Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Glorified_Suffering 08-09-05, 04:48 AM	Is it just me or does D&D 3.5 get bogged down much more than say 2e in rules mongering? I don't know why but lately 3.5 edition with all its races and possible classes and monster, etc. just doesn't seem as fun as old school 2e. Maybe it is just me but for some reason battles and general game play just seems alot more fun when we put away our 3.5 books and go back to a game of 2e.
Dunelord 08-09-05, 05:01 AM	I'm guessing you started playing with 2nd edition? If not maybe you just play with rules lawyers. My guess is that when you first started playing it was more fun because it was new. I didn't start RPGs with 2nd and really didn't like the rules. I don't know anyone who is more fond of 2nd who didn't start with it.
Ranger REG 08-09-05, 05:09 AM	I'm sure you are not alone. However, I don't miss 2nd Edition at all.
Escef 08-09-05, 06:37 AM	As much as folk wish to complain about hordes of races and PrCs in 3e/3.5, things were just as bad (if not worse) in 2e with various races and class kits. As for rules arguements, this stems from two things. Firstly, from inequal rules knowledge amonst the group, and secondly from the group's inability to agree on who is the rules expert or final arbiter.
Glorified_Suffering 08-09-05, 06:39 AM	I didn't mean the new races weren't a good thing I was saying that despite all the additional "goodies" I still prefer 2e. And no I started playing with 3.5
babysamurai 08-09-05, 08:16 AM	The thing about 2nd edition was that the rules set was vague and arbitrary. I started on 1st edtion (which I think is superior to 2nd edition), but I still feel 3rd edtion is the best yet. 3rd edtion brought back some of the feel of 1st edition, but with vastly superior rules. Long live 3.x
weasel fierce 08-09-05, 12:27 PM	3.X rules are concise and arbitrary ;) Ultimately, it comes down to what you prefer. Personally, Im leaning more and more towards the Basic/Expert D&D. Clear, concise and no blather to worry about. AD&D is a ton of fun but it is rather archaic and quirky. I think thats part of why people like it though. 3.whatever is a rehash of old ideas. It'd have been groundbreaking if it had been released in 1975. In this day and age, count me out.
Dunelord 08-09-05, 06:31 PM	I didn't mean the new races weren't a good thing I was saying that despite all the additional "goodies" I still prefer 2e. And no I started playing with 3.5 You played 3.5 then went back and started playing 2nd?
Lord Ian Stark 08-09-05, 06:57 PM	IMO the reason the "flavor" of D&D that's missing from 2nd is that 99% off all books for 3.5 are for character creation and some world building ideas. The lack of adventures/modules from 3.x edition is IMO where 3.x is lacking. In 2ed you had the core books, the skills powers/combat tactics, the Complete X books and a MILLION modules that set the tone for the game world box sets so you can get that feel of the gaming world. This is what I think is lacking in 3.x.
Ogre4Hire 08-09-05, 07:09 PM	And about 20 billion different rule variants that and "Player's Options" that quickly bogged down the system, plus the latest suplement reset the power level. In 3.5, I don't need to reach for a calculator to figure out whether I hit the monster or not. And I can make a character using nothing but the Players Handbook and not feel underpowered. Ever tried playing a straight up Fighter or Cleric when everybody else was using a kit?
Thuragrun 08-09-05, 08:22 PM	I do not miss 1st or 2nd ed. and I have been playing since 1979. And while I agree that some of 3.x is arbitrary, not nearly enough of it is so arbitrary as to make it worse than 1st/2nd ed. in any way. JMO.
Ut-Napishtim 08-09-05, 09:28 PM	You know, I started playing with 1E and I really don't have a problem with 3.5. I actually like it that a caster doesn't have to be 15th level and burn a point of Con permanently to make a +1 Longsword. I'm glad that Thac0 is gone, I got so tired of trying to explain that to new players. Yeah, back in the day players were more willing to accept the DM's ruling. Sure, part of that is that the rules weren't as comprehensive so a lot of the time it was actually up to the DM to make a ruling. Yeah now there's a rule for almost every situation you could possibly encounter, and the new generation of gamers expects the DM to stick them in his hard drive and run them like a computer simulation. I still like it more though. Once you break down and program that rules set into your hard drive you can run a far better game. Why? Because before when you had an argument on a ruling it was a matter of opinion that no side could win. Now I can beat the everloving :censored: out of any player that gets out of hand with the RAW and there's not a :censored: thing they can do about it because its not just your opinion anymore - it's the rules set they asked you to run. Those rulebooks are your friend, man. Yeah it can be pretty intimidating with all the MTG combos and laundry lists of spell combos, feat combos, and gamebreaking spell-class-feat combos. If you buckle down and learn those rules backwards and forwards though you'll have more control than you could ever imagine in 2E, while presenting the appearance of having no desire for control at all. When I was back in Germany I had six in my group and six more on the waiting list to join in if someone to get deployed. You don't know the power of the dark side. Embrace 3.5, let go of your pride - I can feel the conflict within you. It is your destiny. :evillaugh
Glorified_Suffering 08-10-05, 12:19 AM	You played 3.5 then went back and started playing 2nd? Yep sure did.
Glorified_Suffering 08-10-05, 12:27 AM	Yeah, back in the day players were more willing to accept the DM's ruling. Sure, part of that is that the rules weren't as comprehensive so a lot of the time it was actually up to the DM to make a ruling. I actually like this aspect of the game, there aren't real rules to the world so why not have a god-like figure that can deem anything possible or impossible as it may be. Yeah now there's a rule for almost every situation you could possibly encounter, and the new generation of gamers expects the DM to stick them in his hard drive and run them like a computer simulation. I don't expect that or want that. You don't know the power of the dark side. Embrace 3.5, let go of your pride - I can feel the conflict within you. It is your destiny. :evillaugh lol nah I'll stick to liking 2e. I hope you know all of this is just my opinion I don't mean to cause some flame war or whatever so hopefully no hard feelings.
weasel fierce 08-10-05, 12:50 AM	And about 20 billion different rule variants that and "Player's Options" that quickly bogged down the system, plus the latest suplement reset the power level. In 3.5, I don't need to reach for a calculator to figure out whether I hit the monster or not. And I can make a character using nothing but the Players Handbook and not feel underpowered. Ever tried playing a straight up Fighter or Cleric when everybody else was using a kit? If you criticize the tons of rules in 3.5, you quickly get cried down with "its optional". If you it all, well, you are back at square one, where AD&D2 was. Of course, if you play oD&D, or the classic BECM D&D, or AD&D1st edition, its a non issue, as there was virtually no power escalation.
MerricB 08-10-05, 02:14 AM	Of course, if you play oD&D, or the classic BECM D&D, or AD&D1st edition, its a non issue, as there was virtually no power escalation. oD&D as it evolved was all about power escalation. Just check out what Supplement I: Greyhawk did to it! ;) BECM D&D was about power escalation especially when the Master set came out... and changed the rules for new characters with Weapon Mastery. AD&D 1E was hit by power escalation in Unearthed Arcana. Cheers!
MerricB 08-10-05, 02:19 AM	Glorified_Suffering, I hope you continue to enjoy playing D&D with whichever system suits you best. :) I find 3.5e to be the easiest version of D&D to DM and play, but I know that my experiences aren't universally true. There are plenty of people who still play previous editions. Interestingly, my second-favourite RPG is Amber Diceless Roleplaying, which has almost no mechanics at all! So, just have fun with what you enjoy. I am! :D Cheers!
Tyler Do'Urden 08-10-05, 02:36 AM	Well, poorly-assembled rules systems can still make fun campaigns, but they lean heavily on a good DM. With 3.5, the rules cover a lot of the bases meaning a DM doesn't have to be the best storyteller and order keeper out there, but that also leads to using the system as a crutch. Nobody moves that fast on crutches. 10 seconds of combat can take over an hour in just about any game system. The rules didn't make you take that long, you did (you meaning your entire group).
weasel fierce 08-10-05, 03:19 AM	oD&D as it evolved was all about power escalation. Just check out what Supplement I: Greyhawk did to it! ;) Well, admittedly the thief was pretty damn powergamey, what with unlimited advancement and all ;) BECM D&D was about power escalation especially when the Master set came out... and changed the rules for new characters with Weapon Mastery. THe later boxes didnt add new character options, but expanded what happens at higher levels. Weapon mastery was optional. AD&D 1E was hit by power escalation in Unearthed Arcana. I've always felt the barbarian and cavalier were pretty even with rangers and paladins. YMMV. Cheers and pass the beer
MerricB 08-10-05, 03:47 AM	The point with UA in 1E wasn't so much Cavalier and Barbarian (massively problematic though they were) but more with weapon specialisation, which changed what the fighter was capable of significantly. An extra +3 to hit and damage at 1st level was a big deal in 1E. Cheers!
Glorified_Suffering 08-10-05, 03:57 AM	Glorified_Suffering, I hope you continue to enjoy playing D&D with whichever system suits you best. :) Thank you, and I shall. :)
Glorified_Suffering 08-10-05, 03:59 AM	Well, poorly-assembled rules systems can still make fun campaigns, but they lean heavily on a good DM. With 3.5, the rules cover a lot of the bases meaning a DM doesn't have to be the best storyteller and order keeper out there, but that also leads to using the system as a crutch. Nobody moves that fast on crutches. 10 seconds of combat can take over an hour in just about any game system. The rules didn't make you take that long, you did (you meaning your entire group). I completely agree (except for maybe the "poorly-assembled rules" lol)....and maybe it's because I'd rather have a good DM than a bunch of rules, that makes me lean towards 2e more.
weasel fierce 08-10-05, 04:59 AM	The point with UA in 1E wasn't so much Cavalier and Barbarian (massively problematic though they were) but more with weapon specialisation, which changed what the fighter was capable of significantly. An extra +3 to hit and damage at 1st level was a big deal in 1E. Cheers! True that, though that requires double specialization, taking up 3 weapon slots. This gives you only two weapons available, and theres no guarantee a magical weapon found, will be of the right type. I think the fighter did sort of need it though.
MerricB 08-10-05, 07:30 AM	True that, though that requires double specialization, taking up 3 weapon slots. This gives you only two weapons available, and theres no guarantee a magical weapon found, will be of the right type. No. But it's worth choosing "Longsword" as your weapon of spec. Cheers!
Ut-Napishtim 08-10-05, 09:30 AM	I hope you know all of this is just my opinion I don't mean to cause some flame war or whatever so hopefully no hard feelings. No, I was just being silly with all the Star Wars stuff man. :blush:
=-Nonsensical-= 08-10-05, 10:55 AM	I don't find my 3.5 games get bogged down much at all. Maybe it's the style of game I play. Here's a few house rules that keep the game moving: No looking in rulebooks on your turn; if you don't know what an ability does then you can't use it. For unusual situations the DM rules and we look up the official ruling after the session. If you spend more than 10 seconds doing nothing your your turn then you use total defense.
weasel fierce 08-10-05, 01:54 PM	No. But it's worth choosing "Longsword" as your weapon of spec. Cheers! Definately! :)
NehpetsTtocs 08-10-05, 05:41 PM	I thought 2e had its strong points. The game was easy to play. Yes, people complained about THACO, but the rules are a little easier for a newbie to pick up. Most of the complaints I had about 2e were actually fixed by 3e, but I haven't gone out of my way to become overly involved in 3e material. I prefer 3.5, but I can see where people might prefer 2e. I also have to admit that I like the art from both 1e and 2e better than most of the art in the current books, but that's probably because I'm a fossil and not at all hip.
jpat93 08-10-05, 06:29 PM	Having played (and liked) basic/expert D&D and 1st, 2nd, and 3.5 edition A/D&D, I'd have to say that I'm often struck by how much up front there is to know in 3.5 and how much there is to handle on an ongoing basis. For me, it isn't that any one of the systems and subsystems is illogical or confusing (though some of them doubtlessly are) but rather it's the sometimes staggering number of them that can become overwhelming, at least for me, and I'm a fairly experienced player. In 3.5, there is an answer to nearly every question I have; it's just a matter of remembering/finding it, and that isn't always easy. In 1e/2e, at least the way I did it, I knew there probably wasn't an answer to many of the questions--which was in some ways faster, but it also meant that things like combat were often handled vaguely, inconsistently, and illogically. Minis, when used, were for marching orders and not much else; tactics were often nonexistent. The precision of 3.5 fits with my personality, even as I find it challenging, but I would support anyone playing any edition that he/she finds enjoyable. When I saw a friend had a bunch of 2e books on his shelf, I whimsically suggested scrapping the 3.5 game for a 2e one.
jpat93 08-10-05, 06:31 PM	The point with UA in 1E wasn't so much Cavalier and Barbarian (massively problematic though they were) ... Ah, but now I'm having cavalier-paladin flashbacks ...
Attila 08-11-05, 12:28 AM	Try core rules only. It's possible to get bogged down in rules with either edition.
weasel fierce 08-11-05, 12:48 AM	Unless you are playing BX D&D :) Its funny with THAC0.. I never heard anyone complain about it, prior to 3.0. I heard plenty of people complain about AD&D and D&D in general, but those are usually issues that 3.x didnt change
Dunelord 08-11-05, 02:22 AM	Unless you are playing BX D&D :) Its funny with THAC0.. I never heard anyone complain about it, prior to 3.0. I heard plenty of people complain about AD&D and D&D in general, but those are usually issues that 3.x didnt change I always hated THACO, and *****ed about back in the day.
weasel fierce 08-11-05, 04:21 AM	You must be pretty upset that WOTC didnt change it then, except to flip the numbers to positive, then. BAB and THAC0 works the same way, mathematically.
Escef 08-11-05, 07:59 AM	My group has contained people who were very art oriented and sucked at math. When I showed one of them an old 1e PHB (mind you, this guy recently decided to go back to school and got accepted to a school known for its focus on art) he said if someone had shown him that book before he started playing he would never have bothered based on the art. (The illustration of the various races standing side by side particularly drew his ire.) But anyway, none of them ever complained about THAC0. Then almost a year after we switched to 3e they were looking at one of my older issues of Dragon and were looking at NPC stats for the crew of Nodwick. And one goes, "Wow, THAC0, never thought I'd see that again!" At this point the everyone in the group (other than me) chews out THAC0. I never knew they hated it so much, they never said anything.
MerricB 08-11-05, 08:10 AM	Its funny with THAC0.. I never heard anyone complain about it, prior to 3.0. Oh, I had some terrible experiences with THAC0. Look, I'm mathematically gifted. THAC0 gave me no trouble at all. Some of my players, however... there was one poor girl who I had to explain the concept to EVERY SESSION, and we played together for about a year. Cheers!
weasel fierce 08-11-05, 01:21 PM	I'd have just written down the numbers she needed on her character sheet. "roll a D20, look here what AC you hit, then tell me"
Nomad4life 08-11-05, 01:30 PM	As clunky as 3.5 is… It’s still better than 1st or 2nd edition. If for no other reason than THAC0 got buried
Dunelord 08-11-05, 05:25 PM	You must be pretty upset that WOTC didnt change it then, except to flip the numbers to positive, then. BAB and THAC0 works the same way, mathematically. Well no they don't work the same and that was far from the only change. First all the numbers going the same way (takes higher die roles to hit higher ACs), there are no bonuses depending on weapon type VS. armor type, and most importantly there is no limit to AC. In 2nd the lowest AC was -10, which ment when your bonus to hit got high enough you couldn't miss except if you rolled a one. And a lot of other bonuses where standardized like the size bonus/penailty to AC and attack rolls so you don't have to refigure them.
LordHell 08-11-05, 06:59 PM	Is it just me or does D&D 3.5 get bogged down much more than say 2e in rules mongering? I don't know why but lately 3.5 edition with all its races and possible classes and monster, etc. just doesn't seem as fun as old school 2e. Maybe it is just me but for some reason battles and general game play just seems alot more fun when we put away our 3.5 books and go back to a game of 2e. I agree 100%. Combat in particular in 3.x is way more mechanical and it really does bog down the game a lot. Reach, Space, AoO's, Skills used in combat, this and that, the basic REQUIREMENT of minis, etc. AD&D left a lot more interpritation up to the DM to make rulings on the fly, if you had a good DM combat was far superior and way more cinematic than 3.x combat. If you had a average or bad DM, combat could be a lot worse. 3.x is also more 'sterile' than AD&D. A lot of stereotypes have been removed and it's far more open ended now. While this is a good thing in many ways, IMO the flavour just isn't there. Now having said all that, the AD&D rules are just so clunky compared to 3.x I dont think I could go back. I think the 3.x system is great for newer players and much more friendly on inexperianced DMs since there are far more rules to keep the game 'fair'. It also is way more open ended so it appeals to far more people.
weasel fierce 08-12-05, 12:35 AM	Well no they don't work the same and that was far from the only change. First all the numbers going the same way (takes higher die roles to hit higher ACs), there are no bonuses depending on weapon type VS. armor type, and most importantly there is no limit to AC. In 2nd the lowest AC was -10, which ment when your bonus to hit got high enough you couldn't miss except if you rolled a one. And a lot of other bonuses where standardized like the size bonus/penailty to AC and attack rolls so you don't have to refigure them. Thats why you have descending modifiers for multiple attacks in the same round. Way to make the game faster :rolleyes: Weapons vs armour type is an AD&D1 rule. Its optional in AD&D2nd edition, and never existed in D&D. Which edition are you talking about ? Size was not standardized, because it was never a factor to AC in any previous edition. AD&D never had many modifiers to attack rolls. Strength (or dex), specialization and magic. WHat else applies ? The same modifiers that D20 has, incidentally. In order to hit a -10 AC on a 1, you'd need to be a level 20 warrior, with a +10 hit modifier (THAC0 1 - (-10) )gives us an 11 or better to hit. +10 hit requires some serious magic at work. As for the math. Find what you need to roll to hit a certain AC: AD&D: Deduct your AC from your THAC0 D20: Deduct your BAB from the AC Wow. They sure changed that a lot. It also is way more open ended so it appeals to far more people. If you want open-ended, you may not want to pick a game that has 500+ pages of "core" rules.
LordHell 08-12-05, 02:55 AM	If you want open-ended, you may not want to pick a game that has 500+ pages of "core" rules. Weasel I was just being diplomatic to appease the 3.x fanboys (and girls). We all know that the other systems were 'restrictive' because you couldnt get the 'build' you wanted (how computer gamey is that!).
BladeDrinker 08-12-05, 03:27 AM	AD&D: Deduct your AC from your THAC0 D20: Deduct your BAB from the AC AD&D: (THAC0 w/ modifiers) - AC vs. d20 d20: BAB + modifiers + d20 vs. AC For those who are used to each system, the calculation is about as easy either way. But conceptually the d20 system is easier for people who just start to play. I guess most humans just have an easier time with addition than subtraction, and it's also easier to have one side of the equation fixed. I won't argue that there are not more rules in 3.X though. That's certainly true.
Dunelord 08-12-05, 03:28 AM	Thats why you have descending modifiers for multiple attacks in the same round. Way to make the game faster :rolleyes: Which is WAY better then 3 every 2. Weapons vs armour type is an AD&D1 rule. Its optional in AD&D2nd edition, and never existed in D&D. Which edition are you talking about ? I was under the impression it was a core rule. You got me I forgot that something I used in a version I havn't in several years wasn't core. Size was not standardized, because it was never a factor to AC in any previous edition. AD&D never had many modifiers to attack rolls. Strength (or dex), specialization and magic. WHat else applies ? The same modifiers that D20 has, incidentally. My point is that the same bonus is the same bonus. An 18 str is an 18 str on a halfling or a orc. Unlike the presentages for Fighters. In order to hit a -10 AC on a 1, you'd need to be a level 20 warrior, with a +10 hit modifier (THAC0 1 - (-10) )gives us an 11 or better to hit. +10 hit requires some serious magic at work. You missed my point here. When you have a -10 AC that was it. Your dex got better your AC stayed the same. You got better armor your dex stayed the same. In 3x that there is no max AC, and as such you always have reason to improve both your AC and attack bonus. As for the math. Find what you need to roll to hit a certain AC: AD&D: Deduct your AC from your THAC0 D20: Deduct your BAB from the AC Wow. They sure changed that a lot. Yeah they did change it a lot, as I stated above, mainly by bring it all in sink. Up is up, down is down. This makes it a lot easier for new people to join which I think is both important and a good thing. If you want open-ended, you may not want to pick a game that has 500+ pages of "core" rules. Next time please quote so that it doesn't look like I said something I didn't.
Tyler Do'Urden 08-12-05, 04:09 AM	Yeah they did change it a lot, as I stated above, mainly by bring it all in sink. The word you're looking for is "sync" or "synch". It's an abbrev. of "synchronized" whose usage has evolved slightly. But you are pronouncing it correctly. ...what? It's 4am and I'm sufficiently bored to nitpick.
weasel fierce 08-12-05, 04:25 AM	Which is WAY better then 3 every 2. If you feel so. I was under the impression it was a core rule. You got me I forgot that something I used in a version I havn't in several years wasn't core. No problem. Just pointing out My point is that the same bonus is the same bonus. An 18 str is an 18 str on a halfling or a orc. Unlike the presentages for Fighters. Never was an issue with us, but I agree that just streamlining it is easier. You missed my point here. When you have a -10 AC that was it. Your dex got better your AC stayed the same. You got better armor your dex stayed the same. In 3x that there is no max AC, and as such you always have reason to improve both your AC and attack bonus. True, but the number of times this has been an issue in a game I have played can be counted on a single finger, at most. Yeah they did change it a lot, as I stated above, mainly by bring it all in sink. Up is up, down is down. This makes it a lot easier for new people to join which I think is both important and a good thing. They say adding is easier than subtracting. Its all 5th grade math really, but whatever people have the easiest time with. The calculation is the same Next time please quote so that it doesn't look like I said something I didn't. Apologies. I forgot to put his name in there, and I didnt want to make two posts
Ranger REG 08-12-05, 05:20 AM	3.x is also more 'sterile' than AD&D. A lot of stereotypes have been removed and it's far more open ended now. While this is a good thing in many ways, IMO the flavour just isn't there. Heh. Never say "sterile" in front of us potent men. :P But you're right, the classes are a bit more generic that you can attach any flavor label on it, be it a knight or a samurai (depend on how you customize with the options given).
Ezell Pike 08-12-05, 07:06 AM	Most of the complaints I had about 2e were actually fixed by 3e, but I haven't gone out of my way to become overly involved in 3e material. I prefer 3.5, but I can see where people might prefer 2e. I also have to admit that I like the art from both 1e and 2e better than most of the art in the current books, but that's probably because I'm a fossil and not at all hip. You liked the art then because it was better. Most of the art now is cartoony. There are exceptions though. In Frostburn there is a picture of a Frost Giant with what looks like pet Dire Wolves battling PC's. In 2e that would have been the cover of a module. Probably a darn good one too.
Glorified_Suffering 08-12-05, 07:36 AM	Wow 47 posts (including mine).. I never expected it to get this big and I never meant to turn it into a debate really just general thoughts on which version people preferred and why they felt that way. It just seems like 1e and 2e have been overlooked on these forums ever since the revamping and the OOP forums kinda died out. but.. I love THAC0.. seriously how hard is it to figure out?..I mean if you have the mind to RP then why can't you do simple addition and subtraction it's like going to the store and counting out change you need to pay and what you should get back. Is it really that hard? Now I know there's people out there that have learning disabilities but everyone else....oh no! negative numbers :eek: lol Also just for a note I'd rather have a somewhat decent DM and rely less on rules than have a rule for every single thing I want my character to do...You know escape the rules of the world and have a place where anything is possible. No restrictions.
elvenwizard 08-12-05, 08:24 AM	I started playing with 3e, and I must admit that, whenever I look through some of my friend's old 2e books, it gives me a headache. However, it does seem to me that a lot of 2e books had more...meat to them. By this I mean that they had more info about the campaign world itself. To use an example, the 2e book Drizzt Do'Urden's guide to the Underdark had loads of info about the various peoples and places of the Underdark. The 3.5 "Underdark" however was mostly PrCs, equipment, and rules on movement and travel. Though it did have a nice sized section on the cities of the Underdark, it was still nothing compared to DDGU. I like PrCs, but I also like to have more info about the world itself. I've noticed similar instances in other books. Most notably, the difference in content between the CompleteX (2e), and Mongoose Publishing's QuintessentialX (3e).
Corinthians 08-12-05, 02:53 PM	I completely agree (except for maybe the "poorly-assembled rules" lol)....and maybe it's because I'd rather have a good DM than a bunch of rules, that makes me lean towards 2e more. Since when does a comprehensive set of rules make for bad DM'ing?
LordHell 08-12-05, 07:09 PM	Since when does a comprehensive set of rules make for bad DM'ing? Because 2E had less 'rules' as such (particular for combat) a good DM could really get the most out of the system. 3.X is bogged down with way many more rules especially for combat, which makes it significantly less 'cinematic' and way more 'mechanical' and 'tactical'. Each to their own, but the 'good' DM is restricted far more by 3.x, on the flip side the 'bad' DM can't do as much damage because of all the checks and balances in place.
weasel fierce 08-13-05, 01:31 AM	Lots of rules works great, IF the DM is an expert at employing them. If he isnt, then its more harm than good.
Glorified_Suffering 08-14-05, 03:09 AM	Since when does a comprehensive set of rules make for bad DM'ing? My quote was in response to what someone else had already said. I think the 3.x system is great for newer players and much more friendly on inexperianced DMs since there are far more rules to keep the game 'fair'. I completely agree and it supports my statement. Well, poorly-assembled rules systems can still make fun campaigns, but they lean heavily on a good DM. With 3.5, the rules cover a lot of the bases meaning a DM doesn't have to be the best storyteller and order keeper out there, but that also leads to using the system as a crutch. Nobody moves that fast on crutches. 10 seconds of combat can take over an hour in just about any game system. The rules didn't make you take that long, you did (you meaning your entire group). Ditto. Because 2E had less 'rules' as such (particular for combat) a good DM could really get the most out of the system. 3.X is bogged down with way many more rules especially for combat, which makes it significantly less 'cinematic' and way more 'mechanical' and 'tactical'. Each to their own, but the 'good' DM is restricted far more by 3.x, on the flip side the 'bad' DM can't do as much damage because of all the checks and balances in place. Couldn't have said it better LH, thanks =)
Glorified_Suffering 08-14-05, 03:11 AM	..I know this one is going to cause crap..butttt since when did they change RP to mean Rule Playing?
Ranger REG 08-14-05, 04:04 AM	Each to their own, but the 'good' DM is restricted far more by 3.x, on the flip side the 'bad' DM can't do as much damage because of all the checks and balances in place. As a good DM, I'm not restricted by 3e rules. Then again, I don't have any rules lawyer in my current group (we kicked one out because of one too many in-session arguments over the rules).
Manyfist 08-14-05, 04:18 AM	I never had a Problem with any type of rule lawyers. I see people who go back to 2ed, as lazy. They want their D&D in front for they don't have to think about what they're doing and basic rules. I never used the minis, or anything I gotten by. If you like to read a Story instead making one up, go and pick up prev. Ed. if you want some good rules and have fun, go 3.5. Combine the two, you'll have both the Lazy man's fluff, and the Rules. I like 3.5 because it's great for adding and subtracting rules, and making up your own specialize classes..etc.
MerricB 08-14-05, 05:16 AM	Rules Lawyers go back to 1E (and further back, to the old wargames). It's not a new phenonomen in D&D. The rules are merely an excuse for them to cause trouble - they'd do it in another way if the rules weren't there. Cheers!
GreyLord 08-14-05, 10:04 AM	I never had a Problem with any type of rule lawyers. I see people who go back to 2ed, as lazy. They want their D&D in front for they don't have to think about what they're doing and basic rules. I never used the minis, or anything I gotten by. If you like to read a Story instead making one up, go and pick up prev. Ed. if you want some good rules and have fun, go 3.5. Combine the two, you'll have both the Lazy man's fluff, and the Rules. I like 3.5 because it's great for adding and subtracting rules, and making up your own specialize classes..etc. You aren't playing D&D 3.5 correctly. Go out and buy some miniatures. :P I see people who don't use miniatures as lazy. They want their D&D as some sort of narrative for they don't have to strictly abide by movement, spacing, line of site, and other rules. I always use minis in 3.5 and gotten by. If you like to just hear narrative instead of using miniatures for a more accurate game, go read a book and have fun there. If you want some good rules and have fun, go use miniatures. Combine miniatures and rules, and you'll be playing the game as it was intended, AND be supporting Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. I like 3.5 because it is a version of wargaming, and I know the rules enough to munchkin and min/max characters and monsters that could whip everyone else on the board and because it's like Diablo. :D (Not really my actual thoughts listed above, but his sarcastic response seemed to need a parady for the humor of it. Read it for tongue in cheek humor, though I think the point should be obvious). I do agree with one statement of yours. I don't have that many problems with rules lawyers. If we have a disagreement over a rule, Rule 0 instantly gets slapped down for flow of game. We can discuss all we want after the session. If they don't like that, end of session and we'll play again later, probably without that player. If they want to understand a rule differently then the DM they are welcome to it, but they are going to have to use that interpretation in their own game instead of the one I would be running. I have to admit, 3.5 does flow rather quickly nowdays now that I understand the rules. I wouldn't say it flows slower than other versions once one understands the rules (if they are new or learning them then it could be slow). It is more rules heavy however, and more like Action RPG games like Diablo, Dungeon Siege, Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance, and other such things. It's on paper however. I think it has a different feel however. 1e was relatively rules light in comparison...but 2.5 as it's become known as, with all it's options, I think was just as burdensome if not more so than 3.5 has become, at least as of yet.
MerricB 08-14-05, 10:36 AM	I have to admit, 3.5 does flow rather quickly nowdays now that I understand the rules. I wouldn't say it flows slower than other versions once one understands the rules (if they are new or learning them then it could be slow). I remember my first game of the Babylon 5 CCG - it took about 3-4 hours! Learning rules does take time. :) I came to 3.5e from 2.5 (Skills and powers), so most of the things in it were just refinements from what I was already using. Cheers!
Chappy of Greyhawk 08-14-05, 03:09 PM	I've been playing on and off since '77. :) I think 3e is a great improvement over all the rule editions that came before; but, of course, the quality of play is almost completely dependent on the quality of the DM and the players participating in the game regardless of which rules they're playing. The clarity and organization of 3e are reassuring to me; the game is played far more consistently across groups now than ever was the case before. Perhaps, most important, with 3e was the introduction of the D20 System. It offered the opportunity for independent publishers to offer compatible products which can be used immediately without the DM spending precious time translating all the scales and stats. 3e solved a lot of the problems that players had been troubling over for decades without really creating new ones beyond learning the new ways of doing things. While that's not a minor issue for some of us, it's unavoidable and the benefits have far exceeded the pain. That's the best compliment I can think of for a rules revision.
Ranger REG 08-14-05, 08:23 PM	I see people who don't use miniatures as lazy. Hehehe. We're not all lazy, we're just cheap SOBs. We'd rather spend most of our money on them expensive rulebooks than on them cake-decorating toys, albeit inedible. (As a gag, we replaced the bride and groom figures with the Skywalker siblings, Luke and Leia, figures on our friends' wedding cake.)
Glorified_Suffering 08-15-05, 02:00 AM	I've used lego men as minis..lol
Ranger REG 08-15-05, 02:47 AM	I've used lego men as minis..lol I used Lincoln Logs. :P
NehpetsTtocs 08-15-05, 11:42 AM	I'm sure TSR has records of their finances in some place or another. Many companies post their earnings and balance sheets online, or at least their consolidated balance sheets. I don't know TSR's relations to other organizations, however. I'm sure you can find their assets and earnings somewhere. As to how liquid the company was, that could be determined as well.
Araspas 08-15-05, 12:39 PM	I must admit that I am a bit overwhelmed by the 3.5 'web' of rules. I played 1E and 2E back in the day and now I am starting a new game with a couple old school players and a couple new players who have yet to learn the advantage of knowing the rules that apply to their characters. As DM, I have tried to ease the transition from old to new and from beginner to advanced but I am a little stumped as to how to take it to the next level. 3.5 seems to have not only opened up many new realms of possibility but also to have made it harder to enter the AD&D world without intensive pre-study sessions. Anyone out there got any ideas how to accomplish all these feats at once without just saying - "Read the damn book!"???
BladeDrinker 08-15-05, 01:27 PM	Anyone out there got any ideas how to accomplish all these feats at once without just saying - "Read the damn book!"??? Well, the best way to do is to make simple characters and monsters. You can learn the basic attack, AC, etc. stuff in five minutes easily. But once you start adding things like grappling rules it takes longer to learn. Start an adventure with first level characters, and try to use the simpler classes. (A fighter, a ranger, a barbarian, etc.) Give them plenty of healing potions in treasure. Then slowly add challenges after they learn the rules. For example, you might want to throw an undead ram skeleton to teach them (and yourself) the rules for bull-rushing. Actually, that sounds like a pretty cool monster.
Araspas 08-15-05, 01:30 PM	...the game is played far more consistently across groups now than ever was the case before...the benefits have far exceeded the pain. I agree! I remember that trying to bring in players from other groups with 1E and 2E was a DM nightmare. The DM 'freedom' in those systems was not conducive to adding PCs (and thier respective player's) to ongoing campaigns. Within campaigns, however, there seemed to be less discussion and more action. Is that just me? Somebody help me!
weasel fierce 08-15-05, 01:35 PM	[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=2]I agree! I remember that trying to bring in players from other groups with 1E and 2E was a DM nightmare. The DM 'freedom' in those systems was not conducive to adding PCs (and thier respective player's) to ongoing campaigns. Just out of curiosity, since I've never had a problem in that regard, what issues did you encounter ?
Araspas 08-15-05, 01:36 PM	Start an adventure with first level characters, and try to use the simpler classes. (A fighter, a ranger, a barbarian, etc.) Give them plenty of healing potions in treasure. Then slowly add challenges after they learn the rules. For example, you might want to throw an undead ram skeleton to teach them (and yourself) the rules for bull-rushing. Actually, that sounds like a pretty cool monster. Thanks for th advice. I guess it will just take a little time to bring them around. Your right about me learning the rules as well. I have been reading for days now and I think it will still take a little more time to get a handle on it. Such is the world of the DM. By the way . . . I think the undead ram skeleton would make an awesome monster!
Araspas 08-15-05, 01:55 PM	Just out of curiosity, since I've never had a problem in that regard, what issues did you encounter ? This is a reference to my statement that it was difficult to incorporate players from other groups under the 1E and 2E systems. Actually, I think I used the words 'DM nightmare'. Well, let's see. Players arriving with grossly inappropriate bonuses on thier PC's weapons and armor, expecting experience and/or treasure not in line with the challenges encountered, wanting to continue with odd DM rulings (I actually had one player show up back in 1984 insisting that his 9th level character had learned how to summon Thor to do battle for him up to 3 times a day - apparently, he was the only owner of a copy of Dieties and Demigods in his previous group and had struck a shady bargain with his old DM for sharing rights), etc., etc., Needless to say, I did not allow these troglodytes to continue their childish behavior (despite the fact that we were all basically still kids) and it made for some righteous arguments. That having been said, I would add that 1E and 2E were a bit more dependent on DM skill (as I think has been mentioned in this thread before) and a good DM can provide the players with a good campaign with any rules system...even none. What say you?
weasel fierce 08-15-05, 02:03 PM	A valid point, except that it hasnt changed. One DM will still award more treasure than another might, and a third will give cool powers that a fourth would never dream of. When ANY character is brought into ANY game, regardless of whether you are playing AD&D, D20, Shadowrun, Godlike or Kill puppies for satan, the GM has to adjudicate if the character will fit, and what changes needs to be made. WOTC gives more guidelines for what is "correct" play, but those are just that. Guidelines. If you arent playing in Monte Cook's D&D game, they arent worth much. IMO of course :)
Araspas 08-15-05, 02:22 PM	...regardless of whether you are playing AD&D, D20, Shadowrun, Godlike or Kill puppies for satan... Of course, you are right. I may be leaning on the new plethora of rules to bolster my lack of experience with the new system. I think I also see, however, the potential for the players to take more control of thier characters (and thus create more realistic PCs) using 3.5 and I am anxious for them to learn how to do so. This is probably and old DM weak point when it comes to adjudicating, but, as you may have noticed, I'm an old DM. By the way, I've been out of the loop for a while. Is there really a game called 'Kill Puppies for Satan'?
weasel fierce 08-15-05, 03:56 PM	Hey, Im not saying its bad or anything :) I hope you have tons of fun, and that 3.5 gives a good game for you. Its not my cup of tea, but hey, we arent drinking from the same pot. Kill puppies for Satan was a joke game, someone did. You can propably find it, if you google for it. Im sure there's a rule about not linking to it here, but the idea of it was to reinforce all the negative stereotypes about roleplaying.
Ranger REG 08-15-05, 06:27 PM	As DM, I have tried to ease the transition from old to new and from beginner to advanced but I am a little stumped as to how to take it to the next level. 3.5 seems to have not only opened up many new realms of possibility but also to have made it harder to enter the AD&D world without intensive pre-study sessions. And what is the next level for your group?
Araspas 08-15-05, 11:17 PM	And what is the next level for your group? Perhaps I should clarify. I am currently living in Tokyo and the pool of potential players is not large. Oh, lots of people here play role playing games (especially of the video and card variety) but unless their is some secret Japanese language resource available, I can only recruit AD&D players from the small group of expats I know - some of whom have played before. The next level is just a place where the players know enough about 3.5 to really take advantage of the new possibilities it presents.
Ranger REG 08-16-05, 05:36 PM	The next level is just a place where the players know enough about 3.5 to really take advantage of the new possibilities it presents. If they have little exposure to 3.5e, keep exposing them, gradually not in one sitting. Be consistent in your campaign. Present encounter scenes where they have ample opportunities to use non-combat skills. But the main thing with all role-playing game session is making sure they have fun, even if it means overriding the rules. Don't let the rules interfere with your story adventure. The more they play and have fun (which is what many gamers remember when they look back), the more they'll get into it.
RogerWilco 08-16-05, 07:09 PM	I've been playing 2nd edition until the beginning of this year, and am now playing 3.5. I realy prefer 3.5. Why? I realy like the consistency of 3.5, everything is a d20, higher is always better, no arbitrary limits, no exceptions. I realy like that almost all the rules are in the core books, and all the suplements only adding fluff and options within the core rules. In 2nd edition a lot of the supplements had as many optional new rules as only Unearthed Arcana has in 3.5. Be it flaws, fractional BAB, etc. I used to play 2nd edition including a lot of the optional rules from all the supplements, and it was a much bigger pile of rules as the combined 3.5, as long as you exclude UA. Some specific things I didn't like about 2nd edition: - Demihumans being much cooler as humans, but having the cludge of maximum levels to compensate. - The whole % stength thing for fighters. - the Non-weapon-proficiencies were all or nothing, you either was a worldrecord swimmer, or you would drown in a drop of water. - Almost everything from Combat&tactics, Skills&Powers, Spells&Magic. It's 3rd edition grafted on the existing system, creating something that's more complex as core 2nd+3rd combined. (fatigue, combat rounds, point buy system, etc.) - I can do the math, but a lot of people in my group were even after 5 years still strugling with attack->high is good, save->low is good, and the entire AC/Thac0 thing. - Thiefs could have a maximum of 95% in an ability, while rangers could have 99%. - Most base classes had only a limited range of levels they were interesting. low level wizard was hopeless, high level warrior or thief too. - Lot's of kits with escalating power levels, but only hard to enforce roleplaying penalties as drawbacks. - arbitrary limits on which clas you could select. - different multi/dual classing rules for humans and demihumans. - different XP tables for different classes. - One of my characters, a halfling thief had 19 dex and all his abilities at maximum on level 14 IIRC. He became quite boring after that as the only thing that would improve was his crappy attack bonus and HP. I got 30 skillpoints every level, but I could simply not spend them. - Lot's and lot's of lookup tables, for XP, abilities, saves, etc. - Backstab - used it 3 times in 16 levels of thief. did a total of 11 damage. - etc. I do not agree about the art though, some of the 2nd edition art is realy good, esp. some of the covers and inside full page images. Depends on what printing you have though.
Araspas 08-16-05, 08:49 PM	But the main thing with all role-playing game session is making sure they have fun, even if it means overriding the rules. Don't let the rules interfere with your story adventure. The more they play and have fun (which is what many gamers remember when they look back), the more they'll get into it. Truly words of wisdom, Ranger. Thanks.
ORC_Paradox 08-16-05, 09:06 PM	A valid point, except that it hasnt changed. One DM will still award more treasure than another might, and a third will give cool powers that a fourth would never dream of. When ANY character is brought into ANY game, regardless of whether you are playing AD&D, D20, Shadowrun, Godlike ..., the GM has to adjudicate if the character will fit, and what changes needs to be made. WOTC gives more guidelines for what is "correct" play, but those are just that. Guidelines. Quoted for truthery. I don't ever recalling ANY DM playing strictly by the book either. Everyone wanted to tinker with the rules and most wanted to write a game book to be published by TSR with their name on the cover. (Most still do...)
MerricB 08-16-05, 09:42 PM	I don't ever recalling ANY DM playing strictly by the book either. Everyone wanted to tinker with the rules and most wanted to write a game book to be published by TSR with their name on the cover. (Most still do...) I want to be a developer, not a designer. ;) I definitely like having the guidelines there. Even if they aren't actively used, they give a good comparison point - especially when you write new material for the game. You've got an official standard to compare new material to. Cheers!
mikey_ak 08-17-05, 12:42 AM	Could we maybe stop tossing the word 'arbitrary' about so much? The level and class limits in 2nd Edition weren't put in place on a whim. They served to reign in the overwhelming advantages of playing a demi-human. There were in-character reasons behind most of it as well (i.e. Why would a dour, martial Dwarf want to dance and sing anyway?). Granted, perhaps those damn Elves shouldn't have been earth-walking gods in the first place. :rolleyes: I didn't find looking up values on various tables any more difficult than number crunching the endless bonuses in 3rd Edition. A lot of the math does make more intuitive sense, which is helpful not only to us old-timers, but in attracting new players as well. The skill system seems a bit too wide-open. When any character can do almost anything, what need is there for classes or specialties? In any case, to each his own, I guess. All the Editions have their own place and feel. - Mike
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:50 AM	I think my main qualm with 3.x is that is tries to be a bit of AD&D, a bit of Rolemaster, a bit of GURPS and a bit of Everquest, and never really manages to be any of them. - I can do the math, but a lot of people in my group were even after 5 years still strugling with attack->high is good, save->low is good, and the entire AC/Thac0 thing. Saving throws are high is good, too. - Lot's of kits with escalating power levels, but only hard to enforce roleplaying penalties as drawbacks. Kits are optional - arbitrary limits on which clas you could select. Its not arbitrary. The limits are based on the world of Greyhawk. In Greyhawk, there are no dwarven wizards, hence, dwarves cant be wizards.
Dunelord 08-17-05, 12:12 PM	I think my main qualm with 3.x is that is tries to be a bit of AD&D, a bit of Rolemaster, a bit of GURPS and a bit of Everquest, and never really manages to be any of them. Saving throws are high is good, too. Kits are optional Its not arbitrary. The limits are based on the world of Greyhawk. In Greyhawk, there are no dwarven wizards, hence, dwarves cant be wizards. In 3x you can have Dwarf Wizards in Greyhawk.
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:16 PM	3.x is irrelevant when we are discussing AD&D.
Dorr 08-17-05, 02:03 PM	The quality of play is almost completely dependent on the quality of the DM and the players participating in the game regardless of which rules they're playing. What Chappy said is so true in what ever game you are playing, 1e,2e, 3.0 or 3.5? sounds crazy but our group is 2e with feats from 3.0 and 3.5!
Dunelord 08-18-05, 09:58 AM	3.x is irrelevant when we are discussing AD&D. I for one fell the truth is always relevant and your post Its not arbitrary. The limits are based on the world of Greyhawk. In Greyhawk, there are no dwarven wizards, hence, dwarves cant be wizards. reads in precent tence with no mention of editions. Because of this it is quite simply untrue. In this edition of Greyhawk and the Greyhawk time line since it came out there are Dwarf Wizards. Further bring up 3x in a thread that compares 2nd and 3.5 doesn't seem out of place. Rules can and do make a big difference. Don't get me wrong they can never turn bad players into good ones but they can sure get in the way of a good player by encourageing the worst parts of there play. I know that the Alternaity game rules turned what was other wise a good runner and group into the worst game I ever saw.
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 12:07 PM	You are claiming that the AD&D class limits are arbitrary, because 15 years later, the world was changed to include dwarf wizards ? My post reads in the present, because we are discussing AD&D and the merits or flaws of that rule set. Standards that are introduced by 3.x are not relevant to that, no more than 3.x rules should be measured by standards in Rolemaster, Warhammer or GURPS.
Dunelord 08-18-05, 11:34 PM	You are claiming that the AD&D class limits are arbitrary, because 15 years later, the world was changed to include dwarf wizards ? My post reads in the present, because we are discussing AD&D and the merits or flaws of that rule set. Standards that are introduced by 3.x are not relevant to that, no more than 3.x rules should be measured by standards in Rolemaster, Warhammer or GURPS. Well I made no claim about it being arbitary. I was addressing that your statement, as written, was untrue. I would say that it is arbitary because (to the best of my knowledge) no matter setting and roll in setting of Dwarfs in 2nd they had no Arcane magic. Further seeing as how they were often the owners of great and powerful dwarf made magic items this was arbitary. What rule set you ment doesn't matter, it's the rule set you say. You didn't bring up AD&D or the point that Greyhawk had no Dwarf Wizards. Further I don't think that a thread that is about bring up differences between 2nd and 3.5 I'm out of place to point out that the rules and setting changed.
weasel fierce 08-18-05, 11:41 PM	The limitations were not written for the 2nd edition settings. They were written for Greyhawk, because thats what Gygax played and ran. That the writers of AD&D2nd edition were hacks, is an unfortunate fact. Dwarves always had clerics, who could craft items. However, I dont remember many items that are stated as having been created by dwarves. It is true that the setting changed, and my statement that it was irrelevant was out of line. However, a rule in AD&D cannot be judged by the fact that it didnt take into account that the setting would change, years later.