is true of any game or hobby. Being new to something almost always makes it a better experience; the feel is newer, fresher, and more wide-open. I think this is the reason for most of the anti-3.X talk on these boards, and I would hazard a guess that it is the reason for almost all of the anti-3.X talk in this thread specifically. I realize that J. Augustus Rose II has already said this; I just wanted to elaborate on that thought.
J.Augustus Rose II 06-18-05, 02:25 AM	That's okay. Your speech was better than mine. I'm a little too curt at times...or so they tell me. :D
GreyLord 06-18-05, 02:57 AM	I must be different than everyone else...as most times the best items in a hobby come later rather than at first. Take the parallel between Warcraft and Starcraft...I enjoy Starcraft a heck of alot more than Warcraft 2. I didn't care as much for Warcraft 3 (entire Herol thing wasn't really my thing) but I did love the Empire Earth series as well as Dawn of War, and other games in the RTS genre that came later. Another example could be Diablo, which I enjoyed, but Diablo 2 was ten times better. Just because something comes afterwards doesn't mean it is worse... Some of you are trying to convince others that it's that nostalgic feeling...when it's nothing of the sort. Pure and simple, the games are different and I think that's what upset people. 3e was stated and advertised before it came out as restoring the feel and items of 1e that were lost during the 2e years (waaaay wrong way to advertise, as it doesn't really do that at all). This misrepresentation of it has made people upset that it took over the D&D name. It didn't keep D&D going, it killed it and usurped it's name with another set of rules...and that's what made all these people start these contentions. The rules have similarities...and D20 fantasy (as many oldtimers say it should have been called) is a great system...it's the fact that it truly killed off AD&D (even if TSR had gone bankrupt, there would have been someone who eventually would have picked up the AD&D rules...though T$R might not have gotten as much money for it) that makes people upset, especially in light of what was promised, and what came out. My wife likes 3.5 a LOT. It is a different way of gaming than the older systems. Heck, palladium and Rifts are closer to AD&D than 3e or 3.5 for that matter in rules. However, those were decisions that were made starting in the end of the T$R days, and brought to ultimation in the WotC days. Personally I think I'd be a lot happier if they'd just call it a D20 system, and that this was the system applied to WotC's D&D, hence D20 D&D...clarifying that it is a different system or at least attributing that it was a different system. Their rumored tight grip (which may or may not be true, I'm not privy to that kind of information) on the rules of the older editions in that they WILL NOT ALLOW them for hardcopy publication in any form other than a farce (read hackmaster) doesn't help with that illusion that the makers of the new edition truly hated AD&D either. It also makes it very unlikely that AD&D will ever be published in hard copy form (though there are those who probably would do it) if these rumors are true. Whether that's because WotC is afraid of the competition, really hated AD&D, or wish to avoid confusing people over what is D&D, what is D20 and everything else...who knows. What it all really boils down to isn't whether one system is more battle oriented I think, or which system was better...but more of the fact that people feel that the name was taken and slapped on someone else's creation...and that automatically created a bias against it...no matter how good or bad it was. In otherwords, it all revolves around the name of the game. If it had been brought out as another name...I doubt any of these debates would really be all that pertinent. On the otherhand, WotC didn't feel secure enough that it could release their game system without some sort of copyright infringement on their part (and in the days when T$R was going down, they also loved to slap that against people I hear), and even after owning the rights, feared that their system wouldn't do well enough on it's own without name brand promotionalism to help it get it's feet off the ground, so to say. In the short run I think they had a genius of an idea and sold tons. In the long run however, I think it's cost them a LOT of sales. Fool people once...shame on them...fool them twice...well most probably won't fall into the same trap twice. Which if it is as would seem means they sell a lot of books in the first year, a few less the next, and then sales drop out of the bottom of the market. It should be interesting to see how long they can put off not publishing a new edition...yet keep afloat without getting aid from Hasbro proper. I think the minis were a great idea when they first came out in bringing in money...but I don't know how long that fad will last. I think it might actually already be dying down as one store I go to who used to stock them doesn't anymore...but that's being pessimistic.
weasel fierce 06-18-05, 03:43 AM	I do believe that the title "third edition" was both misleading (its not a third edition of anything), as well as rather awkward. D20 is its own animal. I do think it is indeed D&D, but it was a rather poor attempt at cashing in on name recognition. As well as misleading the fans deliberately. That being said, many of the trends started at the end of 2nd edition AD&D are indeed recognizable in 3.x. In fact, just about every rules concept in 3.x has been seen, tried or suggested before at some obscure point or other. There are many reasons why people still play the older games. Not sure what it may be for you, but for me, its because I have fun with them, and the style they tend to produce feels right to me. You can recreate a certain amount of old school feeling with 3.x as well, but then, you can do that with Runequest or GURPS as well. Thing is, I dont want to recreate something that I have already. I do think that WOTC will stay on top of things. So far, they seem to have struck something that a lot of people enjoy, and are willing to buy into. Its sort of interesting to watch them, as they follow almost the same model as Games Workshop, though despite my dislike of 3.x, it has a lot of good ideas, whereas GW tends to take a shovel to their core games every now and again, to make sure they get worse (40K 3rd edition being a strong case in point). What may make or break them is the infamous 4th edition. We'll see how they manage it, though Im pretty sure they have a sizable bunch of people hired specifically for the purpose of figuring out how to handle it, and when people will be excited about new books, as opposed to ticked off about new books. No doubt they have been watching transition periods in companies like White Wolf or Steve Jackson, both recently releasing new editions.
Roxlimn 06-18-05, 08:16 AM	weasel fierce: Detail ? I hope not. I dont want a detailed skill system in D&D. If I want that, give me GURPS instead, where the skills are actually worked as the basis of the system. Well, pardon me for having different tastes, then. I specifically prefer the skil system in D&D. I don't care for the gazillion details of GURPS, but I don't like the poor treatment in 2e and 1e D&D either. The only difference between the NWP and the skill system is that NWP's are faster to pick (no real math involved), but advance slower. If you think that's true, you seriously need to actually read the skill system in 3e D&D. Or the NWP system in 2e. Or very probably, both. I do believe that the title "third edition" was both misleading (its not a third edition of anything), as well as rather awkward. D20 is its own animal. I do think it is indeed D&D, but it was a rather poor attempt at cashing in on name recognition. As well as misleading the fans deliberately. I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is demonstrably untrue. 3e is different from 2e, but not really as different from 2e with all the POs involved as 2e was from the Basic Set. If you want to distinguish a gulf of difference, 2e and 1e are a lot less alike. Furthermore, many of the details of 3e systems were released before the edition itself was sold, and you could download the system for free before you bought anything. There was no misleading involved, and I'm disappointed that you should libel an otherwise decent company so off-handedly. There are many reasons why people still play the older games. Not sure what it may be for you, but for me, its because I have fun with them, and the style they tend to produce feels right to me. Great. I have no problems with that. Play the system you like. However, this still does not support the conclusion that 3e is "all battle oriented," which is what we were discussing.
RogerWilco 06-18-05, 10:58 AM	As they should be! I've never played a 1E or Classic campaign... although I do think I know where to find the books. Do you really think they're worth the buy? All the nice fluff is in the impossible to find suplements, like the Book of elves, Book of dwarves, Book of villains, Book of Gnomes and Halflings. The Races of the Wild/Destiny/Stone seem to move in the right direction, much more background and roleplaying hooks. If you like those, you can try to find some of the old AD&D. You can first try to find some illegal rtf/pdf's with google, or some of the PDF's can be bought on the web. I have the core manuals and some of the splat books, but esp. here in Europe it's hard to get real stuff. My old DM had everything. I'm currently collecting all 3.0/3.5 books. Already have 39. I agree with the complain that 3.x is to much numbers and combat focussed. My personal pet pieve is that all the shapeshifting magic is defined in such a way that it's impossible to use for undercover operations, only for temp. combat bonusses. I'd prefer something like this: Alter Apearance Wiz/Sor 2 This spell functions like alter self except as follows: Duration: 1 day/level (D) Target: any humanoid Special: if the target make's an attack the spell ends immediately Save: Will negates Undercover Wiz/Sor 4 This spell functions like polymorph except as follows: Duration: 1 day/level (D) Target: any humanoid Special: if the target make's an attack the spell ends immediately The target can only be changed into humanoid, monstous humanoid and giant types Save: Will negates Greater Undercover Wiz/Sor 7 This spell functions like Undercover except as follows: Special The target can only be changed into humanoid, monstous humanoid , giant, fey and outsider types Save: Will negates
weasel fierce 06-18-05, 11:14 AM	Well, pardon me for having different tastes, then. I specifically prefer the skil system in D&D. I don't care for the gazillion details of GURPS, but I don't like the poor treatment in 2e and 1e D&D either. I'd interested in knowing exactly what is the problem with the NWP or general skill system. If you think that's true, you seriously need to actually read the skill system in 3e D&D. Or the NWP system in 2e. Or very probably, both. What am I missing ? Furthermore, many of the details of 3e systems were released before the edition itself was sold, and you could download the system for free before you bought anything. There was no misleading involved, and I'm disappointed that you should libel an otherwise decent company so off-handedly. WOTC generally does a good enough job with things. Im merely pointing out that "third edition" is an odd choice of a title, for a game that is not the third edition of anything.
StormKnight 06-18-05, 02:08 PM	Greylord - well, I looked things up in the old DMG. There is nothing about skills. Or non-weapon proficiencies (or even weapon proficiencies, for that matter). At least, not according to the index or table of contents. Also checked the PHB. I also looked through the first dozen or pages. Nothing. Unless what you are counting is the "Secondary Skill" table on page 12, which is really a background table for what profession you had before becoming an adventurer - things like "weaver", "sailor", stuff like that. No mechanics involved, nothing directly relevant to adventuring, and it says that most PCs wouldn't normally have these.
hazel monday 06-18-05, 02:40 PM	people who still play 2nd edition really don't have a leg to stand on in arguments like these. people who play 3rd edition have for the most part already done the whole 2nd edition thing and have found the new incarnation of d&d to be vastly superior. folks that are still playing 2nd ed don't even know 3rd edition rules. so where do they get off making judgements about it? as far as the the old "feel" of earlier editions, all it is is black and white art. some people prefer the low budget look. which is fine in and of itself, but it's really no way to judge the entire system. i like the old funky black and white illustrations too. but come on, just cause errol otus illustrated it does'nt make the systems rules any less outdated and useless.
wordserpent 06-18-05, 02:50 PM	I'd interested in knowing exactly what is the problem with the NWP or general skill system. One thing i really did not like about the Non-Weapon Proficiencies was that the roll that a Player needed to use the proficiency was entirely dependent on the ability score that the prof was tied to. There was no difficulty rating to perform various tasks. For example: Riding (land Based) was the character's Wisdom score -2. The character rolled his or her riding proficiency check and the number was the same throughout the character's career whether he was a first level fighter or a 20th level fighter. The Character never got any better at riding. Oh there was an option to devote another Non Weapon proficiency slot to improve that number by One point but it was hardly worth the effort. Another illogical thing about NWP's was the stats that they assigned as the target number for that proficiency (I was so tempted to call it a 'skill'). Once again, Riding required a high wisdom score to be good at. That meant that every priest was a better horeseman than warriors with average wisom scores, who rode horses into battle routienely. The NWP rules were full of such silliness but they were a vast improvement over the early days of D&D where there were NO SKILLS whatsoever and every character of a similar class was a 'cookie cutter' mold of the last one. The only thing that differentiated a character in 1st edition was their stats which, based on the required scores to gain bonuses, had to be high to make a difference. This last issue more than anything else made players into powergamers because every decent character had uber-high stats (how many fighters had 18% strength?). At least 3rd edition WOTC made the bonuses for Statistics more like original D&D, where a wider range of bonuses was readily available to a character, 18's didn't matter so much in OD&D and they don't matter so much in 3.x. WOTC generally does a good enough job with things. Im merely pointing out that "third edition" is an odd choice of a title, for a game that is not the third edition of anything. The 3rd edition was built on the concepts of 1st and 2nd edition. It seems to me to be a logical progression of rules. 1st edition designers said, "Hey, these classes are too limited in what they do, let's give them more options", so they created Non-Weapon Proficiencies. 2nd Edition designers said, "These NWP's aren't bad but let's make even MORE options for each class by creating Kits. Also, let's allow a character to improve their NWP rating by sacrificing an NWP slot. Finally , let's let Thieves allocate points in their skills as they see fit so each thief isn't the same as the last one." Toward the end of 2nd edition all hell broke loose when the Player's option books came out allowing for a ridiculous amount of options at the expense of simplicity. It was a min/maxer's dream come true. When 3rd edition came out it was not very different than the end of 2nd edition. Skills and powers and proficiencies became Feats and skills. Some required rolls while other's didnt. But the essence of the game was still, portray characters in a fantasy setting while thety have adventures directed by a Dungeon Master. Some players were more focused on who their character's were (the Role-Players) as opposed to others who focused on what their characters could do (The Roll-Players). Both types have been around since the beginning, the only difference is that the rules became infinitely more complex.
DanjaNinja 06-18-05, 03:15 PM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? Are you trying to say your group doesn't roleplay? I don't think you can really pin that on the system. My group uses 3.x. We roleplay and throroughly enjoy it.
JohnnyShotMe 06-18-05, 03:31 PM	The game system is meant to provide a framework within which people make their own worlds and characters. If you feel your experience has been limited to statistical calculations you should look at your gaming group. There are many more "rules" requiring readily accessible values on your chatacter sheet to facilitate combat simply because roleplaying does not require a set of rules as much as a basic understanding of the world itself. There are no boxes on your character sheet labelled "Typical reactions to elves", "Favorite color", etc because it is inherently accepted that a person who values roleplay will already have taken that information to heart. Numerical values, such as your balance or ride skill, need to be readily accessible and therefore have a place on the character sheet.
GreyLord 06-18-05, 03:47 PM	Greylord - well, I looked things up in the old DMG. There is nothing about skills. Or non-weapon proficiencies (or even weapon proficiencies, for that matter). At least, not according to the index or table of contents. Also checked the PHB. I also looked through the first dozen or pages. Nothing. Unless what you are counting is the "Secondary Skill" table on page 12, which is really a background table for what profession you had before becoming an adventurer - things like "weaver", "sailor", stuff like that. No mechanics involved, nothing directly relevant to adventuring, and it says that most PCs wouldn't normally have these. Secondary SKILLS...hmm, what was that word...oh yeah...skills...something you said wasn't even in 1e... Oh yeah, and that's still a skill system...something that was in 2e even...even if it wasn't as indepth or as detailed or as MANDATORY as in 3e...or as specialized as those Profficiency systems that came later BOTH in 1e expansion rule books as well as in 2e. (SS were actually an option to use instead of NWP in 2e if I recall correctly, though I would have to make certain by looking that up...I have more experience in 1e currently than 2e). Seeing that you aren't even able to admit that...there's no point in giving any other pages in the DMG, PHB, or MM that might deal with that matter. I'd imagine you'd call thief skills as irrelavent, as well as any other item called a skill that doesn't precisely match the rules of 3e (and there are OTHER ways of doing skills than that presented in 3e...but I doubt you'll accept them as valid after seeing your response). And that's not even touching the modules and other items written... Interestingly enough, it seems you forgot about all those, or you just decided not to count the existing skill systems and checks when you were writing your commentary... Now in response to wordserpent...what?? I've played every edition out there...and in fact I play 3.5 nowdays. HOWEVER, 95% of the people I've played 3.5 with (numbers WERE different with 3e overall with the percentages) NEVER played the older editions. Some of them have looked over the rules, but most never actually played them. I see a LOT of misconceptions spread about the older editions on these boards by people who "supposedly" played those editions, some of them so glaring it seems that it's almost obvious that despite their claims...they never actually played. However, on the points that you brought up besides that, you basically covered the evolution of D&D from options, to making those options mandatory core rules. I can't fault you on that, as that's what I see as having occurred...an evolution of sorts, with some extras tossed in (killing real multi-classing and expanding upon dual classing so to say, at least I don't remember that in the Players options of 2e), some of which extras made it a completely different game in many people's eyes. I have to say I disagree with your opinions on the use of skills, or the cookie cutter idea, but those are just opinions, soooo. For example, would one say that Sauron and Gandalf were both the exact same cookie cutter characters, even though they were both wizards? Or that Raistlin and Elminister were the exact same character? In my opinion, to break out of the cookie cutter idea, Roleplaying was MUCH more intensive and required which made people's characters much more interesting in general. Not that it can't be done in 3e, but characters were more defined on what they did and their motivations in the other game called AD&D and Gary Gygax's D&D. In my opinion. Hence they weren't cookie cutter unless one was in a pure hack and slash campaign. Of course in 3e you might now have a Half-Dragon Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight, but it still can be cookie cutter, though in a different way...in that 3e just has the generic character in general, which has a bunch of different skills than others and feats, but no real interesting aspects. Of course you have those that Roleplay in 3.5 as well, such as my wife who plays a halfling female cleric who was lawful evil. The Cleric however, was soooo evil that she had a punishment sent upon her from the heavens, one of a creature that was just like her in just about every aspect, and could only be defeated by admitting her true nature. This has left a dark scar upon her soul, and the ensuing battle eventually changed her from a lawful evil alignment to a neutral good alignment...for now of course. But she still has that dark streak running through her, and that missing part of her soul that went to that portion of an evil creature, has left her empty and seeking for something more in her life. It's actually deeper than that, but you can get the idea. As I said above, the biggest bone of contention between those who love AD&D and those who love d20 that I see is the name game. WotC promoted it as something it wasn't, and that peeved off a whole heck of a lot of people. Both are good systems in their own right, but so vastly different that arguing about it can boil down to arguing about any system...such as which is better, GURPS or D20? Or the Warhammer RPG or AD&D? Everyone has an opinion, and such discussions can get quite heated. On that note, I've tried the new Warhammer RPG recently, quite a different game than the old one in many ways, but more similar to the old WHFRPG in my opinion than 3e was to 1e. It also seems to have stolen some ideas from 3e/3.5 by the playing of it. (Something to note out of irony, our gaming sessions thus far have been with D&D miniatures on a D&D battlemat for the new Warhammer RPG, and yes...they use 1 inch squares as well, or at least have it in the rules it seems as we've interpreted them).
JohnnyShotMe 06-18-05, 03:57 PM	I'm sure out there somewhere someone still says black and white television was better because it forced better plotlines than that newfangled color television thing. Additional statistics does not prevent roleplaying aspects for being a part of the equation unless you have a very limited mental capacity. Who gives a crap what is on the character sheet? Type out your background and staple it to it.
Rogue1stclass 06-18-05, 06:29 PM	Let's apply the 1e Secondary Skill "system" to Combat. Combat Class Table 1-2 Fighter 3-4 Paladin 4-5 Ranger 6-7 Cleric 8-9 Druid 10-11 Magic-User 12-13 Illusionist 14-15 Thief 15-16 Assassin 17-18 None 19-20 ROLL TWICE IGNORING THIS RESULT HEREAFTER When combat classes are used, it is up the DM to create and/or adjudicate situations in which these classes are used or useful to the player character. There ya go. That's the entire Secondary Skill system, as applied to combat. Really streamlines the game, having absolutely no rules. The 2e PHB even says so (yes, Secondary Skills showed back up in 2e). From page 54: "Secondary skills do not provide any rules for determining whether a character succeeds when he uses a skill to do something difficult." At least the 2e book gives some ideas besides "...assume the role of one of these skills, one that you know a little something about, and determine what could be done with this knowlege" (1e DMG, p 12). Either way, it's a pretty worthless system, especially since it doesn't even allow you to choose what skill you might have ("My elf is a Miner?").
GreyLord 06-18-05, 07:17 PM	That's the difference between a skill system and an archetype system. In one people assume that a miner, or a doctor, or a Ranger, would know certain things and have certain skills. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, whichever you prefer is more up to you. It does imply that there was a different game system in 1e than there was in 3e though...
Xanthia 06-18-05, 09:25 PM	3.X is not battle-oriented. In fact, 3.X has a lot more rules for character interactions and skills outside of combat. Nonweapon proficiences were virtually nonexistant in 2 ed. If there's too much combat, and too little roleplaying, it's not the system: it's the DM. Some DMs love to spend the entire session using the NPCs to interact with every character until even the most non-violent player wants to randomly attack a village gaurd for lack of action. Some DMs have more of a static type of NPC, which is used only to sell weapons and potions in between dungeon crawls. That type of NPC might only exist to give out items, and any type of roleplaying is out of the question (that might take away from the precious time the group could be using to slaughter orcs).
weasel fierce 06-18-05, 10:36 PM	people who still play 2nd edition really don't have a leg to stand on in arguments like these. people who play 3rd edition have for the most part already done the whole 2nd edition thing and have found the new incarnation of d&d to be vastly superior. folks that are still playing 2nd ed don't even know 3rd edition rules. so where do they get off making judgements about it? as far as the the old "feel" of earlier editions, all it is is black and white art. some people prefer the low budget look. which is fine in and of itself, but it's really no way to judge the entire system. i like the old funky black and white illustrations too. but come on, just cause errol otus illustrated it does'nt make the systems rules any less outdated and useless. Most of the people who play 2nd edition or 1st edition AD&D or 0D&D or classic D&D in either edition, have already played 3rd edition, and found it has nothing to do with the D&D we want to play. But your attempt at making a sweeping generalization and proving your total lack of comprehension was pretty good. I'll give you am 8. 3.X is not battle-oriented. In fact, 3.X has a lot more rules for character interactions and skills outside of combat. Nonweapon proficiences were virtually nonexistant in 2 ed. If you ignore that chapter in the book, and the fact that almost every supplement used them, sure, they were nonexistant. Another illogical thing about NWP's was the stats that they assigned as the target number for that proficiency (I was so tempted to call it a 'skill'). Once again, Riding required a high wisdom score to be good at. That meant that every priest was a better horeseman than warriors with average wisom scores, who rode horses into battle routienely. 3.x skills still uses an attribute as their base, so for a skill based on wisdom, a cleric will STILL be better than a fighter who has spent the same skill points. The NWP rules were full of such silliness but they were a vast improvement over the early days of D&D where there were NO SKILLS whatsoever and every character of a similar class was a 'cookie cutter' mold of the last one. The only thing that differentiated a character in 1st edition was their stats which, based on the required scores to gain bonuses, had to be high to make a difference. This last issue more than anything else made players into powergamers because every decent character had uber-high stats (how many fighters had 18% strength?). Two characters are only the same if they are roleplayed the same. Call of Chulhu doesnt have classes, and yet I have never seen two characters be the same. As for strength 18 ? What is the chance of rolling an 18 on 4d6 (discard lowest) ? Not doing the math, but Im pretty sure its not all that high. At least 3rd edition WOTC made the bonuses for Statistics more like original D&D, where a wider range of bonuses was readily available to a character, 18's didn't matter so much in OD&D and they don't matter so much in 3.x. Agreed. oD&D also benefits from a standardized bonus system, which makes things easier on the mind :)
hazel monday 06-19-05, 12:21 AM	Most of the people who play 2nd edition or 1st edition AD&D or 0D&D or classic D&D in either edition, have already played 3rd edition, and found it has nothing to do with the D&D we want to play what did you actually take a poll of the 3 people in the world that still play 2nd edition or something?
Herecgunina 06-19-05, 12:46 AM	No cause to be so inflammatory, hazel. There are far more than three people playing older editions. (I'm not one of them - I tried to go back and I miss the expanded options for character abilities). However, it IS a valid choice, (even I think that 2e is superior in some ways) and all your attacking is just juvenile and presumptuous.
hazel monday 06-19-05, 01:28 AM	buddy, that was'nt an attack. it was a joke. for god's sake it's like people don't recognize a joke unless it's got one of those friggin smiley faces at the end of it. and by calling me immature and telling me not to be inflammatory, you yourself are actually being inflammatory. so lighten up. :) :) :) :) :D :D :D :D :D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) . there. now you can tell that you're not supposed to take me seriously.
Reinforcements 06-19-05, 01:41 AM	See the problem with discussions like these is that there isn't really much to say, but people will find things to say anyway. No one should be trying to prove that one edition is better than any other. We don't need the angry, wrong-headed posts elicting angry, pointless posts from other people. At the risk of repeating what others have said for the umpteenth time, here is all that really needs to be said, in case some people missed it: 3rd Edition is no more battle-oriented than any previous edition of DnD. No one is going to change anyone's mind about which edition is "better," so stop trying. If someone wants to convince me otherwise, fine, but we don't need the 3.X != all combat --> Yes, it does --> OMG 2ND IS DUM --> Nuh-uh!
hazel monday 06-19-05, 02:14 AM	hey the guy clearly wanted to argue about which edition was better. if he did,nt, then why did he come to the message boards of a game that he does,nt even play and start a thread about how bad and munchkiny said system is? so this weasel guy clearly wanted to argue about it. i'm just obliging him. no harm no foul. i think we're both amused by this friendly argument so what's the problem? seriously, the guy does'nt even play the game, and then he's like "oh this system is terrible compared to my sytem" and then i respond by being like "nuh uh man you're system is in fact terrible compared to my system". and then i get accused of being inflammatory? sheeesh. it was an inflammatory thread to start.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-19-05, 03:12 AM	This thread's a perfect example why generalizing isn't always a good thing.
the artful dodger 06-19-05, 03:17 AM	so this weasel guy clearly wanted to argue about it. Barking up the wrong tree. WF posted the second (and others) post on this thread, not the first. FWIW, on these boards comparing editions in an inflammatory manner isn't condoned (nothing done in an inflammatory manner is, but specifically edition wars are unacceptable). I fully expect this thread to be locked by the end of the weekend, if it even takes that long.
the artful dodger 06-19-05, 03:23 AM	I'd interested in knowing exactly what is the problem with the NWP or general skill system. Essentially, the simple fact that's it's an 'either you can or you can't' issue. That's definitely true for the rogue class abilities that have become skills in 3E (a rogue can hide in the shadows, other characters aside from rangers can't - or, more specifically, there's a mechanic for the former but not the latter), but iirc the same goes for NWPs. Either you have them, in which case you can attempt to use them, or you don't, in which case you can't at all. Add to that the near-impossibility to become better at an NWP over time, and you have a *very* rough system.
weasel fierce 06-19-05, 04:09 AM	Essentially, the simple fact that's it's an 'either you can or you can't' issue. That's definitely true for the rogue class abilities that have become skills in 3E (a rogue can hide in the shadows, other characters aside from rangers can't - or, more specifically, there's a mechanic for the former but not the latter), but iirc the same goes for NWPs. Either you have them, in which case you can attempt to use them, or you don't, in which case you can't at all. Add to that the near-impossibility to become better at an NWP over time, and you have a *very* rough system. If you prefer a more gradual, granular system, then yeah, the NWP system isnt for you. However, if you prefer to think of skills as "can" or "cannot" then it works just fine. Thats more just a case of what people prefer. Games like Warhammer uses "can" skills, while D20 or GURPS uses "gradual" skills. Improving them was never really fixed, though AD&D1 (+2 per extra slot) did it allright (propably why TSR changed it for AD&D2 ;) ). The the good Hazel, I do enjoy a good argument, of which this thread has presented several, but no, its not my thread.
MerricB 06-19-05, 04:50 AM	One problem that NWP often had is that they were inconsistent with the rest of the AD&D system. In AD&D, you began with small chances of success in your abilities, and as you gained levels you became better and better with them. With a NWP, as soon as you had it, you were as good as you were ever going to be. (Spending another NWP slot to gain a +1 bonus to the proficiency was almost never worth it - better to get an entirely new proficiency; especially given the slow rate you gained NWP slots). This combined with the GURPS problem of using the stat as the success determinant - an 18 Intelligence would mean you pretty much automatically succeeded at any Int-related proficiency you had. Oh, and most of the proficiencies weren't actually that useful. :) Cheers!
wordserpent 06-19-05, 05:05 AM	Oh, and most of the proficiencies weren't actually that useful. :) Cheers! Come on! Are you saying that Cooking was useless? I had a Bard (Blade kit) who started his own cooking show and made a million gold pieces from it. It was called: The Adamantine Chef.
the artful dodger 06-19-05, 08:44 AM	If you prefer a more gradual, granular system, then yeah, the NWP system isnt for you. However, if you prefer to think of skills as "can" or "cannot" then it works just fine. Thats more just a case of what people prefer. Games like Warhammer uses "can" skills, while D20 or GURPS uses "gradual" skills. To me, it's not even a matter of preference: it's not a case of one being good but the other better, it's one working and the other (again, IMO) not. Too many NWPs are things everyone should be able to do to a certain extent, or at least try. Several rogue and/or abilities are things every character should be able to try. Apparently it works for you, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone would find a can/cannot skill system satisfactory, let alone better than the alternative. If it does work for you though, enjoy.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-19-05, 08:49 AM	To me, it's not even a matter of preference: it's not a case of one being good but the other better, it's one working and the other (again, IMO) not. Too many NWPs are things everyone should be able to do to a certain extent, or at least try. Several rogue and/or abilities are things every character should be able to try. Apparently it works for you, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone would find a can/cannot skill system satisfactory, let alone better than the alternative. If it does work for you though, enjoy. Fair enough. I, personally, can't see how anyone could like the skill points system. That's just my opinion though. Now, granted, I don't really like NWP's either.
the artful dodger 06-19-05, 09:23 AM	I, personally, can't see how anyone could like the skill points system. That's certainly your prerogative. Would you mind indulging my curiosity though and giving something of a reason for why you feel that way?
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-19-05, 09:40 AM	That's certainly your prerogative. Would you mind indulging my curiosity though and giving something of a reason for why you feel that way? Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion. Skills, while not only bogging down the game too much, make roleplaying less of a challenge, and don't fit well into a level-based system. Such situations as this one can be avoided: DM: The guard doesn't believe your story. Player: I rolled a 20 on my Bluff check. DM: :confused: Or: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: I rolled a 20 on my Diplomacy check. DM: :confused: It's all a matter of preference, really. I, personally, would prefer both situations to be played out with no rolls. An actual conversation. I'll take the second one as an example: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: Why don't they like me? I'll ask one. DM: One of them says that you're on their turf and they don't appreciate it. Player: Oh. I'll apologize and leave then. A much better way of solving the problem, if you ask me. The skill system, in my opinion, presents too many situations where you can get out of it by rolling high on a d20.
Escef 06-19-05, 10:06 AM	Thing is, the skill system can be factored into situations like RPing if you know how to do it. Example: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: Why don't they like me? I'll ask one. DM: One of them says that you're on their turf and they don't appreciate it. Player: Oh. I'll apologize and leave then. ... DM: Roll a knowledge(streetwise) or diplomacy check, whichever you prefer. Player: A 3... Plus mods and ranks gives me a 9. DM: They say you have to pay a toll for passing through. Of course, some may still not like it this way, but it might be worth a try.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-19-05, 10:12 AM	Thing is, the skill system can be factored into situations like RPing if you know how to do it. Yes, it can. I prefer not to do it that way, though. That's just me, though.
wordserpent 06-19-05, 10:15 AM	Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion. Skills, while not only bogging down the game too much, make roleplaying less of a challenge, and don't fit well into a level-based system. Such situations as this one can be avoided: DM: The guard doesn't believe your story. Player: I rolled a 20 on my Bluff check. DM: :confused: Or: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: I rolled a 20 on my Diplomacy check. DM: :confused: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: Why don't they like me? I'll ask one. DM: One of them says that you're on their turf and they don't appreciate it. Player: Oh. I'll apologize and leave then. A much better way of solving the problem, if you ask me. The skill system, in my opinion, presents too many situations where you can get out of it by rolling high on a d20. This is a valid argument as to the flaws of the skill system. Overuse of skill checks as well as using them to solve simple tasks allows the dice to rule the game without any regard to common sense. I would like to point out that rolling a natural 20 does not guarantee sucess at a skill check. In this instance: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: I rolled a 20 on my Diplomacy check. DM: :confused: The DM may have set a high Difficulty Check and a natural 20 plus whatever ranks the character has just won't cut it. Now consider 1st edition D&D WITHOUT skill rules: Thief: I climb the tree to get away from the wolves. DM: Okay roll d% (Thief rolls the dice and succeds at his climb walls) Fighter: I climb the tree as well. DM: Sorry, you can't do that. Fighter: Why not? I's only a tree for pete's sake! DM: Only Thieves can climb. It's in the rules. Fighter: But I can climb trees in real life. Why can't my character do it in the game? DM: Because it's not in the rules, now roll initiative as the wolvres close in for the kill... Fighter: Wait! You mean to tell me my character can't do something as simple as climb a tree while just about anybody in real life can do it? DM: That's right. (Opens 1st edition DM Guide)...and I quote,"D&D is not meant to simulate real life..." Fighter: Well can I jump up and grab a branch? DM: Are you an Acrobat? Fighter: No I'm a fighter. DM: Then you can't jump either...The wolves circle around you.... Fighter: Someone should really expand the rules to cover these instances. They did. It's called 3rd edition. D&D and every other roleplaying game has a storytelling aspect to it. Sometimes certain delemmas need to be solved without a skill check. Some challenges require thinking outside the box such as the example posed by Eliza Stormwhisper. On these instances the rules are often bent or broken but what are the rules, but a tool to be used as needed by the DM and players. When an adventuring party succeeds in a daring quest do the characters say:" Whew! We made some great die rolls there!"? No, they will describe their deeds in great detail, "I drew my sword and charged into battle while Meslo cast spell after spell and Klepto snuck around behind them and filled thier backs full of arrows." The players might talk about the occasional natural 20 or natural 1 but the game which is taking place in the players imagination is relying on more than mere die rolls.
MerricB 06-19-05, 10:20 AM	The thing is, it is absolutely impossible to use the Bluff skill as written without doing some roleplaying. Why? The DCs are based on how believable your story is! You have to explain to the DM what you are telling the guard, and then your roll indicates how good your attempt was - even if you were trying to sell them a bridge. :) ### Even in the case where you get your guard to "Friendly" with a Diplomacy check, you still need to explain to the DM how exactly you are taking advantage of your new friend... I've seen way too many people with characters with low Charisma scores in earlier editions role-playing like they have 18s. If their story is convincing, the DM lets it work, regardless of the fact that their character can't string two words together. There is a balance to be found, but it depends on the desires of the group. Cheers!
GreyLord 06-19-05, 10:28 AM	Wha? Wait a second, getting the PHB...as a natural 20 I could swear meant an automatic success. It looks like technically you are correct and incorrect. It says that you can create near impossible tasks (implying that this is the toughest you do, and that you shouldn't have impossible tasks) which have +20 DC and require the player to have at least a 10 in their Skills, still have to look at my 3.5 PHB/DMG as this is from the 3e one. But as far as I know, it's designed that a natural 20 WILL suceed, this prevents the DM vs. Player syndrome. Then again, this is a debate more for the Skills board than here I suppose.
Escef 06-19-05, 10:34 AM	They did. It's called 3rd edition. To be fair, there were climbing rules for non-thieves in 1e. They were in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. Maybe Wilderness SG as well. I think there were some in 2e as well, probably under the mountaineering proficiency. There were rules for listening for non-thieves in 2e, but they were hidden in some obscure part of the DMG, IIRC, and were equal to the racial modifiers from the theif skill tables + the first level theif base (before the initial 60 percentage points were distributed). There was the locksmith NWP that Gave you a +10% to open lock rolls, worked for everyone. Some of these skills took some houseruling if you wanted everyone to have access to them. It's just the way the system was.
MerricB 06-19-05, 10:36 AM	Wha? Wait a second, getting the PHB...as a natural 20 I could swear meant an automatic success. You are wrong. 3E page 60: "SKILL CHECKS: ...A natural 20 is not an automatic success, and a natural 1 is not an automatic failure (as is the case in the combat rules)" 3.5E page 63: "SKILL CHECKS: ...Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure." But as far as I know, it's designed that a natural 20 WILL suceed, this prevents the DM vs. Player syndrome. Nope. Instead it gives a lot of guidelines for DCs. If I want to jump a 100 foot gap, a natural roll of 20 on my Jump check isn't going to help me - unless I have a rather good Jump skill and speed. ;) Cheers!
wordserpent 06-19-05, 10:53 AM	To be fair, there were climbing rules for non-thieves in 1e. They were in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. Maybe Wilderness SG as well. I think there were some in 2e as well, probably under the mountaineering proficiency. Those suppliments came out right before TSR published 2nd edition. For the first 12 yeares of D&D non-thieves couldn't climb. There were rules for listening for non-thieves in 2e, but they were hidden in some obscure part of the DMG, IIRC, and were equal to the racial modifiers from the theif skill tables + the first level theif base (before the initial 60 percentage points were distributed). There was the locksmith NWP that Gave you a +10% to open lock rolls, worked for everyone. What was that? I can't hear you because I'm not a thief and my chance to hear noises is only a 17% (with racial bonuses included). Unfortunately i am locked out of my car at the moment. if I had the "Locksmithing NWP" and was a professional locksmith, I could take heart in the fact that I had a 10% chance to get my car door open with a coat hangar, regardless of the complexity of the lock. Some of these skills took some houseruling if you wanted everyone to have access to them. It's just the way the system was. House Rules indeed. Now such things are built right into the game.
GreyLord 06-19-05, 12:06 PM	You are wrong. 3E page 60: "SKILL CHECKS: ...A natural 20 is not an automatic success, and a natural 1 is not an automatic failure (as is the case in the combat rules)" 3.5E page 63: "SKILL CHECKS: ...Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure." Nope. Instead it gives a lot of guidelines for DCs. If I want to jump a 100 foot gap, a natural roll of 20 on my Jump check isn't going to help me - unless I have a rather good Jump skill and speed. ;) Cheers! Ah, you are correct, I stand corrected! Thanks... :cool:
the artful dodger 06-19-05, 12:39 PM	The skill system, in my opinion, presents too many situations where you can get out of it by rolling high on a d20. Well, as others already pointed out, a natural 20 is not necessarily a success when it comes to skills. Not to mention that you still have to roll it. Rolling a 20, or just rolling high, is not something you can count on. Either way, I don't think this has to be a problem. The roll merely determines the outcome of a skill check. That's behind the scenes stuff. What actually happens can (and in the group I play in has to be) still be played out. There are certainly aspects to the 3E skill system that I don't like either though. Mainly, the numbers just get too big: 1d20 is too large a die size for the random factor and the total bonus you can get to a skill is potentially much larger than training can account for. At some point, there just isn't any more progress to be made when training at something IRL. In D&D, there is no limit to how good you can become at something.
Kursk 06-19-05, 01:00 PM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. PS. PCs are getting to be heroes at very low levels. Talk about unrealistic. WORK YOUR WAY UP. What about that, huh? What about THAT? What the heck kind of person, at a fifth level of living, can morph into a wild shape every day? PSS. I have all the 3.5 books and 3.0 books. I went out and bought 2E yesterday. Magnifique. You're just noticing that DND isn't about RPing anymore? This started with 3.0 and the insanely low XP needed to level. 3.x is designed for the computer game players not RPers. I just fixed the XP and got rid of some of the more idiotic combat rules and 3.x works now.
Scipion Emilien 06-19-05, 01:07 PM	You're just noticing that DND isn't about RPing anymore? This started with 3.0 and the insanely low XP needed to level. 3.x is designed for the computer game players not RPers. I just fixed the XP and got rid of some of the more idiotic combat rules and 3.x works now. You know, role play can be done at any lvl of experience. And 3.x admit in the DMG that Xp could be add or reduce to help the story-telling of the DM. And Im curious to see that combat rules are crappy, they function perfectcly in my game where i have one encounter by session.
weasel fierce 06-19-05, 02:25 PM	Those suppliments came out right before TSR published 2nd edition. For the first 12 yeares of D&D non-thieves couldn't climb. Read the thief skill. Its called "scale SHEER surfaces". It allows thieves to climb almost anything without rope or spikes. Any goon can climb. But it takes a thief to do it without climbing gear, carring 600 gold coins, on a brick wall. House Rules indeed. Now such things are built right into the game. And Cthulhu have mercy if we dont want to use them, because you cant, without rewriting half the game. So much for the "options" of 3.x. Thief: I climb the tree to get away from the wolves. DM: Okay roll d% (Thief rolls the dice and succeds at his climb walls) Fighter: I climb the tree as well. DM: Sorry, you can't do that. Fighter: Why not? I's only a tree for pete's sake! DM: Only Thieves can climb. It's in the rules. Fighter: But I can climb trees in real life. Why can't my character do it in the game? DM: Because it's not in the rules, now roll initiative as the wolvres close in for the kill... Fighter: Wait! You mean to tell me my character can't do something as simple as climb a tree while just about anybody in real life can do it? DM: That's right. (Opens 1st edition DM Guide)...and I quote,"D&D is not meant to simulate real life..." Fighter: Well can I jump up and grab a branch? DM: Are you an Acrobat? Fighter: No I'm a fighter. DM: Then you can't jump either...The wolves circle around you.... Fighter: Someone should really expand the rules to cover these instances. They did. It's called 3rd edition. 3.x doesnt have rules for taking a dump, hence your character is doomed to die from constipation. I hope its something they correct in 4th edition, because as it stands now, the game is unplayable. To me, it's not even a matter of preference: it's not a case of one being good but the other better, it's one working and the other (again, IMO) not. Too many NWPs are things everyone should be able to do to a certain extent, or at least try. Several rogue and/or abilities are things every character should be able to try. Apparently it works for you, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone would find a can/cannot skill system satisfactory, let alone better than the alternative. If it does work for you though, enjoy. A: Every character can try them, they just cant succeed under the same extreme circumstances as a thief could attempt. B: If we assume that move silent is move silent regardless of who does it, Why then have a rogue class ? Since everyone can do it, there's no point in having that class any longer. A good skill system for D&D should take things that are NOT part of class features, and give an option to them. Personally, I dont like skills in D&D (any version) because they place additional restrictions on my players and characters, that the class system already does. The sole purpose of a skill system is to limit what a character can do, by hard mechanical fact. Some people prefer game rules where the characters have only a brief list of options or capabilities they can accomplish, but I think D&D benefits more from being an open, free ended game.
Scipion Emilien 06-19-05, 02:57 PM	The sole purpose of a skill system is to limit what a character can do, by hard mechanical fact. Some people prefer game rules where the characters have only a brief list of options or capabilities they can accomplish, but I think D&D benefits more from being an open, free ended game. Many skill can be used untrained and the DC for the easiest task are attainable by someone who don't have a skill rank in it. Having five rank into a skill make you enough good to get synergie bonus into others field! It is often better to have many skill at 5 than the minimum number of skill at their maximum. And for the free-form style, on the official players sheet, they draw line to allow you to use skill that at Wizo they could have miss! And personnally, i don't see what the advantage of the free-form of AD&D. If we go from the postulate that you need rule to play and deal charachter interaction with the world, you either have two options: -Take a system where you have to build the rules. -Take a system where you have all those rule (plus optional one) and take the rule that you like the most. Perhaps you prefer the forst option, but personnally i found the second one less headchache and giving me more time to concentratre on fluff and role play than on mechanic. Perhaps the second option could be seen as restrictive, but in others hand, the mechanics of 3e are so much more clear than those of second. In 3e, if i have to created an NPC, i could generate all of his stat in my mind, In second i had to watch those damn chart. When a strange situation occur, i know how to improvise because i understand how the logic behind the d20 system work while i never come to figure how the logic behind AD&D works. This is perhaps my fault, but personnally i find it easier with 3.x than 2e to improvise a rule. And when i DM, i use only 2 book: the MM and the Campaign setting. Sometime i borrow the PHB to watch if a player didnt miuse of a spell or class abilitie, but the DMG is only use to magic item during the game. I don t perceive how this could'nt work as good as free-form.
weasel fierce 06-19-05, 03:02 PM	-Take a system where you have to build the rules. -Take a system where you have all those rule (plus optional one) and take the rule that you like the most. Perhaps you prefer the forst option, but personnally i found the second one less headchache and giving me more time to concentratre on fluff and role play than on mechanic. Except thats not the way it works. AD&D HAS a skill system, but you dont have to use it. 3.x HAS a skill system, but you have to use it, if you dont want to rewrite several of the classes. I like being able to choose what I want to use Perhaps the second option could be seen as restrictive, but in others hand, the mechanics of 3e are so much more clear than those of second. In 3e, if i have to created an NPC, i could generate all of his stat in my mind, In second i had to watch those damn chart. When a strange situation occur, i know how to improvise because i understand how the logic behind the d20 system work while i never come to figure how the logic behind AD&D works. This is perhaps my fault, but personnally i find it easier with 3.x than 2e to improvise a rule. The only chart you need in AD&D is to find the THAC0 and saving throw. The same stuff you need to look up in 3.x, unless you have memorized the values for each class. Yes, 3.x has a default way of rolling dice, except for Damage rolls, which makes things easier. Earlier versions uses the ability check (D20, roll under ability score) which I find rather intuitive, but hey, what we prefer is each our own :) Personally, figuring out D20 stat blocks and multiclass NPC's makes my head spin, but if you can do it on the fly, more power to you!
Scipion Emilien 06-19-05, 03:22 PM	Earlier versions uses the ability check (D20, roll under ability score) which I find rather intuitive, but hey, what we prefer is each our own :) Personally, figuring out D20 stat blocks and multiclass NPC's makes my head spin, but if you can do it on the fly, more power to you! Some tips: fighter BAB = lvl half-fighter BAB = lvl*3/4 rouded to inferior no-fighter BaB = lvl*1/2 rouded to inferior good Saving throw= lvl*1/2 rouded to inferior +2 poor Saving throw = lvl *1/3 rounded to inferior spell lvl of a caster = caster lvl*1/2 round to superior (minus the caster lvl by 1 once you have a sorcerer) max skill lvl = 3 + lvl cross-class skill lvl = max skill lvl *1/2 rounded to inferior. Once you know those rules, it s easy to generatre on the fly. I agree that multiclass character become a little more complex, but it was more complex than single class one too in second. And personnally i prefer the graduallity of the skill system than you know or not know of the NWP of the second. In second i was wondering often what my pc know and had some argument with my DM or PC about it, in 3e me and my players know what our PC know and personnally I enjoy the less arguments that could slow down a game. and i found the skill system logical too, a ranger or bard and a rogue have more NWP than a fighter that specialize more in WP (feat).
Kursk 06-19-05, 04:01 PM	You know, role play can be done at any lvl of experience. And 3.x admit in the DMG that Xp could be add or reduce to help the story-telling of the DM. And Im curious to see that combat rules are crappy, they function perfectcly in my game where i have one encounter by session. I'll start you off with one and then you can read the books and play the game to find more. 10th level fighter gets beat on init roll by a 1HD Orc. Orc runs 30' towards fighter while fighter watches unable to move, (no dex bonus to AC because flat footed) orc fianally reaches 10th level fighter and attacks. If this functions perfectly then okay. My players can't stand insanely stupid rules. Maybe because they've been RPing for 20+ years...
the artful dodger 06-19-05, 04:02 PM	A: Every character can try them, they just cant succeed under the same extreme circumstances as a thief could attempt. B: If we assume that move silent is move silent regardless of who does it, Why then have a rogue class ? Since everyone can do it, there's no point in having that class any longer. A: And exactly how can be determined whether the attempt is succesful? B: There's basically my problem with can/cannot skill systems. With a scaling system, at least you can easily allow some classes to do something better than others, rather than having some classes be able to do something and others not. I mean, are being able to move silently, hide in shadows and climb sheer walls supposed to be the only reason to have a thief class in AD&D? I would hope not, that's not much of a reason. Looking at 3E, the rogue class allows for so much more than just sneaky characters. The class is so broad that opening up skills anyone should be able to try is not a problem. To me, that not being true in AD&D shows there is a problem there.
GreyLord 06-19-05, 04:33 PM	And yet, in 3e a bard still couldn't learn how to disable a trap...I mean...It would only make sense that a bard could learn that as they could learn so many of the other skills... And why are so many classes kept from learning so many of the skills?
Khazad Dum 06-19-05, 05:07 PM	No rule system is set in stone (house rules). A game is what you make it. I tend to treat whatever edition as a springboard. 2nd, 3rd.... hell 4th and 5th when they inevitably, like the latest version of Windows, come.
wordserpent 06-19-05, 05:49 PM	And yet, in 3e a bard still couldn't learn how to disable a trap...I mean...It would only make sense that a bard could learn that as they could learn so many of the other skills... The bard in question could always take a level or two in Rogue.
the artful dodger 06-19-05, 05:51 PM	And yet, in 3e a bard still couldn't learn how to disable a trap...I mean...It would only make sense that a bard could learn that as they could learn so many of the other skills... They can, just like any other class can. It's not an exclusive skill. Disabling a magical trap is something else, but that requires being adept enough to warrant not being available to everyone, if you ask me. Even if you disagree with that reason, at least there is one. And why are so many classes kept from learning so many of the skills? Very few skills are exclusive to a limited number of classes in 3.0, and in 3.5 there are no exclusive skills at all. This question makes no sense to me.
CycloneRanger 06-19-05, 06:43 PM	I'll start you off with one and then you can read the books and play the game to find more. 10th level fighter gets beat on init roll by a 1HD Orc. Orc runs 30' towards fighter while fighter watches unable to move, (no dex bonus to AC because flat footed) orc fianally reaches 10th level fighter and attacks. If this functions perfectly then okay. My players can't stand insanely stupid rules. Maybe because they've been RPing for 20+ years... I am completely puzzled. What is wrong with the situation you have described? So the orc acted first, moved near the fighter, and attacked him. What is the problem? I think the "insanely stupid rules" are all in your head, my friend.
Thuragrun 06-19-05, 10:09 PM	10th level fighter gets beat on init roll by a 1HD Orc. Orc runs 30' towards fighter while fighter watches unable to move, (no dex bonus to AC because flat footed) orc fianally reaches 10th level fighter and attacks. If this functions perfectly then okay. My players can't stand insanely stupid rules. Maybe because they've been RPing for 20+ years... I see no problem here either. The orc just happened to get the jump on the fighter, sh:censored:t happens. Not a game breaker at all. The orc might get a whack in but would be decimated on the first attack from the fighter. If your players cannot handle something so simple, they sound like they are suffering from RPOCD (Role Play Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). I have been playing since Chainmail and have had no such problems adapting to the new rules. But I would take 1st ed. anyday over 2nd ed.
J.Augustus Rose II 06-19-05, 10:59 PM	And yet, in 3e a bard still couldn't learn how to disable a trap...I mean...It would only make sense that a bard could learn that as they could learn so many of the other skills... And why are so many classes kept from learning so many of the skills? In my group the DM did away with the exclusive skills list before WoTC did away with it. It makes no sense that a bard could learn one skill but a fighter couldn't. It didn't unbalance anything and it opened up role-playing. Some book rules are just retarded. "Official" doesn't always mean "Right." And I have no idea what's "insanely stupid" about that scenario above. The orc won initiative so he goes first. What's so complex about that?
Kursk 06-19-05, 11:55 PM	I see no problem here either. The orc just happened to get the jump on the fighter, sh:censored:t happens. Not a game breaker at all. The orc might get a whack in but would be decimated on the first attack from the fighter. If your players cannot handle something so simple, they sound like they are suffering from RPOCD (Role Play Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). I have been playing since Chainmail and have had no such problems adapting to the new rules. But I would take 1st ed. anyday over 2nd ed. No. There is no "jump" on the fighter. That would be called a "suprise" round. It is an example of a stupid unralistic combat rule in 3.x. that's all I was pointing out.
Escef 06-20-05, 12:03 AM	No. There is no "jump" on the fighter. That would be called a "suprise" round. It is an example of a stupid unralistic combat rule in 3.x. that's all I was pointing out. And how many times have you or your friends been in actual, mortal, hand-to -hand combat? You want realism? I've been caught flat-footed at point blank range by someone I knew was going to hit me. In real life. That said, I frequently dispense with the surprise round and flat-footed when both parties are aware of each other well before hand.
Kursk 06-20-05, 12:26 AM	And how many times have you or your friends been in actual, mortal, hand-to -hand combat? You want realism? I've been caught flat-footed at point blank range by someone I knew was going to hit me. In real life. That said, I frequently dispense with the surprise round and flat-footed when both parties are aware of each other well before hand. Please read what I wrote. "Orc runs from 30' away while 10th level (seasoned) fighter watches helplessly." NOT POINT BLANK. NOT SUPRISED. = silly combat rule. And yes, I've been in combat situation. I don't sit on my butt while someone comes at me and not take defensive action. Enough said.
Reinforcements 06-20-05, 12:36 AM	And how many times have you or your friends been in actual, mortal, hand-to -hand combat? You want realism? I've been caught flat-footed at point blank range by someone I knew was going to hit me. In real life. That said, I frequently dispense with the surprise round and flat-footed when both parties are aware of each other well before hand. I believe the more operative question would be - how is this different from previous editions? I played an awful lot of 2nd Ed. (although admittedly, not 1st Ed.), and there was definitely initiative and whoever won it went first. Unless you can show how previous editions did it differently and better (I'm not saying you can't, but I don't see it), I don't see what the point of coming into a thread on the DnD boards about 3rd Edition and essentially saying, "DnD is stupid!" is. I suppose another important question would be, "How should it work, then?"
hazel monday 06-20-05, 12:36 AM	No. There is no "jump" on the fighter. That would be called a "suprise" round. It is an example of a stupid unralistic combat rule in 3.x. that's all I was pointing out. it seems like you don't like the rules because you don't want your character to get hit. like, ever. you think it's unrealistic and stupid for someone to jump on you in a fight?
Escef 06-20-05, 12:41 AM	Please read what I wrote. "Orc runs from 30' away while 10th level (seasoned) fighter watches helplessly." NOT POINT BLANK. NOT SUPRISED. = silly combat rule. And yes, I've been in combat situation. I don't sit on my butt while someone comes at me and not take defensive action. Enough said. Oh, I did read what you said. Want more realism? I've walked right up to people while in full view and they didn't see me, and I was the only thing moving within several hundred feet. I was making no, repeat, no effort to be quiet or stealthy either. And was dressed darkly in a bright area. And have done this several times. To several different people. So, you mean to tell me that an enemy charging you out of the proverbial blue can't catch you while you're looking the other way, or your mind is occupied with other thoughts? Even seasoned veterans get caught unawares. Live with it. Edit: And in my example, I knew the guy was going to hit me. He was directly in front of me and we had already exchanged words.
CycloneRanger 06-20-05, 02:17 AM	What you don't understand, Kursk, is that the rules in that situation don't necessarily translate into exactly what happens in the battle. The rules are a model; the description you add is up to you. Remember that the battle is not going on in turn order at all; that is just how we simulate it. In reality, the fighter doesn't just stand there like a statue while the orc moves and hits him. He may see the orc; he may not. He may even make an attempt to dodge the orc or parry his thrust. In the end, though, he just wasn't prepared for it, and his dodging didn't help him. Maybe he was startled and dodged into the orc's swing. Maybe he got caught flat-footed in the literal sense, and was unable to get into a mobile position fast enough. Maybe he just didn't see the orc. The rules in this situation don't mean that he just stands there. All they mean is that his attempts to dodge the orc's attack are ineffective that round because the orc moved a bit faster than the fighter.
weasel fierce 06-20-05, 02:26 AM	A: And exactly how can be determined whether the attempt is succesful? If the DM deems that a dice roll is required, he figures out what is a fair chance, then calls for an ability check, or a percentage roll. Mot of the time though, the dice roll is not really required and you can simply declare the character succeeds, or that it is beyond his capabilities. B: There's basically my problem with can/cannot skill systems. With a scaling system, at least you can easily allow some classes to do something better than others, rather than having some classes be able to do something and others not. Each their own :) I agree that in a skill based game, a variable, gradual rating is far better. One of my fave fantasy RPG's is a Swedish derivative of Runequest, which uses % ratings for everything. However, D&D is limited enough as it is with the class system. Having a skill system to further tell me what my players cannot do, seems as a non-desirable thing to me. YMMV I mean, are being able to move silently, hide in shadows and climb sheer walls supposed to be the only reason to have a thief class in AD&D? I would hope not, that's not much of a reason. Looking at 3E, the rogue class allows for so much more than just sneaky characters. The class is so broad that opening up skills anyone should be able to try is not a problem. To me, that not being true in AD&D shows there is a problem there. No, being able to find and remove traps, backstab, detect noises too faint for other characters, reading any written language and using magical scrolls are pretty good reasons to play a thief too. Not to mention unlimited demihuman advancement if you play AD&D1 In D20, you can do surprise attacks and fiddle with magical traps. Anything and everything else you can do, everyone else can do too. Woohoo. What the rogue class is in D20, has no bearing on what it is in AD&D, since they are very much not the same. Same thing that the AD&D1 ranger and the AD&D2 / 3.x Ranger have nothing in common really, neither in capabilities nor what the class represents.
weasel fierce 06-20-05, 02:27 AM	er important question would be, "How should it work, then?" On the initiative topic, my preferred (regardless of systems) is that players declare actions FIRST, then dice for initiative.
Thuragrun 06-20-05, 08:31 AM	On the initiative topic, my preferred (regardless of systems) is that players declare actions FIRST, then dice for initiative. Are you saying it should work like this? Player 1: I want to charge the orc 20' due north of me. (Everyone rolls initiative, orc rolls highest and moves 30' west, toward the exit, for an escape. Player 1 gets next highest initiative.) Player 1: I charge 20' north and swing at nothing. Yeah. That sounds...well....stoopid. No offense. Btw, I love your last sig entry.
Roxlimn 06-20-05, 09:44 AM	weasel fierce: I'd interested in knowing exactly what is the problem with the NWP or general skill system. Mainly the completely arbitrary nature of it. You literally had to make up precentages and difficulty assignments as you went. I appreciate having a large part of the work already done for me. What am I missing ? Everything apparently. The NWP system and the 3e skills system are nothing alike. WOTC generally does a good enough job with things. Im merely pointing out that "third edition" is an odd choice of a title, for a game that is not the third edition of anything. By the same reasoning, 2e wasn't a second edition of anything, either. 3.x skills still uses an attribute as their base, so for a skill based on wisdom, a cleric will STILL be better than a fighter who has spent the same skill points. You're completely incorrect. The 3e rules use the skill rank as the base. Each skill rank adds the requisite attribute bonus or penalty as a modifier to arrive at a final modifier to the die roll. Also, not every Cleric who chose to take Ride skill ranks would be better than a Fighter. For one thing, Ride is a cross class skill for Clerics, so the Fighter's skill ranks will eventually override whatever Wisdom advantage the Cleric has. For another thing, it's not a given that the Cleric will devote the same number of skill points into the skill as the Fighter. So you're completely incorrect there, too. Seems to me you're bashing a system you're not even familiar with. This is very basic 3e skill rules stuff. Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of gain on improving existing skills in 2e. Every additional NWP you placed on an existing NWP only added +1, or an additional 5% on the die. This means that most of the time, the majority of your modifier will depend on the ability modifier, not on how much NWP Slots you placed on the NWP in question. This heavily encouraged getting new NWPs instead, since they allowed you to make checks where you otherwise could not. The end effect is that it was much easier to learn new skills than it was to improve on existing skills, and that your attributes alone contributed the bulk of how good you were at any particular task, relative to anyone else who had the same NWP. Read the thief skill. Its called "scale SHEER surfaces". It allows thieves to climb almost anything without rope or spikes. Any goon can climb. But it takes a thief to do it without climbing gear, carring 600 gold coins, on a brick wall. The chart for theif skill modifiers in the DMG gave base percentages to climb for those who are not thieves, with the appropriate Dex and Race adjustments. The problem comes when you try to tie this in to the Mountaineering (?) and the Rope Use NW proficiencies. And Cthulhu have mercy if we dont want to use them, because you cant, without rewriting half the game. So much for the "options" of 3.x. Actually, you can opt not to use them. Indeed, I fail to see any convincing argument why you cannot. 3.x doesnt have rules for taking a dump, hence your character is doomed to die from constipation. I hope its something they correct in 4th edition, because as it stands now, the game is unplayable. You're being facetious. It's common usage in 2e not to allow an action unless otherwise specified. B: If we assume that move silent is move silent regardless of who does it, Why then have a rogue class ? Since everyone can do it, there's no point in having that class any longer. By the same reasoning, everyone can hit in combat, so there's no point in having the Fighter class any longer. It's a silly argument and you know it. A good skill system for D&D should take things that are NOT part of class features, and give an option to them. Personally, I dont like skills in D&D (any version) because they place additional restrictions on my players and characters, that the class system already does. That's the nature of the game. You can play GURPS if you like. The sole purpose of a skill system is to limit what a character can do, by hard mechanical fact. Some people prefer game rules where the characters have only a brief list of options or capabilities they can accomplish, but I think D&D benefits more from being an open, free ended game. Incorrect. The purpose of the 3e skill system is to define what a character can and cannot do and to what specific extent. I prefer it this way. Some people simply can't cook for the life of them. Other people can't swim. That's life. Common, everyday chores and skills that PCs in the game are supposed to be able to do are specifically defined as general checks that usually are no harder than DC 10, frequently less. If you think a particular activity is a commonplace activity everyone should be able to do, then the 3e skills system explicitly allows people to do these things. Again, I exhort you to actually read the 3e skill system, since you don't seem to be familiar with it. 3.x HAS a skill system, but you have to use it, if you dont want to rewrite several of the classes. Seems to me you just don't like using skills altogether. In that case, the AD&D system may be a better system for you since it presumes that skills generally won't be placed as a codified challenge in the game. Having said that, it's fairly simple to rewrite the Rogue, the Bard, and the Ranger to adhere to AD&D sensibilities. In fact, you can do away with the skill system altogether and simply slap on AD&D thief skill percentages and NWPs on existing 3e rules. The only chart you need in AD&D is to find the THAC0 and saving throw. :lol: Yeah, right!!!! You need to look up the thief skill Dex modifier charts, for those instances in which the Dex in question is changed. You need to look up the rules for how to untie yourself using Use Rope. You need to look up surprise chances based on race and class, and sometimes on magic item. You need to figure out how Move Silently and Hide in Shadows interact with these surprise chances. There are a bazillion charts to look up in AD&D and no way to tell how they interact with each other, whether they interact with each other at all, and how to extrapolate based on what's there. It's maddening. The same stuff you need to look up in 3.x, unless you have memorized the values for each class. Sure. Repeat after me: Good BAB, Medium BAB, Poor BAB Good Save, Bad Save. Those are the only save and "THAC0" progressions you need to know, and each progression is numerically regular, like an addition chart, so there's no need to memorize progressions as charts, only as formulas. Five addition patterns. That's it. I never look up BAB and save charts, and I can calculate BAB and saves almost instantly, based on level, attribute and misceallenous modifiers. Earlier versions uses the ability check (D20, roll under ability score) which I find rather intuitive, but hey, what we prefer is each our own 3e uses the ability check, too. However, this time around, you can invest resources into a skill such that you're actually better than some yahoo who just picked up the skill yesterday! Personally, figuring out D20 stat blocks and multiclass NPC's makes my head spin, but if you can do it on the fly, more power to you! And using GURPS stat block is somehow easier?!?!? Ooooohkay. Personally, I find the 3e system easier to manipulate than the GURPS system. I can make up a monster stat block in my head, on the fly. It's much, much easier than it was before, and it doesn't create the kind of consistency issues I used to have to deal with, just because I couldn't integrate four different ways of adjudicating results while also figuring out the level at which the monster should be at and keeping a storyline going at the same time. It's much too confusing. With d20, I don't have to "change currencies." The same modifier is applied throughout the system. Kursk: 10th level fighter gets beat on init roll by a 1HD Orc. Orc runs 30' towards fighter while fighter watches unable to move, (no dex bonus to AC because flat footed) orc fianally reaches 10th level fighter and attacks. If this functions perfectly then okay. My players can't stand insanely stupid rules. Maybe because they've been RPing for 20+ years... Shrug. It would've been exactly the same thing whatever edition you've been running. In fact, it might be worse in 2e because group initiative was completely acceptable under those rules. The difference is that in 3e, using a plethora of Initiative feats, the Fighter can render an Orc getting the Initiative virtually impossible. Greylord: And yet, in 3e a bard still couldn't learn how to disable a trap...I mean...It would only make sense that a bard could learn that as they could learn so many of the other skills... And why are so many classes kept from learning so many of the skills? You're mistaken. A bard can learn how to disable a trap. All he has to do is take a level of Rogue. No one PC is prohibited from learning any skill at any level, provided that he takes the necessary focus. Eliza Stormwhisper: Skills, while not only bogging down the game too much, make roleplaying less of a challenge, and don't fit well into a level-based system. Such situations as this one can be avoided: Untrue. The challenge of roleplaying is there whether or not you use the skills and irrespective of whether the roll succeeds or not. The skill system as you portray it does not reward you in-game for using your personal social skills in a real social-skills challenge but then again, the game doesn't reward you for using your personal combat skills in a real combat skills challenge, either, so that seems quite fair. Whether the roll succeeds or not, you can and should roleplay the outcome if you like, and the joy of playing out a satisfying role in a ficitonal scene should be its own reward. A much better way of solving the problem, if you ask me. The skill system, in my opinion, presents too many situations where you can get out of it by rolling high on a d20. The situation, as you relate it, is simply an example of a DM who doesn't know how to use and adjudicate the Diplomacy skill. As with other rules such as AoOs and grappling, I highly suggest not using rules you don't really know how to use. In the example you give, for example, the "guys" are antagonistic to the PC for a very specific reason - he's on their turf. This means that no Diplomacy check is going to work since "the guys" have a very specific, immediate, and concrete reason for disliking the PC. Even so, I would say that it isn't outside the realm of interpersonal skill to reverse the attitude even in that scenario, even without apologizing. It'd be very difficult, but it's not impossible. As such, I would rule it as a DC 45 check with a -20 on the roll, but that's just me. Greylord: Oh yeah, and that's still a skill system...something that was in 2e even...even if it wasn't as indepth or as detailed or as MANDATORY as in 3e... By what stretch of the imagination do you think the skills system in 3e is "mandatory" anymore than the NWP system was "mandatory" in 2e? In fact, the 3e DMG makes a special point of telling the DM to junk whatever rules he feels like junking. HOWEVER, 95% of the people I've played 3.5 with (numbers WERE different with 3e overall with the percentages) NEVER played the older editions. Excellent!!!! That means that, if nothing else, the system is very vigorous in bringing in new blood. I'm afraid I can't say the same. Almost every single one of the people I play with have played 2e, and about a fifth, 1e. We played modules of all sorts. We actually adapted Temple of Elemental Evil and Deserts of Desolation to 2e, if that can be believed, and later on, we played the 2nd edition modules, as well as a good deal of original material. Not that it can't be done in 3e, but characters were more defined on what they did and their motivations in the other game called AD&D and Gary Gygax's D&D. Sorry, I can't see this. Character definition in D&D has always depended on the player playing the game, not on the rules. In fact, since 3e provides greater variety on what you can play, and on the flexibility of options, I'd say that characters in 3e are better defined by what they did, and in general, they are capable of a wider range of interpretation. A player who defines his character in 3e as a "Half-Dragon Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldtritch Knight is not much different from a player in 1e who defines his character as "7th level Mage/8th level Fighter" except that the same player is, perhaps, given some semblance of complexity at least in the new edition. You can define your PC's character to the exact same degree whether he's a Half-Dragon Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight or he's an Elven Fighter/Mage, and I frankly don't see how having less tools to make your character's idiosyncrasies palpable in game terms makes for "more defined characters." Of course you have those that Roleplay in 3.5 as well, such as my wife who plays a halfling female cleric who was lawful evil. You apparently have a problem defining character, whether it's from a PC or an NPC. Introducing a character as "an X race X gender X class X alignment character" is so lame we have a name for it in some of my groups - "game neutered" - as in a PC so devoid of actual character that she has to depend on game statistics to describe who she is. Let me give you a few examples of acceptable characterization: Roxlimn is a young alchemist who runs a magic shop in the well-to-do districts of Waterdeep who hunts down long forgotten ancient artifacts in what he describes as "his free time." He's quite skilled in the Art, but alas, significantly less so in conversation and fashion. His friend, the Priestess of Sune Arkhadie of the House of Amcathra swears she'll find him a lover, but so far, it's proven to be frustratingly beyond her considerable abilities. Catherine of the Grove is an Initaite of the Circle of Druids in the same area. She finds much of the city not to her liking, but she's been friends with Roxlimn and Arkhadie forever, and it's not like she's going to leave Waterdeep for very long without them. She manages to wheedle enough leeway from her frowning superiors to allow her to go on many of Roxlimn's harebrained artifact hunts, partially by promising her friends' aid on many an important errand. Sometimes, she even asks their permission before volunterring them in this fashion. Atlan of the Guard is a promising young soldier - a bastard son of a minor noble. He takes his duties and his responsibilities seriously as Captain of the City Guard, but he's also acutely aware that an advantageous marriage is probably the fastest way for him to climb the ranks of nobility. He eyes the beautiful and well-heeled Arkhadie as a prize catch, and so endeavors to find favor in her eyes. He is a natural leader and a true hero at heart, but his ambition may yet be his undoing. As I said above, the biggest bone of contention between those who love AD&D and those who love d20 that I see is the name game. WotC promoted it as something it wasn't, and that peeved off a whole heck of a lot of people. Such people need to review where the game was headed, and the gazillions of press releases that WotC made prior to releasing the game. WotC promoted as exactly what it was, and if these people persisted in expecting something that was so obviously not in the works, they only have themselves to blame.
the artful dodger 06-20-05, 09:54 AM	If the DM deems that a dice roll is required, he figures out what is a fair chance, then calls for an ability check, or a percentage roll. Mot of the time though, the dice roll is not really required and you can simply declare the character succeeds, or that it is beyond his capabilities. In other words, there is no rule. I guess that can work just fine, but I do see at least two requirements to be met for that to be possible: 1) you need a good DM who knows what he or she is doing and 2) you need players who feel they're being treated fairly. Unfortunately, neither is really a given. However, D&D is limited enough as it is with the class system. Having a skill system to further tell me what my players cannot do, seems as a non-desirable thing to me. YMMV Undesirable or not, it's still the DM setting the DCs. Very few things are actually made flat-out impossible for the players by the skill system. No, being able to find and remove traps, backstab, detect noises too faint for other characters, reading any written language and using magical scrolls are pretty good reasons to play a thief too. Not to mention unlimited demihuman advancement if you play AD&D1 In D20, you can do surprise attacks and fiddle with magical traps. Anything and everything else you can do, everyone else can do too. Woohoo. In all fairness, that's a bit of an incorrect statement. Anything and everything else you can do, someone else can do too. Not everyone. And that someone will be able to do some of those things as well as you can, but not everything. Even the bard class doesn't allow a character to be as skillful as a rogue.
StormKnight 06-20-05, 10:48 AM	econdary SKILLS...hmm, what was that word...oh yeah...skills...something you said wasn't even in 1e... Actually, what I said was "none of these have anything resembling skill systems". That pathetic joke of "secondary skills" isn't remotely a skill system. Its a handy table to get an idea for character backgrounds, and that's it, regardless of what label they stick on it. If you print rules for the card game "War" and describe it as a "game of deep strategy", that doesn't make it a game of deep strategy. Oh yeah, and that's still a skill system...something that was in 2e even...even if it wasn't as indepth or as detailed or as MANDATORY as in 3e...or as specialized as those Profficiency systems that came later BOTH in 1e expansion rule books as well as in 2e. (SS were actually an option to use instead of NWP in 2e if I recall correctly, though I would have to make certain by looking that up...I have more experience in 1e currently than 2e). That's nice. I never said anything about 2nd, as I never went anywhere near it and have no idea what was in it. Seeing that you aren't even able to admit that...there's no point in giving any other pages in the DMG, PHB, or MM that might deal with that matter. I was perfectly happy to see if you were right. In my opinion, you aren't. Maybe we different opinions on what constitues a skill system. I'd imagine you'd call thief skills as irrelavent, as well as any other item called a skill that doesn't precisely match the rules of 3e (and there are OTHER ways of doing skills than that presented in 3e...but I doubt you'll accept them as valid after seeing your response). And that's not even touching the modules and other items written... I wouldn't call theif skills irrelevant, I'd call them part of the problem since a thief could do these things, but no one else could. "Skills" as a special ability for one specific character class do not constitute a skill system. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't consider other skill systems than third edition valid. There are lots of roleplaying games I would rank way above D&D for favorites. Modules and other items...sorry, no idea. Never seen 'em. Never said they didn't exist. I talked about things as they were in DMG, PHB, and in Basic + Expert set original D&D. That's it. Interestingly enough, it seems you forgot about all those, or you just decided not to count the existing skill systems and checks when you were writing your commentary... So, we've secondary skills, which aren't really skills, and thief skills, which I mentioned originally. What else did I forget? You're just noticing that DND isn't about RPing anymore? Was D&D EVER about roleplaying? Personally, I never saw any roleplaying in any D&D group prior to 3rd edition. (And the difference was NOT third edition, but the players). This started with 3.0 and the insanely low XP needed to level. 3.x is designed for the computer game players not RPers. What is with the "insanely low values"? I can maybe play once a month - at best. Maybe 2-3 encounters in one session. Taking 13 encounters to level, I'm looking at something like 5 months just to get to improve a character a bit, and 4 years to get to level 10. My longest group of more than 1 other player was maybe a year and a half. 3.x doesnt have rules for taking a dump, hence your character is doomed to die from constipation. I hope its something they correct in 4th edition, because as it stands now, the game is unplayable. Wow, this again. This is the most pathetic excuse argument I ever see for this. Anyone who can't see a difference between rules for routine tasks requiring that should never need a rule or die roll and complicated life or death tasks with uncertain outcomes probably shouldn't be roleplaying. And Cthulhu have mercy if we dont want to use them, because you cant, without rewriting half the game. So much for the "options" of 3.x. Ok, here, I'll rewrite it for you since its so tough. Nobody gets skill points. There are no skills. Voila! Sure, you've lost balance and the DM will have to make a lot of on-the-spot rules calls, but since that's exactly how it was in 1st edition, why is that a problem?
GreyLord 06-20-05, 11:50 AM	By what stretch of the imagination do you think the skills system in 3e is "mandatory" anymore than the NWP system was "mandatory" in 2e? In fact, the 3e DMG makes a special point of telling the DM to junk whatever rules he feels like junking. Have you ever tried playing 3e without skills...it's not possible to play a SINGLE WotC module without them...unless you make a special exception for Rogues...in which case the players will be all angry since trying to decide which skills the Rogue gets or does not as class default is not going with the rules unless one wants to be completely unfair. Of course you allow the Rogue to have skills you have to allow the Bard and Ranger as well or you shaft them in balance. Literally, it's impossible to play without the skill system in 3.5 if you want any semblance of anyone to play with. Heck, the closest you can come to it is playing the UA alternative rule which has them with max skill ranks in skills. My wife still complains about me using that option. As for differing opinions (in response to another poster), I suppose it's obvious. However, it seems some people here are fanatical about their chosen system...which is okay, just makes it impossible for them to see any other viewpoints or opinions. It doesn't matter if one system is better suited to something than another, they'll always argue that their system is the best at everything...but then that's why you have [tongue in cheek here] Half-Dragon/Half-Orc/Half-Elf (how in the world one gets 3 halfs is beyond me...but people seem to do it) Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Loremaster/Archmage/Weaponmasters... Oh, and of course if I want to disable magic traps all I need to do is take a level of Rogue...doesn't matter if I want that Bard to have a level or two of Fighter instead and not get an XP penalty...OR that the Bard and Rogue are basically of the same type (like a Wizard/Sorcerer or Fighter/Barbarian). Doesn't matter that a Fighter can be a better horseman than a Cleric...even if the Cleric spends more time and effort at it...for some unknown reason riding horses is something that comes more naturally to a Fighter? Each system has it's flaws, each has it's strengths. I think there are those here who have different opinions. However, no matter what one's opinions are, trying to hide up the weaknesses of one's own system to try to say their's is superior really achieves nothing, except to make us all feel great about our own system while everyone else laughs at our logic.
MerricB 06-20-05, 12:16 PM	Doesn't matter that a Fighter can be a better horseman than a Cleric...even if the Cleric spends more time and effort at it...for some unknown reason riding horses is something that comes more naturally to a Fighter? It's the same reason swinging a sword comes more naturally to a fighter than a cleric. D&D is a class-based system, not a skill-based system. As a result, your class is the most important thing about your character. (In theory, I could design a Horselord Domain for the cleric that gave Ride and Handle Animal as class skills, a +2 bonus to Ride and Handle Animal (horse) checks, and the spells 1st-Mount, 2nd-Bear's Endurance; 3rd-Phantom Steed; 4th-Freedom of Movement; 5th-Awaken; 6th-Find the Path; 7th-ethereal jaunt; 8th-planar ally, greatr; 9th-gate). Oh, and of course if I want to disable magic traps all I need to do is take a level of Rogue... And spend a lot of points on Disable Device (a cross-class skill for everyone but Rogues). Yes, a Rogue 1/Fighter 19 can be as good as disabling traps as a Rogue 20, but that's the only skill they have. (Searching requires even more skill points - and unfortunately the Fighter is only giving 2 skill points per level, both of which need to be spent on Disable Device). Meanwhile, your Rogue 20 can Search, Disable, Decipher Script, Use Magic Device, Move Silently, etc. There is a big trade-off whenever you multi-class in 3.5e. Cheers!
StormKnight 06-20-05, 12:17 PM	Skills, while not only bogging down the game too much, make roleplaying less of a challenge, and don't fit well into a level-based system. Such situations as this one can be avoided: DM: The guard doesn't believe your story. Player: I rolled a 20 on my Bluff check. DM: :confused: How is this different from: DM: The guard doesn't believe your story. Player: I have an 18 Charisma. DM: :confused: No matter what your system is, some players will try to just play the numbers and the rules. And no matter what your system is, smoothly and cleanly integrating persuasion between player and character will ability will always be a little bit of a challenge. ---------------------------------------- Its amazing how off-topic this whole thread has gotten. It started with "3.5 is all battle oriented" and somehow seems to be turning into a general-purpouse raging edition war.
Roxlimn 06-20-05, 12:18 PM	Greylord: Have you ever tried playing 3e without skills...it's not possible to play a SINGLE WotC module without them...unless you make a special exception for Rogues...in which case the players will be all angry since trying to decide which skills the Rogue gets or does not as class default is not going with the rules unless one wants to be completely unfair. Of course you allow the Rogue to have skills you have to allow the Bard and Ranger as well or you shaft them in balance. Well, since you'll be playing without rules, one presumes that you'll be using some form of Thief Skills amalgam into the game to give the Rogue some sense of purpose. This goes for the Bard and the Ranger as well, in that case. Literally, it's impossible to play without the skill system in 3.5 if you want any semblance of anyone to play with. Heck, the closest you can come to it is playing the UA alternative rule which has them with max skill ranks in skills. My wife still complains about me using that option. It seems to me that the fact that everyone's clamoring for it means that it's a good system, or at least a desireable one. Oh, and of course if I want to disable magic traps all I need to do is take a level of Rogue...doesn't matter if I want that Bard to have a level or two of Fighter instead and not get an XP penalty...OR that the Bard and Rogue are basically of the same type (like a Wizard/Sorcerer or Fighter/Barbarian). Well, how about disabling a trap in 1e? 2e, maybe? Sure, you don't really have that many options, but the options are more than what you used to get, so I don't see how this makes 3e more battle oriented than 2e or 1e. Of course, you could always do a deal with the DM to acquire the Disable Device skill and trapfinding ability for some equal exchange. Doesn't matter that a Fighter can be a better horseman than a Cleric...even if the Cleric spends more time and effort at it...for some unknown reason riding horses is something that comes more naturally to a Fighter? Well, yes, actually it does. Classes and level packages in 3e D&D represent a kind of institutionalized focus inherent in living in a class or caste based society. Training as a Cleric therefore, inasmuch as that calling or profession is defined in D&D, doesn't really help in advancing your equestrian skill, even if you put more effort into it. Consider for example, how much easier it is, even in modern society, for you to develop your figure skating skill if you were actually enrolled in a figure skating scholarship or program (or at least some profession that allowed you enough free time, proximity, and/or similar activities). You could, I suppose, try to self-train in figure skating while also trying to study for pre-med out in Moab, Utah, but methinks that you'll find it a lot more difficult, such that you will tend to have less results, even if you put in more effort. Probably, it would be much more profitable for you to engage in, say, mountain biking, which I hear is very good in that area. It's much the same thing. It's not that riding horses comes more naturally to Fighters, which doesn't make sense anyway, since anyone can take any class at any level. It's that the territory that comes with training as a Fighter naturally gives you more opportunities to develop your riding skill. Each system has it's flaws, each has it's strengths. I think there are those here who have different opinions. However, no matter what one's opinions are, trying to hide up the weaknesses of one's own system to try to say their's is superior really achieves nothing, except to make us all feel great about our own system while everyone else laughs at our logic. You're quite mistaken. I'm aware of the weaknesses of 3e, and I've not been trying to hide or gloss them over. On the contrary, I'll even be the first to admit it. For example, one of the most glaring weaknesses in 3e is in the way casters utterly fail to multiclass to any reasonable extent. See that? That's a real weakness, and I'm quite open about it. Now, people bashing a portion of the system by accusing it of weaknesses that aren't even there, that's just libel. Such people would do well to first read about what it is they're bashing just so they can field an informed opinion of what it is they're denigrating. I mean, I can accept that a desert is hot - that a weakness of the desert environment, but to claim that you won't get enough beach time on a tropical island with safe empty sunny white beaches? That's just insane. You might as well bash the moon by saying that it's always pitch black.
Scipion Emilien 06-20-05, 12:19 PM	However, it seems some people here are fanatical about their chosen system...which is okay, just makes it impossible for them to see any other viewpoints or opinions. 3.X solve all the things that bug me in AD&D without adding thing that bug me in his own system. So it's sure i find 3.X superior to AD&D, and here we are not arguing wich system is superior but if 3.X is more battle-oriented than AD&D wich I higly doubt. It doesn't matter if one system is better suited to something than another, they'll always argue that their system is the best at everything...but then that's why you have [tongue in cheek here] Half-Dragon/Half-Orc/Half-Elf (how in the world one gets 3 halfs is beyond me...but people seem to do it) Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Loremaster/Archmage/Weaponmasters... You know even in AD&D you could wizard/fighter/rogue, and the argument of the Half-Dragon/Half-Orc/Half-Elf or the Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Loremaster/Archmage/Weaponmaster is fallacious in my opinion because every sane DM will not allow that. The 3.X is flexible, but i don t see how the fact that some munchkin abuse of it make that this is a bad thing for Dm that want role play. It s like saying than because modern computer allow hacking, we should all come back to the counting frame. I don t know for you, but i will use my computer because all he could allow me to do and i will let those script kiddie at their hacking lan. The situation is even better in dungeon because you could simply get out those munchkin of your game while with your computer you have to buy firewall and others **** to protect you. Oh, and of course if I want to disable magic traps all I need to do is take a level of Rogue...doesn't matter if I want that Bard to have a level or two of Fighter instead and not get an XP penalty...OR that the Bard and Rogue are basically of the same type (like a Wizard/Sorcerer or Fighter/Barbarian). Geez, you whine that these is a thing that only a thief should be doing and now you whine than your bard that is a jack-of-all-trade and not a specialist (rogue) cannot disable the most deadliest traps ever conceive and build? Doesn't matter that a Fighter can be a better horseman than a Cleric...even if the Cleric spends more time and effort at it...for some unknown reason riding horses is something that comes more naturally to a Fighter? A fighter during his formation learn how to be proeficient with all those martial weapon and learn how to stay in shape and got a little hint about how animal could help him to fight. A cleric learn religion in a temple. Personnally i figure that a fighter that learn the basics technique of riding will be better than a cleric that learn on the spot. If you don't like cross-class skill concept, make all skill class and give 5 at the start to class were those skill were class-skill. Each system has it's flaws, each has it's strengths. I think there are those here who have different opinions. However, no matter what one's opinions are, trying to hide up the weaknesses of one's own system to try to say their's is superior really achieves nothing, except to make us all feel great about our own system while everyone else laughs at our logic. In fact i think that both system work perfectly if the DM behind the screen is someone who know how to make an interesting game and that players agree on the rules (and the absence of rule) of each system. Personnally i prefer 3.X because as a player i know how my DM will rule each thing and as a DM i don t have to created rule that could eventually not function with the system in the future and find it easier to adjucate rules and PNJ by the simple five formulae.
MerricB 06-20-05, 12:27 PM	One of the defining points of 3.5e as opposed to AD&D is that the skill system is integrated into the game. What does this mean? Well, that removing it will cause problems with adventures written for the game. :) The AD&D "skill" (proficiency) system was more modular. It achieved this by being almost irrelevant to the game. The game assumed it didn't exist, so by actually taking non-weapon proficiences (NWPs), you almost always added nothing useful. What the 3.5e skill system means to the game is that it is possible to write meaningful challenges that are based on the characters' non-combat abilities, and to reward players for making those choices. I see this all the time in published adventures. Having ranks in Knowledge (local) is significant! If all you want out of D&D is a combat system, then the skill system will be mostly irrelevant to you.
Yak of Darkness 06-20-05, 12:34 PM	It doesn't matter if one system is better suited to something than another, they'll always argue that their system is the best at everything...but then that's why you have [tongue in cheek here] Half-Dragon/Half-Orc/Half-Elf (how in the world one gets 3 halfs is beyond me...but people seem to do it) Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Loremaster/Archmage/Weaponmasters...Okay, I'm probably silly for even asking this, but what the hell does your last part there have to do with anything even closely related to the topic at hand? Seriously, whenever anyone is arguing on these boards that 3.x D&D is deficient in some way, regardless of what that way is (like for this thread--that 3.5 is supposedly nothing but combat that inhibits roleplaying . . . or the sidetrack about the skill system), they start stacking templates and multiclassing like crazy. Got a problem with the skill system in 3.5? That's because it's a system full of anthropomorphic baleen whale psions. Hate attacks of opportunity? How could you not, in a system filled with half-elf necromancer/cleric/mystic theurge/fighter/barbarian/dwarven defenders running around?! Think that shapechange is broken? Well, yeah, I mean you can make a phrenic half-tarrasque vampire half-dragon werebear marshall/healer/favored soul/warlock/rage mage. Shapechange sucks! The usual response to being called out on this is to say something along the lines of "I'm just exaggerating," and I can see you're preemptively doing so with your tongue-in-cheek tags, but it still has nothing to do with either the point of the thread or the skill system hijack. Maybe these boards need some kind of version of Godwin's Law: As a WotC boards discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving half-anything absurd multiclasses approaches one. With the corollary: The first side to use this argument has run out of real things to argue for their side. EDIT: And there's no way I can think of to even get a half-elf-half-orc to stack the half-dragon template onto. And, considering the threads that occasionally pop up asking what you get when you mix orcs and elves, I don't think there is one, not from WotC, at least.
weasel fierce 06-20-05, 02:00 PM	Mainly the completely arbitrary nature of it. You literally had to make up precentages and difficulty assignments as you went. I appreciate having a large part of the work already done for me. Then 3.x is propably better for you. Mind, the DC's and numbers they assign are equally arbitrary. Only difference is you have someone else telling you how your game should work. By the same reasoning, 2e wasn't a second edition of anything, either. AD&D2nd edition material can be used with almost no conversion work for AD&D1st edition and vice versa. You're completely incorrect. The 3e rules use the skill rank as the base. Each skill rank adds the requisite attribute bonus or penalty as a modifier to arrive at a final modifier to the die roll. Yes, so a character with a higher ability score will be better than a character with a lower score, if they are spending the same number of skill ranks. Not that hard math there. Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of gain on improving existing skills in 2e. Every additional NWP you placed on an existing NWP only added +1, or an additional 5% on the die. This means that most of the time, the majority of your modifier will depend on the ability modifier, not on how much NWP Slots you placed on the NWP in question. This heavily encouraged getting new NWPs instead, since they allowed you to make checks where you otherwise could not. The end effect is that it was much easier to learn new skills than it was to improve on existing skills, and that your attributes alone contributed the bulk of how good you were at any particular task, relative to anyone else who had the same NWP. And yet people gripe that the ability scores didnt have enough impact on the game :confused: Yes, the slow rate of advancement were a problem. A lot of people fixed it by simply giving you a +1 to a proficiency as well as a new slot, when you reached the required level. The chart for theif skill modifiers in the DMG gave base percentages to climb for those who are not thieves, with the appropriate Dex and Race adjustments. The problem comes when you try to tie this in to the Mountaineering (?) and the Rope Use NW proficiencies. Mountaineering lets you climb mountains, using spikes, hammers, rope and lots of time. No real relevance to typical adventure climbing Actually, you can opt not to use them. Indeed, I fail to see any convincing argument why you cannot. Going to be a real blast playing a rogue in that game. You're being facetious. It's common usage in 2e not to allow an action unless otherwise specified. It was never common usage in any game I have played in, in any set of rules. That's the nature of the game. You can play GURPS if you like. I do play GURPS. I also play old D&D, because it does what I want it to, without the extra stuff. Incorrect. The purpose of the 3e skill system is to define what a character can and cannot do and to what specific extent. I prefer it this way. Some people simply can't cook for the life of them. Other people can't swim. That's life. And if you feel that tracking each and everything one of those things mechanically is important, then 3.x is for you. Seems to me you just don't like using skills altogether. In that case, the AD&D system may be a better system for you since it presumes that skills generally won't be placed as a codified challenge in the game. Bingo :) Having said that, it's fairly simple to rewrite the Rogue, the Bard, and the Ranger to adhere to AD&D sensibilities. In fact, you can do away with the skill system altogether and simply slap on AD&D thief skill percentages and NWPs on existing 3e rules. You propably could do that without much problem yeah. You need to look up the thief skill Dex modifier charts, for those instances in which the Dex in question is changed. Your dex is likely to change twice or so in your career. Big whoop. You need to look up the rules for how to untie yourself using Use Rope. Roll a D20. equal or lower than your ability score You need to look up surprise chances based on race and class, and sometimes on magic item. You need to figure out how Move Silently and Hide in Shadows interact with these surprise chances. IIRC, only monks in AD&D1 has a real change to the odds of being surprised. Cant speak for AD&D2 but if there were changes we never used them. As for thieving skills, you have to figure that out in 3.x as well. There are a bazillion charts to look up in AD&D and no way to tell how they interact with each other, whether they interact with each other at all, and how to extrapolate based on what's there. The vast majority were things that you looked up once at creation, then when you go up a level. We rarely refer to the rulebooks during play, except for spells, as that kind of stuff can get important. I never look up BAB and save charts, and I can calculate BAB and saves almost instantly, based on level, attribute and misceallenous modifiers. Then 3.x is propably fine for you 3e uses the ability check, too. However, this time around, you can invest resources into a skill such that you're actually better than some yahoo who just picked up the skill yesterday! Yup. The slow advancement of NWP's were one of the weaknesses of the system And using GURPS stat block is somehow easier?!?!? Ooooohkay. Personally, I find the 3e system easier to manipulate than the GURPS system. I can make up a monster stat block in my head, on the fly. It's much, much easier than it was before, and it doesn't create the kind of consistency issues I used to have to deal with, just because I couldn't integrate four different ways of adjudicating results while also figuring out the level at which the monster should be at and keeping a storyline going at the same time. I wont get into a "game war" but GURPS has 4 stats to worry about, every dice roll is 3D6 roll under (giving you a nice bell curve), everything you can do is a skill and works the same way, even spells, and the game has a decent points system, instead of the arbitrary "this is a feat, but that is a class ability and that other thing is a skill, we;re not sure why" structure. It also lets you balance character competence with ease, due to standardized points costs. I find GURPS straight forward, you find 3.x straighforward. If we were ever to game, I figure I'd run GURPS and you'd run 3.x :)
Roxlimn 06-20-05, 02:15 PM	That's cool. :) You realize, though, that this doesn't really make 3e more combat oriented that previous editions. Nor "all combat oriented" at all.
Escef 06-20-05, 02:19 PM	IIRC, only monks in AD&D1 has a real change to the odds of being surprised. I think elves and rangers as well, but I don't own a 1e PHB, so I can't check.
the artful dodger 06-20-05, 02:34 PM	Mind, the DC's and numbers they assign are equally arbitrary. Only difference is you have someone else telling you how your game should work. I prefer thinking some playtesting data was used to help determine workable numbers. ;) Besides, the DCs are the easiest thing to change in D&D. If you want a 'DM decides whether a character succeeds' policy, that's in essence what 3E still offers. The scaling skill system at least gives a more exact indication of how good someone is at something, so that's really only to the DM's advantage. The 'official' numbers are there to take or leave as you please. The only difference is you have someone else telling you how your game could work. I'm sure beginning players and DMs can appreciate getting a hand trying to get a fun game going. :)
Gilean 06-20-05, 02:54 PM	A disclaimer: I have never read any rules of older editions. Once I have touched a book of AD&D, that's it. BUT, I have played or studied a wealth of game systems and done equally many of my own design. According to one gaming theory, every game has a core story, the archetypal structure of an adventure. For D&D, the core story is that of multiple heroes with diverse skills (used in loose meaning of the word) go to dungeon, overcome challenges (monsters and miscallaneous others), get treasure and gorw stronger. Repeat till boredom. As far as I understand, 3rd edition allows for more diverse skills, and regulations for their use. By the same token, more categories of challenges open up. Thus, in my perspective, 3rd edition of D&D is a better fit for the core story. Also, 3rd edition opens up regulated functions for greater amount of situations outside the core story, which is a good thing, too, IMHO. My theory of gaming centres around the concept of niche. The niche of D&D is wargaming and increasing power through combat in high fantasy setting. Outside of that, D&D is outside it's niche, and performs suboptimally. For the niche, D&D is quite fine. I know not enough of different editions to say if improvement has happened. Outside the niche, I'd say improvement has happened. This means that 3rd edition is better at things it is not made for. I do call it a good thing, for I'm not too interested in the niche of D&D. But that's just me. As for arbitrary decision, guidelines for them are good. For example, DC 10 is something an average person with no training is very likely to succeed in with few attempts. DC 20 is quite rarely possible for such a person, but a trained and somewhat talented beginner can succeed, in perhaps 5 tries, with some certainty. These are fairly easy to make up.
Yak of Darkness 06-20-05, 03:35 PM	That's cool. :) You realize, though, that this doesn't really make 3e more combat oriented that previous editions. Nor "all combat oriented" at all. :cheer:
StormKnight 06-20-05, 05:12 PM	D&D 3.X has rules for battles. It also has rules for skills, which frequently have nothing to do with battles. It has feats which have no effect in battle. It has alignment which helps define how a character acts, which has nothing to do with battle. It has spells that have no combat or battle effect. It has guidelines and sections on roleplaying, which do not HAVE to be in battle. It has guidelines on intrigue/exploration, which is not battle. Is there ANY logical reason to say "its ALL about battle?" As for 3.X vs. earlier being more or less about battle. Earlier versions have combat rules. 3.X has more detailed combat rules. Earlier versions have effects that are sometimes tricky to resolve without a grid and minis. 3.X has effects that are sometimes tricky to resolve without a grid and minis. Earlier versions might nor might not have some sort of skill rules, depending on which version you have. 3.X has skill rules, which are generally more detailed than earlier versions. Both versions have spells with no combat or battle effect. Earlier versions might or might not have guidelines on intrigue/exploration, which are not battles, depending on which version you have. 3.X has guidelines on intrigue/exploration, which are not battles. Earlier versions contain some roleplaying advice, 3.X has some roleplaying advice. A group of players can take early D&D and play nothing but battles. A group of players can take 3.X and play nothing but battles. A group of players can take early D&D and never have a fight. A group of players can take 3.X and never have a fight. Tell me, from where in there do you get "3.X is more battle oriented than early D&D"? The only thing I see backing it is that 3.X has a more detailed combat system...and if that's a valid criteria, then it must also be less combat oriented because it has a more detailed outside-of-combat skill system.
Azzy 06-20-05, 07:20 PM	Truly. It's d20, save, skill, attack roll, AC oriented. That's what it IS. What happened to the good old days when half of your character sheet was your story and/or affiliations? What about living as your character and not just plunder-gold-get-magic-stuff? What about THAT? Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. I don't buy it. I've played through basic D&D, 1e AD&D and 2e AD&D up to 3e & 3.5. I feel you must be succumbing to the worst kind of nostalgia--because the "good old days" of AD&D weren't. There's been no change between the editions that has made D&D any more or less combat or hack 'n slash oriented. If anything, 3e/3.5 has made it even easier to play "concept characters" due to a character creation system that's actually flexible. In most cases, the characters that I had to modify the classes or other rules aspects (with DM approval) in 1e/2e, I can play straight out of the book with 3.5. I like the fact that I no longer have to fight the game mechanics to pursue an interesting concept when I play or DM. PS. PCs are getting to be heroes at very low levels. Talk about unrealistic. WORK YOUR WAY UP. What about that, huh? What about THAT? What the heck kind of person, at a fifth level of living, can morph into a wild shape every day? A hero. Which is what the PCs (and PC classes) are supposed to represent. You really shouldn't use the realism argument when you're discussing a game that features shape-changing druids and beholders. ;) Remember, low level PCs are still heroes--that's why the PC classes are more powerful than the NPC classes in the DMG. Also, there are no "levels of living"--there are levels of power. As a 5th-level player character, you should be quite capable of perfoming deeds that awe even the most jaded commoner. In a standard (non-epic-level) campaign, 5th-level is 1/4 your maximum potential--that should mean something (especially when you look at what you can do at 20th-level). PSS. I have all the 3.5 books and 3.0 books. I went out and bought 2E yesterday. Magnifique. I hope you enjoy them more than I did... I was quite appalled with most of 2e. :)
GreyLord 06-20-05, 08:47 PM	My friend's 733t 15th level Commoner who's farmed his whole life would still pwn your 5th level fighter!!! That's the great thing about 3e...doesn't matter if you're a commoner or a fighter or a wizard...we can all gain levels as one big happy family. So what if you're fifth level...90% of the commoners are 5th level after their fourth or fifth year...what with all the goblin raids and such. :P Yes, the smily with the tongue means I'm razzing you... PS: From what I understand, just about EVERYONE would enjoy 2e more than you (seeing you were apalled by it)...well not everyone, but most people... I enjoy 2e, and 1e, and heck, I even play 3.5, I suppose that makes me the most balanced, or one of the more balanced judges of the systems on this board seeing I actually still play almost all of them on a semi-regular basis (though I must admit I haven't played a 2e game in a few years now...though I have played OD&D and 1e along with 3e and 3.5 in the past few months). Just got my first level in Eldritch Knight (my character) last night actually.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-20-05, 09:54 PM	I have one thing to say regarding the discussion about DC's and NWP's. A DM could just as easily impose a penalty or bonus on the NWP check if he deemed it particularly difficult or very easy. The 2nd ed. player's handbook (or DMG, I forget which one) had guidelines on it. So, say you're trying to use a dexterity-based proficiency and youre dexterity score is 14. If the DM imposes a -3 penalty, you must roll 11 or under. Or a +3 bonus, requiring you to roll 17 or under.
Azzy 06-20-05, 10:12 PM	My friend's 733t 15th level Commoner who's farmed his whole life would still pwn your 5th level fighter!!! :shocked: :rofl: That's the great thing about 3e...doesn't matter if you're a commoner or a fighter or a wizard...we can all gain levels as one big happy family. So what if you're fifth level...90% of the commoners are 5th level after their fourth or fifth year...what with all the goblin raids and such. :P Yes, the smily with the tongue means I'm razzing you... Don't worry... I can appreciate a good razzing. :cool: PS: From what I understand, just about EVERYONE would enjoy 2e more than you (seeing you were apalled by it)...well not everyone, but most people... I found it appalling for the fact that for every "cleaning up" or "improvement" over 1e, there were more foul-ups and detractions. 2e didn't go far enough into cleaning up the system (like THAC0 was a big improvement over the old charts), it took away many of the options (Cavaliers, Monks, etc), and was just generall inept (the DMG--period). That's not saying there weren't some improvements (dragons, preist's spheres) and some good ideas (kits). Overall, playing 1.5e (hybrid 1e/2e) was the best bet. I enjoy 2e, and 1e, and heck, I even play 3.5, I suppose that makes me the most balanced, or one of the more balanced judges of the systems on this board seeing I actually still play almost all of them on a semi-regular basis (though I must admit I haven't played a 2e game in a few years now...though I have played OD&D and 1e along with 3e and 3.5 in the past few months). Just got my first level in Eldritch Knight (my character) last night actually. I enjoyed 1.5e until I got into other games... then I saw just how horrid AD&D's game system actually was (that's not to say I couldn't enjoy playing AD&D, I was just disgusted with the mechanics--one of the reasons that I appreciate 3e/3.5e). I could probably enjoy playing basic D&D (or maybe even 1.5e) again for the sake of nostalgia, but I would never run a game using those rules again--I'd find it too frustrating.
MerricB 06-20-05, 11:31 PM	Then 3.x is propably better for you. Mind, the DC's and numbers they assign are equally arbitrary. Only difference is you have someone else telling you how your game should work. Actually, no - the DCs aren't arbitrary. What 3e does is let the player and DM know what the playing field is. If I want to make a running jump for 40 feet, I know in advance that I need a 40, and that will always be my target number. If I want to tumble past enemies I need a 15. To cast a spell defensively it is 15+Spell level on my concentration check. Arbitrary is when there isn't this baseline to work from. Imagine that the idea of "casting defensively" was explained in the PHB, but the DC wasn't given anywhere in the rules. I could play at one table and need a 16 DC to cast a magic missile; and then a different DM would require a 26 DC! If you had a really poor DM, then you could get both targets from the same DM in the same day! Yes, so a character with a higher ability score will be better than a character with a lower score, if they are spending the same number of skill ranks. Not that hard math there. Indeed - however the significance of the ability score is much reduced compared to the level of skill of the character. (Note also that feat and PrC prerequisites never work on total bonus, just on base ranks). A Fighter with a 14 wisdom may have a +2 Listen, but that's nothing compared to the 10th level rogue with a 8 wisdom - +12 Listen. And yet people gripe that the ability scores didnt have enough impact on the game :confused: Heh. Not me. My gripe with AD&D ability scores was that you needed a 16+ is most of them to have any significant effect. Oh, and Int and Cha were mostly useless. I much preferred Moldvay Basic D&D where the 13-15 gave +1, 16-17 gave +2 and 18 gave +3; that is the basis of today's ability score system. Yes, the slow rate of advancement were a problem. A lot of people fixed it by simply giving you a +1 to a proficiency as well as a new slot, when you reached the required level. Excellent though the house rule was, it wasn't always applied. (I've never head of it until now, for instance). IIRC, only monks in AD&D1 has a real change to the odds of being surprised. Cant speak for AD&D2 but if there were changes we never used them. Monks, Elves, Rangers and Halflings all messed around with surprise chances. Oh, and Thieves and Assassins. I wont get into a "game war" but GURPS has 4 stats to worry about, every dice roll is 3D6 roll under (giving you a nice bell curve), everything you can do is a skill and works the same way, even spells, and the game has a decent points system, instead of the arbitrary "this is a feat, but that is a class ability and that other thing is a skill, we;re not sure why" structure. It also lets you balance character competence with ease, due to standardized points costs. I find GURPS straight forward, you find 3.x straighforward. If we were ever to game, I figure I'd run GURPS and you'd run 3.x :) The one problem with traditional GURPS (I haven't seen the new edition yet) was that it began breaking down with heroic play (that is, high point values). This became very obvious when a skill stat (normally Int) was high; then 1/2 a rank in a bunch of skills would give you near perfect chances of success. Cheers!
weasel fierce 06-21-05, 12:52 AM	Indeed - however the significance of the ability score is much reduced compared to the level of skill of the character. (Note also that feat and PrC prerequisites never work on total bonus, just on base ranks). A Fighter with a 14 wisdom may have a +2 Listen, but that's nothing compared to the 10th level rogue with a 8 wisdom - +12 Listen. Quite true, but as I stated above, if they spend the same number of skill points (or slots in AD&D2) the higher ability score will still be better I much preferred Moldvay Basic D&D where the 13-15 gave +1, 16-17 gave +2 and 18 gave +3; that is the basis of today's ability score system. While I strongly disagree that intelligence and charisma was worthless, I do agree that the Moldvay (and later Mentzer) system was superior. Part of why my current campaign is Moldvay ;) Excellent though the house rule was, it wasn't always applied. (I've never head of it until now, for instance). It might just have been a thing in the area where I learned to play The one problem with traditional GURPS (I haven't seen the new edition yet) was that it began breaking down with heroic play (that is, high point values). This became very obvious when a skill stat (normally Int) was high; then 1/2 a rank in a bunch of skills would give you near perfect chances of success. The new edition is geared more towards heroic and larger than life play, with tons of new options for that kind of thing. I havent tested it yet though, since I prefer using it for gritty, everyman sort of games.
MerricB 06-21-05, 01:26 AM	Quite true, but as I stated above, if they spend the same number of skill points (or slots in AD&D2) the higher ability score will still be better Well, sort of. 3e: If the skill is a class skill for both, then the ability score is what differentiates between them (assuming no synergies or magic). If the skill is a class skill for only one, then one character will have greater ranks - at higher levels the gap becomes quite significant. 2e: The ability score is so influential that (assuming no house rules) the better ability score is always superior. Compare a 10 to a 16 (not unlikely) - that's 6 NWP slots that have to be applied to become comparative, and characters just don't get that many in the course of the game. (Nor were most of the NWPs worth getting at higher levels). Meanwhile, a 10 to 16 gap in 3e only translates to a 3 bonus gap; and with ranks moving from 4 to 13 (levels 1-10), that's much less significant. The new edition is geared more towards heroic and larger than life play, with tons of new options for that kind of thing. I havent tested it yet though, since I prefer using it for gritty, everyman sort of games. That'd fix one of my main problems with it, though I quite agree that GURPS is a fantastic system for everyman games. A lot of fun can be had with it. Cheers!
weasel fierce 06-21-05, 04:38 AM	yeah, I agree, the ability score is more instrumental in AD&D to your skill chances, than in D20. Just pointing out that the ability scores are still defining now, especially at earlier levels (where you are unlikely to have ranks in more than a couple of skills). It is however, easier overcome now. As to GURPS, its a fantastic game, though it definately does better with the down to earth sort of thing. For superheroics, I'd propably go with something else (heck, D20 modern? ;) )
StormKnight 06-21-05, 10:43 AM	Originally posted by weasel fierce If the DM deems that a dice roll is required, he figures out what is a fair chance, then calls for an ability check, or a percentage roll. Mot of the time though, the dice roll is not really required and you can simply declare the character succeeds, or that it is beyond his capabilities. And also... Going to be a real blast playing a rogue in that game. (Regarding playing a Rogue in 3.X if you just don't use skills) If what you want to use a system is "DM decides chance of success", the DM should have no trouble figuring a character's class into that chance. Besides, the "rogue is hosed" argument kind of falls flat when you are comparing to early D&D. Its going to be a real blast playing a magic user in a level 1 one shot game. MU: "Hey, anyone found any magic for me to read yet? No? Ok, I'll keep hiding over...AHHH!" Fighter: "Oh, damn, the monster looked halfway in his direction. Scratch another wizard." Or playing a fighter in a high level game: Fighter: "I'd draw my sword, but the spellcasters will have vaporized the enemy before they even get in reach, so why bother?" As to GURPS, its a fantastic game, though it definately does better with the down to earth sort of thing. For superheroics, I'd propably go with something else (heck, D20 modern? ) I'd suggest Tri-Stat for a high-powered generic game system. Much smoother and cleaner that GURPS in my opinion.
Escef 06-21-05, 04:42 PM	Or playing a fighter in a high level game: Fighter: "I'd draw my sword, but the spellcasters will have vaporized the enemy before they even get in reach, so why bother?" In 1e or 2e? At mid-levels the melee types were just bodyguards for the casters. At high level the casters existed mostly to buff the the frontline combatants. Remember that saving throws did not scale up in 1e and 2e. By the time characters were 15th-ish most monsters could make their saves on less than a 7 on d20 and likely had magic resistance.
wordserpent 06-21-05, 09:33 PM	In 1e or 2e? At mid-levels the melee types were just bodyguards for the casters. At high level the casters existed mostly to buff the the frontline combatants. Remember that saving throws did not scale up in 1e and 2e. By the time characters were 15th-ish most monsters could make their saves on less than a 7 on d20 and likely had magic resistance. Magic Resistance rendered a lot of spells obsolete too so the warrior types still had purpose. 3.x doesnt have rules for taking a dump, hence your character is doomed to die from constipation. I hope its something they correct in 4th edition, because as it stands now, the game is unplayable. You're being facetious. It's common usage in 2e not to allow an action unless otherwise specified. I'd say he was being feces-ious. While I strongly disagree that intelligence and charisma was worthless, I do agree that the Moldvay (and later Mentzer) system was superior. Part of why my current campaign is Moldvay OD&D was awesome! Looking back I can honestly say that I like it better than AD&D. What I truly love about Moldvay's D&D were the published adventures. They (with a few exceptions) had quite a bit of depth and forethought to them. The one thing I do regret about OD&D (Does that "O" stand for "Original" or "Old"?) was the fact that every dwarf, elf, and halfling was the same.
MerricB 06-21-05, 09:51 PM	OD&D (original D&D) refers only to the original boxed set by Gygax and Arneson and its supplements. BD&D (or BECM D&D) refers to the Moldvay/Cook and later editions you refer to. Cheers!
weasel fierce 06-22-05, 04:41 AM	I've seen the O stand for both. Same with oAD&D (AD&D1st edition, typically excluding Unearthed Arcana, though it is as Gygaxian as the rest of it)
StormKnight 06-22-05, 12:37 PM	In 1e or 2e? At mid-levels the melee types were just bodyguards for the casters. At high level the casters existed mostly to buff the the frontline combatants. Remember that saving throws did not scale up in 1e and 2e. By the time characters were 15th-ish most monsters could make their saves on less than a 7 on d20 and likely had magic resistance. Saving throws didn't scale, but there were a fair number of "no save allowed" or "save halves damage" spells, with even half damage being quite a wallop. And Magic Resistance wasn't all that common - mostly it was on demons. Even dieties only had 50-80% (-20% for the MU you mention being level 15). The games of AD&D I played were definetly had monsters being instantly vaporized by spellcasters while fighters sat around helplessly. The same is true of other people who I know who played AD&D. Of course, most of us didn't think much of AD&D, partly because of stuff like this - its entirely possible we just had bad GMs who didn't know how to adjust the fights to be a good challenge, and it never seemed worth it to really get into the system enough to find out that it was just a bad GM.
Escef 06-22-05, 12:48 PM	Saving throws didn't scale, but there were a fair number of "no save allowed" or "save halves damage" spells, with even half damage being quite a wallop. I recall there being few "no save allowed" spells in 1e/2e. A lot of "save for half" but most spells capped out their damage at 10 or 20d6. You could do far more damage in the long run by hasting the fighters, and there was no way to resist weapon attacks other than AC (and high level fighters usually hit with most of their attacks). The biggest "no save" spells I recall from those days were the various "Power Word" spells, which were limited by the target's hp, "Harm" which required a touch attack (which was more difficult back then), "Sleep" (limited by HD), and "Magic Missle". There are probably a handful I'm forgetting, wish I could look it up, but my 2e PHBs went AWOL about 2 years ago when I moved.
Sulaco 06-22-05, 01:25 PM	Call me old school. Call me boring. Call me what you like. Okay, I'll call you delusional. The reason there is so much combat info on a D&D sheet is cos it is all hard-number stuff that you need to have at your fingertips. You don't need a page of number to RP. D&D has always been like this, 3e is no different. If you don't like 3e then that is fine, but don't try to paint it as something it is not in order to justify that opinion.
weasel fierce 06-22-05, 01:26 PM	The games of AD&D I played were definetly had monsters being instantly vaporized by spellcasters while fighters sat around helplessly. The same is true of other people who I know who played AD&D. Of course, most of us didn't think much of AD&D, partly because of stuff like this - its entirely possible we just had bad GMs who didn't know how to adjust the fights to be a good challenge, and it never seemed worth it to really get into the system enough to find out that it was just a bad GM. Look around these boards for the number of threads complaining about how magic dominates high level games ;) Magic users become extremely powerfull at high levels, however, they are still rather vulnerable, particularly if engaged in melee.
GreyLord 06-22-05, 02:39 PM	Okay, I'll call you delusional. The reason there is so much combat info on a D&D sheet is cos it is all hard-number stuff that you need to have at your fingertips. You don't need a page of number to RP. D&D has always been like this, 3e is no different. If you don't like 3e then that is fine, but don't try to paint it as something it is not in order to justify that opinion. Is that so... One answer... DMG 2. Course many are wondering at WotC's recent change of heart in it's publications...personally I think it's not really a good idea with the audience they've attracted to their games (edit: I think the current people playing are more interested in combat, classes, powerbuilds, skill and feat munckins, and general other forms that are found in 3e moreso than older editions, not that there weren't any, there just seem to be more in d20)...but maybe I'm wrong and they are currently making a killing in profits with all the fluff stuff and guides that they've put out.
Sulaco 06-22-05, 02:42 PM	One answer... DMG 2. Can you please elaborate so that your answer makes sense.
spamfiltre 06-22-05, 04:57 PM	To address the original message, I feel (having played All editions back to Basic), that 3.x is no more combat oriented than previous versions, but I've seen the increase in specificity in the rules reduce the overall inventiveness of DMs. Whereas before, a DM would have to make dozens of judgement calls per session, now play grinds to a halt as many DMs (or their powergaming players) insist on verifying rules from the books. I've even seen games apparently halt for weeks while players and/or DMs try to get answers from these boards, as if popular consensus should substitute for a DM making a decision. That's not to say that every DM or group is like this, but 3.x has allowed rules lawyers and munchkins a new level of loopholes and rule bending, and some DMs have become slaves to the ever-increasing number of splatbooks, rather than deciding for themselves what the rules mean. In a nutshell, 3.x is less compatible with rule zero for many DMs, simply because it is more complex. I've actually had to suggest a formal "D&D Lite" ruleset in some games to prevent players from searching books for the rare exception to common sense. One fellow player's character picked a lock in real time (20 minutes) while he searched for a specific rule for the situation. Many DMs are comfortable ignoring the rules for the sake of time and RP, but those DMs would have also been good Dms for previous versions of the game. It sounds like Dathlue Mistwinter has a bad DM that doesn't reward RP, non-combat skill use, or any attempt to avoid a combat situation. Any DM like that would give the impression that 3.x is battle-oriented. That said, I must react to the following post: Skills, while not only bogging down the game too much, make roleplaying less of a challenge I believe that rolling skill results can help you RP better. Let's take Eliza_Stormwhisper's example: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: I rolled a 20 on my Diplomacy check. DM: :confused: It's all a matter of preference, really. I, personally, would prefer both situations to be played out with no rolls. An actual conversation. I'll take the second one as an example: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: Why don't they like me? I'll ask one. DM: One of them says that you're on their turf and they don't appreciate it. Player: Oh. I'll apologize and leave then. Both of these example fall short of what could be a great RP opportunity, because the player never states his intent. Try this next time: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: Why don't they like me? I'll ask one. DM: One of them says that you're on their turf and they don't appreciate it. Player: I'd like to use Diplomacy to get them to let me pass through their territory unmolested. DM: Tough one...the DC is going to be 25. Player[rolls D20+Diplomacy]: 26! That's just barely a success, which probably means we'll have to reach a compromise, so I'll say, "I know how it is, wanting to protect your turf. How about you let me pass, and if you need an errend run in someone else's turf, you can call on me?" DM: That works, they get your name and let you pass, but warn you not to double-cross them when they need you for something. OR: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: Why don't they like me? I'll ask one. DM: One of them says that you're on their turf and they don't appreciate it. Player: I'd like to use Diplomacy to get them to let me pass through their territory unmolested. DM: Tough one...the DC is going to be 25. Player[rolls D20+Diplomacy]: 18. *groan* That's not even close to a success, so I'll say, "Your turf? I know for certain that these streets belong to the Crown and we'll just see what the Lord Marsh..." DM: The gang leader punches you in the stomach while you're spouting gibberish about the law having any place in this part of town. Roll initiative. Even with incitement to violence, it could be RP based - the punch not doing any real damage, but setting the stage for a (perhaps nonlethal) combat situation. Just as likely, the DM could give the player a bluff attempt to escape. See how the die roll can help RP? If a player bases his conversation on the result, rather than letting the roll do his RP for him, everybody wins.
Ourph the Mingol 06-22-05, 05:50 PM	I recall there being few "no save allowed" spells in 1e/2e. A lot of "save for half" but most spells capped out their damage at 10 or 20d6. Mixing 1e/2e here is a big mistake. There are no damage caps for spells in 1e and many, many high level spells don't allow a save. As with most edition transitions, the spell descriptions underwent some major changes between 1e and 2e. You could do far more damage in the long run by hasting the fighters It depends on the fighters and what kind of creature/s you are fighting, but the main thing to remember is that you can also kill yourself and your allies very easily by overusing that spell in 1e.
Scipion Emilien 06-22-05, 08:53 PM	DM: Tough one...the DC is going to be 25. Never say the DC of a diplomatie check, it will seem less mechanical to players if they only know if they success or fail by the acting of the NPC. (you could of course say it will be a toff one).
Antioch 06-23-05, 01:59 AM	I'm not going to read through eight pages, but will respond to the first post by saying that all 3rd Edition did was clarify I lot of rules and make things simpler. That actually makes for less die rolling and confusion that before. I seem to recall a similar amount of book space devoted to RPing discussion in the older editions as the new one. The numbers are there to fairly arbitrate random situations, but certainly do NOT detract from the RPing experience.
Escef 06-23-05, 08:48 AM	Mixing 1e/2e here is a big mistake. There are no damage caps for spells in 1e and many, many high level spells don't allow a save. As with most edition transitions, the spell descriptions underwent some major changes between 1e and 2e. Perhaps, but they are more similar than not. Besides, I was refering to my memory of either edition, not suggesting that they be mixed. And I believe fireball still had the 10d6 damage cap in 1e, someone correct me if I'm wrong. It depends on the fighters and what kind of creature/s you are fighting, but the main thing to remember is that you can also kill yourself and your allies very easily by overusing that spell in 1e. Likewise in 2e, a little bit of trivia that most people weren't aware of. It involves the description of the system shock entry under the constitution score. Mentions that any magical or unnatural aging is call for a system shock, failure resulting in death. I do not recall this being mentioned anywhere else in the rulebooks in 2e, not even in the stats for spells that age the recipients or the ghost's aging attack.
GreyLord 06-23-05, 12:44 PM	Can you please elaborate so that your answer makes sense. It should be obvious...but in your reply that 3.5 was Battle related overly because of the items dealing with combat... Not much in the DMG 2 that I've seen dealing with combat really, more like on how to be a DM and Roleplay. Actually almost entirely on DMing and Roleplaying and how the two interact. Don't want to break any rules so I won't go into any more depth.
Koga:The ninja trick 06-23-05, 12:59 PM	If you don't like it, there's many other systems out there non-WOTC related you could try. (Though The Koga has actually found d20 system to be the simpelist and funnest of them all. Vampire: The Masquerade's player handbook is as big as the 3 D&D core books combined!) Or you could try inventing your own. The Koga is working on that. Not that he is upset with the way WOTC has done things, but rather for a less magick intense system. You see The Koga's beef with D&D is that everyone is just too powerful and there's no challenge rating.. (Which is why people hack and slash and don't roleplay.) The Koga wants something more like Zelda and less like Final Fantasy..
spamfiltre 06-23-05, 01:11 PM	Never say the DC of a diplomatie check, it will seem less mechanical to players if they only know if they success or fail by the acting of the NPC. (you could of course say it will be a toff one). It depends on your players and your DM. Good RPers can use DCs and results to determine how they act. Some people don't like to hear numbers. We let players guide the story to a certain degree, so letting the player decide that a compromise is the best solution requires knowledge of how close the result was to the DC. This style takes more experienced and mature players who are focused on RP rather than combat. For those of you who don't fit that description, or who simply don't like to hear the numbers, the exchange could have gone like this: DM: These guys don't seem to like you. Player: Why don't they like me? I'll ask one. DM: One of them says that you're on their turf and they don't appreciate it. Player: I'd like to use Diplomacy to get them to let me pass through their territory unmolested. DM: Roll your diplomacy check Player[rolls D20+Diplomacy]: 26! DM: You sense that a compromise in their favor will be needed to get past them. Player: I know how it is, wanting to protect your turf. How about you let me pass, and if you need an errend run in someone else's turf, you can call on me? DM: That works, they get your name and let you pass, but warn you not to double-cross them when they need you for something.
Ourph the Mingol 06-23-05, 01:20 PM	And I believe fireball still had the 10d6 damage cap in 1e, someone correct me if I'm wrong. You're wrong.
GreyLord 06-23-05, 04:41 PM	You're wrong. Great Reply!!! And the correct one as well. 1d6 per level. No limit listed. Only exceptions were wands (6d6) and staves (5-10 d6), at least as listed in the spell description of the 14th printing (sorry, my older one is currently on my bookshelf so I used one that was right nearby).
MerricB 06-23-05, 04:53 PM	Fireball was also a lot deadlier in 1e because everyone had fewer hit points. A 12th level wizard would be dealing 12d6 (save for half) with fireball, but a hill giant would only have 37 hp (compare with 102 in 3e). Cheers!
GreyLord 06-23-05, 04:56 PM	Fireball was also a lot deadlier in 1e because everyone had fewer hit points. A 12th level wizard would be dealing 12d6 (save for half) with fireball, but a hill giant would only have 37 hp (compare with 102 in 3e). Cheers! Add to that also that characters typically stopped getting more HD around 9th to 11th level (if they ever even got to that level...that was high level for us) though they did get 1 to 3 HP per level after that...so there weren't as many HP for PC's either. A 12d6 fireball could be deadly for more than just monsters!!!
Trazzt 07-07-05, 06:05 AM	I started playing D&D with the 2nd edition rules, and when 3.0 came out I did not feel like using the new rules. But after we started playing 3.0 rules I started liking the rules a lot more, I would never go back to 2nd edition now, I love the skills & feats system, altough I miss a few features of the 2nd edition rules. 3.5 however was IMHO completetly unnessary, it doesnt add a lot of new things to the game and I dont like at all what it did with some rules (the new weapon sizes, the new DR system, and the changes they made in some of the spells). I would rather have seen a reprint of 3.0 with some errors corrected and maybe some new artwork. As it is now, 3.5 is just 3.0 with some changes you either like or dislike, and I dislike most of them.
weasel fierce 07-07-05, 02:05 PM	I would rather have seen a reprint of 3.0 with some errors corrected and maybe some new artwork. According to Monte Cook, thats exactly what he had planned 3.5 should be, when they released 3.0
Goodly_Knight 07-07-05, 10:13 PM	Or playing a fighter in a high level game: Fighter: "I'd draw my sword, but the spellcasters will have vaporized the enemy before they even get in reach, so why bother?" Strange, i would consider 15 a moderately high level, correct me if im wrong. And I play a paladin, my friend being a wizard. As long as the monsters are sufficiantly hard, the wizard doesn't do all the fighting. Also, I find myself using my lay hands on the wizard every adventure. Wizards do a lot of damage, but to say they vaporize everything, is going a bit too far
Goodly_Knight 07-07-05, 10:16 PM	3.5 however was IMHO completetly unnessary, it doesnt add a lot of new things to the game and I dont like at all what it did with some rules (the new weapon sizes, the new DR system, and the changes they made in some of the spells). I thought the same thing, in my group, we did not even buy the 3.5, it just seems useless. Read the SRD, and i didn't really see the need for this expansion.