Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sedriis 01-05-04, 09:54 PM	come on.... thats stupid 3.5 they alter some stuff and make millions. I refuse to perchase a 3.5 Orientaladventures, manaul of planes, and psionic handbook wasting over 100 dollars on somthing that should have been done in the first place Garbage.
tempeitri 01-05-04, 09:59 PM	Considering they list most of the major changes, and its not that hard to gleen the others, seems pretty easy to just make due with what you have and change what you think needs changing. Just because htey put it out doesn't mean you need to buy it. /shrug
Sedriis 01-05-04, 10:03 PM	this is what happens... some of my friends will buy it some wont and then theirs a big problem. i think they should have waited and published 4th edition. furthermore why would anyone pay 70 more dollars for the rulebooks.
WizO_Pony 01-05-04, 10:05 PM	Well if you don't like the new stuff, then don't buy it, no one is forcing you. As for me, I like 3.5 more and more everyday, but I am perfectly willing and capable of adapting the 3.0 supplements I like to 3.5 rules myself.
Thrudjelmer 01-05-04, 10:09 PM	Actually, I thought they just released errata or a FAQ that updated various non-core rulebooks so they would not have to print 3.5 Editions of everything else. While I agree that we were scammed to a degree with 3rd Edition... which, as it turns out, was planned all along as a secondary play-testing phase which they made everyone buy before they announced they were going to do an update version. Now, the way I heard it, WotC actually did not plan the 3.5 Edition release this quickly... but I guess, with original decision-makers in management out of the picture, the newer management decided it'd be best to line their pockets quickly and pushed the update ahead of schedule. Basically, they ALWAYS intended to screw over the casual gamer in this fashion; but it happened faster than anyone planned for.
Shell 01-05-04, 10:09 PM	well I dunno, I dont think you should be so hard on 3.5 honstely, I felt that way too.. and the books here are sertainly not Cheap the way they are in the states! (at $20 a book i would walk out with the whole store!) then i started to read it, then i brought a 3.5 PHB the next week i found myself buying the DMG and i am still seriously considering buying a MM they make my life easier, as both a GM and a player, they are more ballenced, and they make perviously untouched classes such as the druid much better and fun to play (although we kept haste the way it was) and esp the monster manual wich places everything you need right at where the monster is and calculates all the Level Ajustment and what not for you Our group was NEVER going to change, we loved 3 the way it was... untill i showed them the 3.5 manuals... now everyone has acopy and we play 3.5 almost religiously... and we're all munchkins to boot... so yeah dont be so hard till u've tried it =P
Geethree 01-05-04, 10:12 PM	If you don't want to buy the stuff, then don't. It's relatively easy to convert between them, regardless. And if different versions are used in your gaming group, just make sure the players know which version is being used before the game starts.
ante_up 01-05-04, 10:12 PM	Originally posted by Sedriis come on.... thats stupid 3.5 they alter some stuff and make millions. I refuse to perchase a 3.5 Orientaladventures, manaul of planes, and psionic handbook wasting over 100 dollars on somthing that should have been done in the first place Garbage. Why would you need to purchase a revised Oriental Adventures or Manual of the Planes? As for the Psionics Handbook, it needed revision more then any other 3E D&D book.
Sedriis 01-05-04, 10:26 PM	lol
Sedriis 01-05-04, 10:33 PM	i go back in time...and KILL GARY GYGAX MWAHAHAHAHAHA
Thrudjelmer 01-05-04, 10:39 PM	Originally posted by ante_up Why would you need to purchase a revised Oriental Adventures or Manual of the Planes? As for the Psionics Handbook, it needed revision more then any other 3E D&D book. Yeah. Personally, I thought it needed a complete rewrite even if they didn't upgrade to the 3.5 Edition... it was just bad.
p0cky 01-05-04, 11:02 PM	Wait...they have a 3.5 OA and Psionic Handbook! When did this happen?
WizO_Pony 01-05-04, 11:07 PM	A Revised Psionics Handbook is currently in the works for sometime the summer. I have heard nothing about a revised Oriental Adventures
Ranger REG 01-06-04, 04:05 AM	Originally posted by Sedriis come on.... thats stupid 3.5 they alter some stuff and make millions. I refuse to perchase a 3.5 Orientaladventures, manaul of planes, and psionic handbook wasting over 100 dollars on somthing that should have been done in the first place. You mean way back in the first edition? Or are you referring to the conspiracy that they were already discussing 3.5e before the 3e material were even sent to the printers back in year 2000? As for the 3.5e OA, no word on it, with the exception of James Wyatt writing two articles for the Dragon magazine regarding OA: one is a 3.5e update, and the other is for us Kara-Tur fans. (Finally!) In my dream, a 3.5e OA hardbook would be nice if they get rid of all reference to Rokugan and re-insert Kara-Tur as in the original book. As I said before, that's all AEG stuff, not Wizards' (at least not anymore).
aldymnor 01-06-04, 04:11 AM	What an original topic. Don't want it? Don't buy it. Go download the SRD if you're feeling pirate-bound. Matey.
RLWilde 01-06-04, 06:38 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG You mean way back in the first edition? Bah, you young whippersnapper... first edition? "They" shoulda made it right in Chainmail!
Kaya Kenobi 01-06-04, 07:32 AM	Originally posted by Sedriis come on.... thats stupid 3.5 they alter some stuff and make millions. I refuse to perchase a 3.5 Orientaladventures, manaul of planes, and psionic handbook wasting over 100 dollars on somthing that should have been done in the first place Garbage. While I don't disagree with you, I'll disagree with your remarks. First, there will be no 3.5 MotP, why? Because they covered enough in the 3.5 DMG. There won't be a 3.5 Oriental Adventures, because the original didn't sell very well in the first place. And the Psi book needs an overhaul, and that's the only welcoming thought I have with 3.5. Thrud, it has more to do with Hasbro than anything, who wants fast sales. And also, Druids are both more broken in 3.5 on a combat perspective and now useless in the roleplay perspective than in 3.0. But that's fo a different argument. Anyways, 3.5 isn't all that great, as it's leaning more towards powergaming than all of the previous editions combined. What does 3.5 have? The draconomicon and Complete Warrior are two excellent examples of how 3.5 is concerned over powergaming.
Mr.Waesel 01-06-04, 12:06 PM	Originally posted by Sedriis i go back in time...and KILL GARY GYGAX MWAHAHAHAHAHA If you do that, i (and with me most of the D&D boards) will [CoC violation] ;)
Darth K'Trava 01-06-04, 01:00 PM	Originally posted by Sedriis i go back in time...and KILL GARY GYGAX MWAHAHAHAHAHA :nonono: And wouldn't that be going back a bit too far....?
Kaya Kenobi 01-06-04, 03:23 PM	Originally posted by Darth K'Trava :nonono: And wouldn't that be going back a bit too far....? I'd just get rid of the woman who ran TSR into the ground.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-06-04, 10:31 PM	Originally posted by WizO_Pony Well if you don't like the new stuff, then don't buy it, no one is forcing you. As for me, I like 3.5 more and more everyday, but I am perfectly willing and capable of adapting the 3.0 supplements I like to 3.5 rules myself. Just something I want to point out: I have yet to see a Wiz_o not like 3.$....Funny thing is given the number of Wiz_o'z and teh near 50/50 split in like and dislike for the revision at leats one should not like it by the ODD's Sorry pony you were just an example for an observation nothing more.... And Kaya, careful She'll hear you if you say her name and come for you in your sleep.....
Danok 01-06-04, 11:16 PM	I quit playing D&D way back when 2nd ed came out - my games were getting less frequent at the time anyway, so I didn't bother with it. Now I have a kid who wants to play, so I went to a WOTC store and gawked at the D&D display for about fifteen minutes. I leafed through some of the rule books. What an over-complicated mess! It's like those awful "Rule Nazis" I'd sometimes play with back in the 80s took over TSR. Anyway, it was an easy fix. Whipped out the cell phone, called mom, found out that all my old books are safe and sound in a box in my old closet. The boy will play the original. If the original poster is sick of where this game has gone (and I can't blame you), my best advice is to go to amazon.com or bn.com and search the used book sites for the 1st edition rulebooks (a search I ran showed that each was available in "very good" condition for under $20) and give em your credit card number. You can probably go to those sites and get the three core books, the Unearthed Arcana, Fiend Folio, MM2, and a couple of the original modules for little more than the three core books today will cost you. You'll also get a better, faster-moving roleplaying game that allows for greater player and DM creativity. Halfling barbarians? Spare me.
zodiki 01-07-04, 12:00 AM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi I'd just get rid of the woman who ran TSR into the ground. Yoko Ono? No wait - wrong group.
ante_up 01-07-04, 12:30 AM	Originally posted by Danok It's like those awful "Rule Nazis" I'd sometimes play with back in the 80s took over TSR...The boy will play the original. Ironic.
Kaya Kenobi 01-07-04, 01:03 AM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes And Kaya, careful She'll hear you if you say her name and come for you in your sleep..... That's why I'm not saying her name. Besides, I like to see gore and nudes from time to time so enough of this d20 policy WotC has on the two subjects... ;)
q'afuu 01-07-04, 01:52 AM	Originally posted by Danok I leafed through some of the rule books. I can see you have an informed opinion on the matter.
hivemind[MVGC] 01-07-04, 03:02 AM	Originally posted by WizO_Pony A Revised Psionics Handbook is currently in the works for sometime the summer. Is it gonna make Psionics not suck? Because if it's not, I'm perfectly happy with my never-used 3.0 Psionics Paperweight... :D
Mr.Waesel 01-07-04, 03:41 AM	Originally posted by Danok I quit playing D&D way back when 2nd ed came out - my games were getting less frequent at the time anyway, so I didn't bother with it. Now I have a kid who wants to play, so I went to a WOTC store and gawked at the D&D display for about fifteen minutes. I leafed through some of the rule books. What an over-complicated mess! It's like those awful "Rule Nazis" I'd sometimes play with back in the 80s took over TSR. Anyway, it was an easy fix. Whipped out the cell phone, called mom, found out that all my old books are safe and sound in a box in my old closet. The boy will play the original. If the original poster is sick of where this game has gone (and I can't blame you), my best advice is to go to amazon.com or bn.com and search the used book sites for the 1st edition rulebooks (a search I ran showed that each was available in "very good" condition for under $20) and give em your credit card number. You can probably go to those sites and get the three core books, the Unearthed Arcana, Fiend Folio, MM2, and a couple of the original modules for little more than the three core books today will cost you. You'll also get a better, faster-moving roleplaying game that allows for greater player and DM creativity. Halfling barbarians? Spare me. Yes. I am also very concerned about this. This must be stopped. I cannot bear to think wat Nazi's would do to my children when they band together with halfling barbarians. It's a good thing you "leafed" through the rulebooks when you did.
Kaya Kenobi 01-07-04, 04:27 AM	Originally posted by hivemind[MVGC] Is it gonna make Psionics not suck? Because if it's not, I'm perfectly happy with my never-used 3.0 Psionics Paperweight... :D In one way, Psionics is sucky, but in another aspect I can see them as nearly broken.. It all deals with interpretations...
Gnarl 01-07-04, 09:31 AM	Maybe you should send an email to wotc and ask if it's ok, considering you have the 3.0 rules book, to download legally the 3.5 rules from imesh or emule or something like that.
q'afuu 01-07-04, 09:48 AM	God I hope that was a sarcastic remark. For the gullible readers: no, that's not ok if you're talking about downloading anything but open content material (the SRD).
Nytmare 01-07-04, 10:37 AM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes [B]Just something I want to point out: I have yet to see a Wiz_o not like 3.$....Funny thing is given the number of Wiz_o'z and teh near 50/50 split in like and dislike for the revision at leats one should not like it by the ODD's B] What exaclty are you basing this assumption of a 50/50 split off of?
Count Arioch the 28th 01-07-04, 01:24 PM	I would call it around 25/75 split, 25 for 3.5, 75 against. Hey, I happen to like most of the rules for 3.5, but really, I know that there's a lot of problems, which could have been solved by having more people, and more time, and just put out 4.0 in two years. I'm not downing the designers of 3.5, but they just needed time to revise the entire game, not revise half the game. 'Cause it seems that if they did the other half, the new bugs wouldnt be there. Plus, even though I like 3.5, I think the fact that I didn't buy new boosk, and use the SRD speaks a lot louder than any support I can say verbally, I already vetoed it with my wallet, so to speak.
Nytmare 01-07-04, 01:31 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th I would call it around 25/75 split, 25 for 3.5, 75 against. And what are you basing the 25/75 split on? Just based off of the opinions of the people who post on the boards I would argue that the pro 3.0 people are in the minority. And what about the 3.5 sales?
Count Arioch the 28th 01-07-04, 01:37 PM	I'm basing off of people I know personally. I know it's unscientific, but I do know that out of the 4 DMS I know, counting myself, I'm the only one that uses 3.5. Not going by what the boards say, since I don't read every single thread and reply, I don't know exaclty what people are thinking.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-07-04, 01:42 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi And also, Druids are both more broken in 3.5 on a combat perspective and now useless in the roleplay perspective than in 3.0. But that's fo a different argument. Strongly agree with the broken part. Don't understand how anything is impossible to roleplay. roleplaying is 85% player, 15% mechanics. (As in, your player should know what they are doing if it's their class, and should act accordingly.)
Nytmare 01-07-04, 02:00 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th I'm basing off of people I know personally. It's almost the exact opposite in the circles I run. There was the normal level of grumbling when word first came out about 3.5 (mostly by the anti-magic crowd). When the actual rules first started creeping out though the majority of the people I know really liked what they were seeing. When the books finally came out a handful of people griped about how it was just a conspiracy to get more money out of the players, but they got sewpt into 3.5 games anyway. Now I can't think of a single person here who doesn't like the rules. (yes, of course people have problems with individual rules but overall they think the changes are good)
skathros 01-07-04, 04:29 PM	Originally posted by Danok I quit playing D&D way back when 2nd ed came out - my games were getting less frequent at the time anyway, so I didn't bother with it. Now I have a kid who wants to play, so I went to a WOTC store and gawked at the D&D display for about fifteen minutes. I leafed through some of the rule books. What an over-complicated mess! It's like those awful "Rule Nazis" I'd sometimes play with back in the 80s took over TSR. Anyway, it was an easy fix. Whipped out the cell phone, called mom, found out that all my old books are safe and sound in a box in my old closet. The boy will play the original. If the original poster is sick of where this game has gone (and I can't blame you), my best advice is to go to amazon.com or bn.com and search the used book sites for the 1st edition rulebooks (a search I ran showed that each was available in "very good" condition for under $20) and give em your credit card number. You can probably go to those sites and get the three core books, the Unearthed Arcana, Fiend Folio, MM2, and a couple of the original modules for little more than the three core books today will cost you. You'll also get a better, faster-moving roleplaying game that allows for greater player and DM creativity. Halfling barbarians? Spare me. Well said, Danok. Pay no mind to the nay-sayeres, those who prefer the older editions are in the minority here (it's okay...different strokes for different folks). If you want to take an indepth look at 3.5, wait a year or two and you'll be able to get the books cheap in the discount bin or OOP section of your FLGS when 4.0 comes out. All these editions cant be good for the game! There's no stability in the D&D name.
Nytmare 01-07-04, 06:05 PM	Originally posted by skathros There's no stability in the D&D name. Well except for fact that no matter how much they improve the game we'll always have a chunk of people who complain that the game is being ruined and that it was better in the old days. As for 3.5 being 'over-complicated', especially when comparing it to 2nd ed AD&D. Maybe you should take a look at those books again and recompare.
Kaya Kenobi 01-07-04, 08:16 PM	Originally posted by Nytmare Well except for fact that no matter how much they improve the game we'll always have a chunk of people who complain that the game is being ruined and that it was better in the old days. As for 3.5 being 'over-complicated', especially when comparing it to 2nd ed AD&D. Maybe you should take a look at those books again and recompare. I very much agree with both statements.. I have qualms about 3.5, but in no way do I think 3.5 could ever possibly be more complicated than either 1st and 2nd edition.
skathros 01-07-04, 09:13 PM	Originally posted by Nytmare Well except for fact that no matter how much they improve the game we'll always have a chunk of people who complain that the game is being ruined and that it was better in the old days. As for 3.5 being 'over-complicated', especially when comparing it to 2nd ed AD&D. Maybe you should take a look at those books again and recompare. Sure thing, buddy...whatever you say.:rolleyes:
Geethree 01-07-04, 09:20 PM	Originally posted by skathros Sure thing, buddy...whatever you say.:rolleyes: Sarcasm doesn't prove anything. From what I've seen of 2nd Edition, I'm inclined to agree that it's more complicated. If you want to argue something, then argue it. Don't just post that stupid roll-eyes smilie.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-07-04, 09:27 PM	2E was a lot more complicated, and it had rules that made no sense whatsoever, and that contradicted each other in certain situations. I went from OD&D to 2E, and I can tell you what a big leap that was. Incidentally, I hated 2E. I liked 3E, then 3.5, but still that diaglo person is on to something, in my opinion. http://www.angelfire.com/va/vannad/beholder_smirk.gif
Nytmare 01-07-04, 09:37 PM	Originally posted by skathros Sure thing, buddy...whatever you say.:rolleyes: Oh I don't know, kits, weapon speed factors, exceptional strength, psionics, encumbrance rules, 2nd Ed miniature combat, the rationale between dual vs multi-classing, multiple actions in the initiative count, differing XP charts, different rates of fire for melee and ranged attacks? Reversible spells? You mind trying to explain to me what a reversible banishment did? A monster attacks you by breathing a cloud of deadly gas. Is it a save vs poison? Death? Breath Weapon? And lest we forget... FREAKING THAC0?!
q'afuu 01-07-04, 09:51 PM	To add a few more: rangers stealth being strictly level-dependent (and spotting coming down to a failed stealth check) and some classes utterly incapable of doing the simplest things, class/race/level limitations, traits and disadvantages and my personal favourite: allowing characters who already have the best stats access to noticeably better classes and giving them an XP bonus on top of that as well (IOW, the strong become stronger and the sucky become suckier). Oh, and illusions and disbelief...
skathros 01-07-04, 09:51 PM	Originally posted by Geethree Sarcasm doesn't prove anything. From what I've seen of 2nd Edition, I'm inclined to agree that it's more complicated. If you want to argue something, then argue it. Don't just post that stupid roll-eyes smilie. Well then,pray tell, what was so complicated about "what you've seen" of 2E? THAC0? Racial Restrictions? Level Caps? Was it Saves? Initiative?Really now, what was so fundamentally esoteric about 2E that makes 3E/3.5 seem so simple in comparison. By the way (just in case you care) my gripe is with the new editions coming out every 4 years or so.
skathros 01-07-04, 09:53 PM	Originally posted by Nytmare Oh I don't know, kits, weapon speed factors, exceptional strength, psionics, encumbrance rules, 2nd Ed miniature combat, the rationale between dual vs multi-classing, multiple actions in the initiative count, differing XP charts, different rates of fire for melee and ranged attacks? Reversible spells? You mind trying to explain to me what a reversible banishment did? A monster attacks you by breathing a cloud of deadly gas. Is it a save vs poison? Death? Breath Weapon? And lest we forget... FREAKING THAC0?! Okay, you might not like these things...but were they complicated??? Were you unable to get your brain around the concept??? I dont think so! You seem intelligent and i doubt these things were in anyway complicated for you to grasp.
q'afuu 01-07-04, 09:56 PM	That leaves the question what about 3E you find so much more complicated...
skathros 01-07-04, 10:03 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu That leaves the question what about 3E you find so much more complicated... nothing really complicated about 3E, i just dont find it simpler to lern than other versions of the game.
Nytmare 01-07-04, 10:04 PM	Originally posted by skathros Okay, you might not like these things...but were they complicated??? Were you unable to get your brain around the concept??? I dont think so! You seem intelligent and i doubt these things were in anyway complicated for you to grasp. Originally posted by Nytmare You mind trying to explain to me what a reversible banishment did? A monster attacks you by breathing a cloud of deadly gas. Is it a save vs poison? Death? Breath Weapon? Answer my questions. *smile* It's not that I couldn't either figure them out or at least come up with my own rule to get around them, but the argument was over 3/3.5 being overly-complicated when compared to 2nd Ed AD&D.
skathros 01-07-04, 10:05 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu That leaves the question what about 3E you find so much more complicated... nothing really complicated about 3E, i just dont find it simpler to lern than other versions of the game nor is it more difficult...you just lern it.
skathros 01-07-04, 10:17 PM	dont know about the reversable banishment but as for your second question, i'd save vs Breath just like for a Green Dragon's breath weapon. And i'll say it once more...it's not that 3E is overly complicated, it's just that i think it unfair to give it the false virtue of being simpler (faster, easier) than the editions that followed. You seem to think that because i dont think 1E/2E were complicated, that i'm arguing that 3E is complicated when in fact all i'm saying (if anyone cares to listen) is that multiple editions coming out at such short intervals cant be beneficial for D&D!!! See? Two different things.
Nytmare 01-07-04, 10:17 PM	Originally posted by skathros nothing really complicated about 3E, i just dont find it simpler to lern than other versions of the game nor is it more difficult...you just lern it. Again, the argument was over 3/3.5 being more complicated than 2nd ed AD&D. It was not an argument over "It's easier to not to learn something than it is to learn something new." (editted to get rid of an answered question)
Count Arioch the 28th 01-07-04, 10:18 PM	2E would have been simpler if the rules didn't contradict each other constantly. I got tired of having to look up in the books whether I had to roll above or below the number to succeed. Not to mention the edition's blatant disregard for balance.
skathros 01-07-04, 10:21 PM	Originally posted by Nytmare Again, the argument was over 3/3.5 being more complicated than 2nd ed AD&D. It was not an argument over "It's easier to not to learn something than it is to learn something new." (editted to get rid of an answered question) sorry, but i dont get what you are trying to say here?
Count Arioch the 28th 01-07-04, 10:23 PM	Alright, it's obvious now. Everyon disregard Skathros, he is trolling.
skathros 01-07-04, 10:29 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th Alright, it's obvious now. Everyon disregard Skathros, he is trolling. now you've oversteped yourself, buddy!!! It was a ligitimat question and i dont apreciate being accused of anything i've not done. It was a sencere question and if you didnt feel the need to clarify, than you souldnt have said nothing at all. I thought this was nothing more than an interesting conversation. I dont get off trolling on boards, i you cant even begin to imagin how i hate that implication (something that i've never been accused of...ever!). On a side note, italian is my birth tounge with french as my second language and english, my third...sometimes i migt not understant a sentnce or what's ment by that sentance, therefor i ask...that's not trolling!
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-07-04, 10:35 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th 2E would have been simpler if the rules didn't contradict each other constantly. I got tired of having to look up in the books whether I had to roll above or below the number to succeed. Not to mention the edition's blatant disregard for balance. 1. 2e's supoosed contradictions are a misconception. Nothing more nothing less I wish you people would drill that through your thick skulls. 2. 2e's supposed disregard for balance is just like wotc's An*l-Retentive obsession with it.
Nytmare 01-07-04, 10:39 PM	Originally posted by skathros it's not that 3E is overly complicated, it's just that i think it unfair to give it the false virtue of being simpler (faster, easier) than the editions that followed. Did you mean 'preceded'? False virtue? But 3rd Ed combat is simpler? I don't see what you're basing this argument on? What in 3/3.5 compares to the laundry list I gave you?
RLWilde 01-08-04, 12:02 AM	Originally posted by Nytmare A monster attacks you by breathing a cloud of deadly gas. Is it a save vs poison? Death? Breath Weapon? It's been a few years, but I'm pretty sure that would be a save vs PPD (paralyzation/ poison/ death magic), since that table is "before" breath weapon. Incidentally, my favorite 2 pieces of trivia about 2E, I think, were: 1) The Magic-user's version of Continual Light in the PH was not reversible, though people thought it was... it was errata which TSR never bothered to put in later printings, but never bothered to recall, either. 2) Hold Person required a saving throw vs. Paralysis, not Spells... because of the order of the saving throw tables.
Kaya Kenobi 01-08-04, 12:53 AM	Like Plunderer_of_the_planes said, I'd like to see what contradictions were made in 2e..
Nytmare 01-08-04, 12:59 AM	Originally posted by RLWilde It's been a few years, but I'm pretty sure that would be a save vs PPD (paralyzation/ poison/ death magic), since that table is "before" breath weapon. 2) Hold Person required a saving throw vs. Paralysis, not Spells... because of the order of the saving throw tables. Ah! I had never heard that before! Do you know off hand where that is listed? [- editted to illustrate my incompetence -] Look at that page 101 in the 2nd Ed PHB, 'Saving Throw Priorities'. I had this stupid book for 15 years and I don't think I ever even saw that section.
Nytmare 01-08-04, 02:21 AM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi Like Plunderer_of_the_planes said, I'd like to see what contradictions were made in 2e.. First off I think Count Atrioch might have said 'contradictions' in regards to rolls being arbitrary in the high/low = good/bad sense. Unfortunately, it's been too long since I played 2nd Ed, I'm more versed in pointing out 3+ contradictions. The only ones I can think of in 2nd Ed are minor and not really rule related, but I can't believe that a rules system (especially one so pieced together over such a long period of time) could be totally free of contradictions. This is not proof, but this is a quote is from Wizard's D&D FAQ: ... We felt that it was time to upgrade the basic mechanics to reflect ten more years of game design advances, eliminate any contradictions ... I know that when I used to play AD&D most of the problems we would run into were due more to the fact that the rules were so often confusing and/or poorly organized.
Kaya Kenobi 01-08-04, 03:51 AM	Originally posted by Nytmare First off I think Count Atrioch might have said 'contradictions' in regards to rolls being arbitrary in the high/low = good/bad sense. Aye, that can be annoying, but it isn't as annoying as 3.5 making adamantine weapons only a +1 to hit and the fact that bards can't curse anyone anymore... I know that when I used to play AD&D most of the problems we would run into were due more to the fact that the rules were so often confusing and/or poorly organized. But what if you only use the Complete books, DMG, PHB, and MM and homebrew everything yourself? That's all I do..
RLWilde 01-08-04, 04:01 AM	Originally posted by Nytmare Ah! I had never heard that before! Do you know off hand where that is listed? [- editted to illustrate my incompetence -] Look at that page 101 in the 2nd Ed PHB, 'Saving Throw Priorities'. I had this stupid book for 15 years and I don't think I ever even saw that section. Naw, it's hardly incompetence... in my experience, most people didn't know that, which is why I called it trivia. I don't even recall when I found that... just that I had been looking for something else about saving throws when I noticed it. I enjoyed 2nd Edition (and 1st, and 3.0, and now 3.5... my experiences with Basic/ Expert/ etc. were less than satisfying, but I think that may have been the group <g>), but there are some things which 3.x does which I think are superior... including saving throw categories.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-08-04, 08:10 AM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes 1. 2e's supoosed contradictions are a misconception. Nothing more nothing less I wish you people would drill that through your thick skulls. Alright, I take that back, Skathros wasn't trolling, he just had some glitches in the communication prcoess. (Sorry, Skathros) Now, THIS is trolling. Funny how I can play 2E for over 5 years and get some werid misconception about the rules. Perhaps a mod should see that. for contradictions, here goes: Half the skills you rolled high., Half, you rolled low. Pick one for everything, and stick with it. THaCo was just dumb. I should not have to whip out a chart to see if I hit soemthing. 3E is far superior in ease of use. You roll, add you bonuses, if you beat the AC, you hit. I don't have to roll, look at the class's chart, add in modifiers, and all that stuff. Sure, that only takes a few seconds to look that up. That's a few seconds a roll in combat. Instead of "What did you roll? 17? Okay, you hit." Basicaly the rule to 3E are much easier to keep straight in your head, the less I have to dig out a book to look something up, the more effort I can spend on the actual story. And Kaya has still not answered how it is possible to not be able to roleplay a druid in 3.5. It's perhaps the most rediculous assertion I have ever heard, leveryon knows it's the person playing, not the archetype, that decides what is and what isn't possible to roleplay. and if you actually have a reason you said that (Which I doubt seriously), and you don't want to disrupt the thread, my e-mail is always available, as is my PM inbox. Fuirthermore, you are ignoring things that don't work in your favor. Admantine was vastly imrpoved, it ignores all hardess of objects up to 20. I don't know what you're complaining about, nothing I suppose, like the druid thing. [Edited for flaming. -Pony]
q'afuu 01-08-04, 09:17 AM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi But what if you only use the Complete books, DMG, PHB, and MM and homebrew everything yourself? That's all I do.. In AD&D, the problem was having to homebrew half the rules you'd expect to be in either the PHB or the DMG. For instance, some classes have rules for certain skills (rules that make them outright suck until high level, but that's another matter) while others don't. 'Here is the party, consisting of a ranger, a thief, a wizard and a cleric. They are out doing something they don't want the city guard to know about. Unfortunately, a patrol of that same guard is coming their way, so they try to hide in a dark alley. How do I find out if they are succesful? I use the thief and ranger's Hide in Shadows scores and flip a coin for the two others (which will probably give those others a better chance of succeeding)?' That kind of situations. Rulings on illusions, which the PHB outright says is up to the DM in most situations. Having to create as many non-weapon proficiencies as already listed simply it makes no sense not to have them (a dozen or so of what would in 3E be craft skills, but no woodworking although you could have woodwroker as a secondary skill, for instance, or having things like greek fire and gunpowder but only herbalism as the closest thing to alchemy). Weapons do damage according to the opponent's size, for some reason, and whether that damage is more or less for a larger opponent seems to vary in a completely arbitrary way. There are no rules whatsoever to discern if you want to try your hand at creating a weapon not on the list. Rangers have to keep a Good alignment at all times, yet at the same time they have a hatred for certain species they often can't contain. I can't remember the number of times I had to come up with an inane excuse for what's tantamount to a hate crime so it wouldn't change a ranger's alignment. It's not that I mind creating rules on the fly, I don't. What I do mind is a) not being able to inform players of these houserules until I make them, which is basically the first time they're needed. After several years, I had a binder chock-full of houserules which allowed me to inform the players at the start of the campaign, but by then it took as much time going over them as it did going through the PHB for the first time. and b) half the time not having any indication what would be a fair rule from the existing rules. Trial and error gets to be irritating after a while.
Tzor 01-08-04, 10:39 AM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi Aye, that can be annoying, but it isn't as annoying as 3.5 making adamantine weapons only a +1 to hit and the fact that bards can't curse anyone anymore... You call that "annoying?" Under 2nd edition, if you wanted to do any adventuring into the astral planes and beyond, you needed weapons with a gigantic plus bonus, because each plane you removed the weapon from the weapon's plane of origin it's + decreased by one until it was no longer powerful enough to hit the creatures that required +x to hit. Under 3.0 the notion that the + decreased was removed. Under 3.5 the notion that the + number is important was removed. As long as it is magic, it will hit anyone with a magic DR no mater how far from the prime material plane you are. Adamantine weapons under 3.5 now ignore harndess up to the hardness of adamantine. It grants DR as armor. What you call "annoying" I seem to call "reasons for the 'happy' dance." A silver weapon actually means something. A magic weapon actually means something. An adamantine weapon actually means something. It is now no longer a question of how high your plus is on your weapon, where metals were important only because the material limited how high a plus you could put on the weapon/armor. As for bards no longer being able to curse, I'd damm them for that, but ... I can't anymore. :D There really is more to the bard than just cursing. It's disapointing but not really annoying.
Sir Morbid 01-08-04, 02:24 PM	Honestly I love 3.5 D&D. But the fact that it's been over 6 months since its release and no errata has been posted (I'm not counting that cheesy 2 page document that addresses 10% of the errors in th PHB only) has made me decide not to purchase anymore WotC books until the cores get fixed. And concidering that the "Complete" books will overrule the 3.0 spatbooks I may have to revert my group back to 3.0.
Kaya Kenobi 01-08-04, 04:25 PM	And 3.0 has the same amount of errors, if not more.. That's why I think 3.0 and 3.5 is no better than 2e. Who cares if things are left out in 2e, just look at 3.5 and you'll see a contradiction where one page it says the bard can use only light armor and another section states the bard can wear both light and medium armor. And that's just one... The thing is, 3.x has as many problems as 2e, if not more.. Tzor, It is annoying when adamantine weapons has always dealt a bonus to damage suddenly stops when it's 3.5. Sure, it bypasses 15/adamantine, but it won't affect 15/aluminum, 15/law, 15/mithral, 15/cold iron, etc... Need I go on? And it's still nearly impossible to do damage to DR unless you have the right key or you have a warrior with maxed out Str.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-08-04, 07:53 PM	Funny, I played 2e for over 10 years (still do some) and never had that problem. [Edited for baiting -Pony]
Nytmare 01-09-04, 06:09 AM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi And 3.0 has the same amount of errors, if not more.. That's why I think 3.0 and 3.5 is no better than 2e. Who cares if things are left out in 2e, just look at 3.5 and you'll see a contradiction where one page it says the bard can use only light armor and another section states the bard can wear both light and medium armor. And that's just one... The thing is, 3.x has as many problems as 2e, if not more.. : just wants to point out that he was smart enough not to complain about contradictions. Contradictions are a part of any complex rules system. But I think that the fact that not only is WOTC here to answer rules problems for 3+ Ed, but for a good chunk of AD&D's heyday, we didn't have the internet. If you had a question or a problem with the rules you'd turn to yourself, then you'd turn to the people you gamed with, and then you'd turn to Dragon/Dungeon magazine.
kgun31 01-09-04, 06:39 AM	the issue of 3.5 is very troubling. overall I think the rules are better and the 'tweeks' are an improvement. However, that being said it is 100% about marketing and profits and not even about the game and the integrity of the game. This sadens me and will continue to do so into bankruptcy court when the inevitable 4.0 is released before I have finished buying 3.5 books. The problem is D&D is NOT Magic or Yugio or some other card game that can just be thrown away and replaced. Heck, some people still play 2.0 or the original...D&D is about creativity not new rules and monsters and as such we can CHOOSE not to purchase more and more and more but just make more of what we already have. Like I said, im torn. I think 3.5 is an improvement, however, I know the better 3.5 sells the quicker 4.0 and 4.5 will be released and at $30 per book (with the d20 system you are talking up to 50 books now) its hard to swallow (even as a working adult making close to six figures.)
Mr.Waesel 01-09-04, 08:29 AM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi It is annoying when adamantine weapons has always dealt a bonus to damage suddenly stops when it's 3.5. Sure, it bypasses 15/adamantine, but it won't affect 15/aluminum, 15/law, 15/mithral, 15/cold iron, etc... Need I go on? And it's still nearly impossible to do damage to DR unless you have the right key or you have a warrior with maxed out Str. And a +3 weapon bypasses dr 10/+3, but nor DR 10/pi, DR 10/3+5i. That's not a problem, because THEY DON'T EXIST. Honestly, to prove "adamantine sucks" you have made up your own material, and used a weapon enhancement that can be put onto an adamantine weapon with ease.
Kaya Kenobi 01-09-04, 11:29 AM	Originally posted by Mr.Waesel And a +3 weapon bypasses dr 10/+3, but nor DR 10/pi, DR 10/3+5i. That's not a problem, because THEY DON'T EXIST. Honestly, to prove "adamantine sucks" you have made up your own material, and used a weapon enhancement that can be put onto an adamantine weapon with ease. cold iron, mithral, and silver are other qualities that are damage reduction. AND THEY ARE CORE! DAMAGE REDUCTION Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable. The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction is the amount of hit points the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction. This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, by magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment. In other words, special materials, such as fey being 15/cold iron, werewolves being DR / silver, and certain golems being DR /adamantine. Adamantine will not overcome DR /silver or DR /cold iron. And the monsters are there, with all such DRs and then some. There's DR 15/cold iron and good on a Balor, meaning you must have a good aligned cold iron weapon. Then a Babau has DR 10/cold iron or good which means cold iron or good will bypass DR. If you look at other monsters, you'll notice some will have this: DR 15/good law magic adamantine. Look for a Holy Avenger, which counts a lawful good aligned cold iron sword..
Nytmare 01-09-04, 02:07 PM	Originally posted by kgun31 the issue of 3.5 is very troubling. overall I think the rules are better and the 'tweeks' are an improvement. However, that being said it is 100% about marketing and profits and not even about the game and the integrity of the game. This sadens me and will continue to do so into bankruptcy court when the inevitable 4.0 is released before I have finished buying 3.5 books. The problem is D&D is NOT Magic or Yugio or some other card game that can just be thrown away and replaced. Heck, some people still play 2.0 or the original...D&D is about creativity not new rules and monsters and as such we can CHOOSE not to purchase more and more and more but just make more of what we already have. Like I said, im torn. I think 3.5 is an improvement, however, I know the better 3.5 sells the quicker 4.0 and 4.5 will be released and at $30 per book (with the d20 system you are talking up to 50 books now) its hard to swallow (even as a working adult making close to six figures.) It's not 100% about profits. That is an insult to the designers. A lot of people poured a lot of time and energy into this product, not just big old evil WOTC, and to insist that each and every one of those individuals is just some money grubbing fiend is not only exceedingly unfounded, but outrageously unfair. 3.0 came out in August of 2000. 3.5 in July of 2003. Let us assume that a 3 year life span (which many people believe was too short a period to necessitate the update) will hold true for 3.5 as well. Going to the movies once a week for 3 years: $1351.50 ($914.25 for a matinee) Buying a new paperback book once a week for 3 years: $1192.50 Renting a $3.00 movie once a week for 3 years: $555.00 Smoking a pack of cigarettes once a week for 3 years: $397.50 Drinking a 60 cent can of soda once a week for 3 years: $95.40 Playing D&D once a week with the 3 core books for 3 years: $90.00 What exactly are you complaining about?
q'afuu 01-09-04, 02:20 PM	Originally posted by Nytmare Buying a new paperback book once a week for 3 years: $1192.50 Guilty as charged. And unless you stick to the cheap stuff, it's more likely to be half again as much as that. I try not to think of the total figure spent over longer periods of time.
Nytmare 01-09-04, 02:33 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi It is annoying when adamantine weapons has always dealt a bonus to damage suddenly stops when it's 3.5. I don't understand this argument? By your logic: *opens 2nd Ed PHB to a random page* It is annoying because 18 strength used to give a +1 to hit, a +3 to damage and gave you a 16% chance to bend bars and lift gates. Now it gives you a +4 to hit, a +4 to damage and a +4 to strength based skills. *flip flip flip* It is annoying because a ranger used to get 2d6 Ranger Followers at 10th level and now he doesn't get them. *flip flip* It is annoying because weapons used to do different damage depending on the size of the creature you were attacking, and now they do different damage depending on the size of the weapon. It's a different system. That kinda means that there are going to be differences.
Kaya Kenobi 01-09-04, 02:33 PM	I'm guilty for buying on average a new d20 book once a month for a three year period.. I only own 40 or so books, and at an average of 20 a shot, that's 800.00, which is close to how much I paid for everything. I will in no way insult the designers for creating a game that keeps my interest.. Least it's not as bad as an avid player who buys 200-400 per expansion of magic cards. That averages out to 600-1200 a year!!!!!
Nytmare 01-09-04, 02:56 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi Least it's not as bad as an avid player who buys 200-400 per expansion of magic cards. That averages out to 600-1200 a year!!!!! If the magic player is enjoying themself, it is money well spent.
dsain 01-09-04, 04:39 PM	I started some 15 years ago, but I hadn't played in something like 7 years. Even then we were using AD&D books except I couldn't find a PHB so I had a 2nd ed. Still seemed to work. Recently my kids found my old books (UA, Legends & Lore, Manual of the Planes, PHB 2nd ed). I didn't have the rest of the books back then, as we just shared and took turns DMing games. The kids are 8 & 10. My son (the eight year old) seems to be some kind of genius and reads at a level 4-5 years older than he actually is. So I figured we could get a new (3.5) DMG and be off and running with some simple stuff. :confused:He...ck, I think it was easier just making stuff up than re-learnin' all the new rules using the older PHB and UA. I've now taken time to buy and read (some of) 3.5 core - PHB, DMG, & MM. I can't find Thac0, but DC instead. Okay, DC seems to span a lot more activities, and seems a bit more realistic, but it seems like a foreign concept at the moment. Challenge Rating....I found this in the MM, but have yet to figure out how this is used in a battle. I don't even know what else I have to find. The Skills and Feats take some time to figure. Rolling up new chars doesn't seem to be as fast as it used to be. I can't tell if the game will proceed faster or slower with 3.5 vs what? 1stEd?. Seems to be a bit more complicated. So far I'm just letting my thoughts ramble, but I'm looking for some sort of primer or FAQ that someone might have published to enable us old timers to get a grasp around the new 3.5 system whithout having to read virtually every page of PHB/DMG. I think if I can just run some simulation battles with characters I play on both sides, I might get a better grasp (still coming up with feats/skills and weapons for the best chars I can formulate). As for Hasbro wanting to turn a buck, isn't that what everyone wants. I'm sure TSR wanted to make a profit also. Uh, what happened to the pewter characters? Now I have to buy a package of ??? that contains some random PLASTIC stuff. I don't get to pick out what I WANT? What kind of * is that? Is there some source of pewter chars that isn't going to be some kind of *jacked up pricing for collectors* kind of thing, or do I have to suffer with the d20 plastic/prepainted stuff along with most everyone else that didn't save the stuff they used 10 years ago? -D-
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-09-04, 04:55 PM	Originally posted by dsain I started some 15 years ago, but I hadn't played in something like 7 years. Even then we were using AD&D books except I couldn't find a PHB so I had a 2nd ed. Still seemed to work. Recently my kids found my old books (UA, Legends & Lore, Manual of the Planes, PHB 2nd ed). I didn't have the rest of the books back then, as we just shared and took turns DMing games. The kids are 8 & 10. My son (the eight year old) seems to be some kind of genius and reads at a level 4-5 years older than he actually is. So I figured we could get a new (3.5) DMG and be off and running with some simple stuff. :confused:He...ck, I think it was easier just making stuff up than re-learnin' all the new rules using the older PHB and UA. I've now taken time to buy and read (some of) 3.5 core - PHB, DMG, & MM. I can't find Thac0, but DC instead. Okay, DC seems to span a lot more activities, and seems a bit more realistic, but it seems like a foreign concept at the moment. Challenge Rating....I found this in the MM, but have yet to figure out how this is used in a battle. I don't even know what else I have to find. The Skills and Feats take some time to figure. Rolling up new chars doesn't seem to be as fast as it used to be. I can't tell if the game will proceed faster or slower with 3.5 vs what? 1stEd?. Seems to be a bit more complicated. So far I'm just letting my thoughts ramble, but I'm looking for some sort of primer or FAQ that someone might have published to enable us old timers to get a grasp around the new 3.5 system whithout having to read virtually every page of PHB/DMG. I think if I can just run some simulation battles with characters I play on both sides, I might get a better grasp (still coming up with feats/skills and weapons for the best chars I can formulate). As for Hasbro wanting to turn a buck, isn't that what everyone wants. I'm sure TSR wanted to make a profit also. Uh, what happened to the pewter characters? Now I have to buy a package of ??? that contains some random PLASTIC stuff. I don't get to pick out what I WANT? What kind of * is that? Is there some source of pewter chars that isn't going to be some kind of *jacked up pricing for collectors* kind of thing, or do I have to suffer with the d20 plastic/prepainted stuff along with most everyone else that didn't save the stuff they used 10 years ago? -D- Pm or e-mail me I would be glad to help. As to the mini's if you want pewter buy the Reaper brand. Wotc no longer licenses the pewter D&D ones but the Reapers are close to the D&D concept.
RLWilde 01-09-04, 05:48 PM	Originally posted by dsain I can't find Thac0, but DC instead. Okay, DC seems to span a lot more activities, and seems a bit more realistic, but it seems like a foreign concept at the moment. It's the same equation as THAC0, just presented differently. Instead of THAC0 - (d20 roll +bonuses) = AC hit, you have d20 roll + bonuses = AC hit (and AC increases instead of decreases, of course). Challenge Rating....I found this in the MM, but have yet to figure out how this is used in a battle. It's kind of like the old "monster level" in 1st edition. I don't even know what else I have to find. The Skills and Feats take some time to figure. Rolling up new chars doesn't seem to be as fast as it used to be. I can't tell if the game will proceed faster or slower with 3.5 vs what? 1stEd?. Seems to be a bit more complicated. Characters are a lot more customizeable than in 1E and 2E, so character generation can definitely take longer. And combat takes longer as well from my experience... hit points are higher, there are more rules for tactics, etc.
Geethree 01-09-04, 06:42 PM	Well then,pray tell, what was so complicated about "what you've seen" of 2E? THAC0? Racial Restrictions? Level Caps? Was it Saves? Initiative?Really now, what was so fundamentally esoteric about 2E that makes 3E/3.5 seem so simple in comparison. By the way (just in case you care) my gripe is with the new editions coming out every 4 years or so.I don't like all the random restrictions, the rolling high or low, and how there is a different set of rules for everything. Someone said in here that a certain strength gave you a +1 to hit, a +3 to damage, and a 16% of bending metal bars. That's one stat, yet it produces many different numbers. The D20 stats produce ONE modifier. That's just one example of my problems. Really, I have never played a 2e game. I cannot give a detailed explanation as to why it's better or worse. And I perfectly understand why some people stick to 2e (they know it, they don't know 3e). I don't care, play what you know. But you have to admit that the D20 system is a lot more streamlined. For better or worse, it's simpler.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-09-04, 09:17 PM	Originally posted by Geethree Really, I have never played a 2e game. I cannot give a detailed explanation as to why it's better or worse. And I perfectly understand why some people stick to 2e (they know it, they don't know 3e). I don't care, play what you know. But you have to admit that the D20 system is a lot more streamlined. For better or worse, it's simpler. I am confused as to why you are even commenting on 2e then. The beauty of 2e's system came in the fact that it was highly tweakable. You could change the savings throw system and only affect that. You could change the bonuses for abilities and It did not affect savings throws etc. Even better the books were packed with optional and varient rules to keep the game fresh for years. Wich was one of the points that leads to the misconception that the rules were contradictory. ( the other being differing dice systems for different things) Outside of a flimsy skill system (then called proficencies) 2e was a good system and did allow use between 1e and basic with little to no conversion effort. It could be done on the fly and rarely disrupted a game. Try doing that between 1e/2e and 3e/3.$ 3e's main fault is in it's streamlining. If you think the ability bonuses are too high and change them you end up affecting skill points, saves, skills themselves, initiative, the list goes on. 3e/3.$ was not made with major rules changes in mind. Nor does it do well with them. For all the running down of 2e on this forum as a whole I feel that these misconceptions concerning 2e is a product of Wotc trying to sell 3e ( well they wasn't going to stick with 2e forever. I can't fault them for changing the ed after all 2e was around 12 or so years. 9 or 10 was without any major revision. When the rev. was done it was minor fixes. It was time for a new ed ) and the abomonation called Hackmaster that plays up the supposed clunky, contradictory systems. ( Funny that K&co got a license to do HM as a parody of the prev eds. A parody that to people unfamiliar with 1e or 2e would lead them to think the prev eds were like that) In the end all systems had thier faults. 3e or it's clone even does too.
Geethree 01-09-04, 09:30 PM	I am confused as to why you are even commenting on 2e then. I made an offhand comment based on my limited knowledge of 2e and was called on it. I explained as well as I could. 3e's main fault is in it's streamlining. If you think the ability bonuses are too high and change them you end up affecting skill points, saves, skills themselves, initiative, the list goes on.I think that's a rather extreme example. You could say the same thing about any system, like, "If you change one of the most fundamental parts of the game [in D20, the ability scores] then you alter the rest of the game." In my experience, I've found D20 to be very tweakable. I've never had a problem finding a solution to any of my problems.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-09-04, 09:51 PM	Originally posted by Geethree In my experience, I've found D20 to be very tweakable. I've never had a problem finding a solution to any of my problems. Ok find a copy of the 2e phb. Change all 3e stat bonuses to 2e's bonuses now use them as you would 3e bonuses. ( skills, skill points, attack, damage etc) See how your PC's look then. *just the +numbers not anything else form 2e.
Geethree 01-09-04, 09:55 PM	Ok find a copy of the 2e phb. Change all 3e stat bonuses to 2e's bonuses now use them as you would 3e bonuses. ( skills, skill points, attack, damage etc) See how your PC's look then.I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I don't have a 2e PHB at hand, nor do I have a full knowledge of the system. What will this accomplish?
The_Fan 01-09-04, 11:08 PM	Originally posted by dsain As for Hasbro wanting to turn a buck, isn't that what everyone wants. I'm sure TSR wanted to make a profit also. Yes, they certainly did. They were just bad at it.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-09-04, 11:19 PM	Originally posted by Geethree I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I don't have a 2e PHB at hand, nor do I have a full knowledge of the system. What will this accomplish? It will show exactly what will happen when trying to make a major tweak of the 3e rules. In 2e your stat bonuses were considerably lower than in 3e. So just for example lets trow some numbers out. 3e stats 3e ability bonuses Str 15 +2 Dex 14 +2 Con 15 +2 Int 16 +3 Wis 14 +2 Cha 17 +3 Now the same scores with 2e stat bonues Str 15 +0 Dex 14 +0 Con 15 +1 Int 16 +0* Wis 14 +0* Cha 17 +0* *the bonuses as given in 2e would not pertain to 3e so I treated them as +0 Now your character using 2e would recieve no attack or damage bonus, no AC bonus, only 1 bonus HP, no bonus to skills nor any other bonuses for 'social situations' not to mention the damage done to saves. also for skill points using the formula given lets say 4xint mod+4 would be 4x0+4 wich equals 4 Skill points Even Halving the 3e bonuses would affect the Character as well. Now this is a rather extreme tweak but necessary to illustrate my point. Here's my point 2e's sytem had seperate ways of resolving things making it easier to tweak (say up abil bonuses or a different save system) and not affect the other resolution systems. 3e on the other hand would suffer. Imagine trying to make a Fort save with a +1 bonus. Not to mention if you adjusted the bonuses for pc's you would have to change every monsters stats accordingly. In 2e monsters would not suffer this as the were not given stats like 3e monsters are. (they had no ability scores) Yes you can change weapon damage in 3e with little problems, you can adjust skill points or eliminate cross class skills altogether with little effect. But once you start messing with the core aspects of the game ( the ingrated ability, skill point, save and init systems) you get funny results. That was what my point was about 3e not being tweak friendly. On a side note interesting name Geethree how'd you come up with it. ( matter of interest)
guru7892 01-09-04, 11:34 PM	i think 3.5 edition was a bad idea, its just like the biggest tweaking of the rules ever. i say they should make a editionn and stick with it, then modd it as they see fit, and maybe have updated rule books or something, not a new edition. oh and it should be slow, that way i dont feel like they are screwing with my head! i hate three point five, it has like bad karma, or severly tarnished ki, they should have made the book corespond with feung shui, or atleast the arts or james dean (dude james dean in so cool the wind would get up erly to blow through james deans hair...) tisk tisk tisk maybe they should have the japenese desing the books ( dont they crown the phrase presintation is everything?? not to mention they probably got some ways to boost the karma and untarnish the ki of the stuff) i need a pepsi
ShadowShinobi 01-10-04, 12:12 AM	Garbage. Amen.
guru7892 01-10-04, 12:19 AM	Originally posted by guru7892 i need a pepsi amen! (i'm getting that pepsi now)
q'afuu 01-10-04, 06:37 AM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes If you think the ability bonuses are too high and change them you end up affecting skill points, saves, skills themselves, initiative, the list goes on. I'm somewhat confused about this. Why do you feel the ability bonuses are too high if not for the things they affect? And if that is the reason, why can't you change how they affect those, rather than the ability bonuses themselves? Ability bonuses are abstract numbers. In itself, they are meaningless.
Nytmare 01-10-04, 10:20 AM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Ok find a copy of the 2e phb. Change all 3e stat bonuses to 2e's bonuses now use them as you would 3e bonuses. ( skills, skill points, attack, damage etc) See how your PC's look then. *just the +numbers not anything else form 2e. I'm missing your logic. If instead you arbitrarily decided to take the 2e specialist attacks per round rules, and add 50 to each of them, the reulting chaos should then for some reason make 3.5 a better system why?
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-10-04, 10:48 AM	First of all 3.$ is inferior to 3e. second the Idea was just to illustrate how unreceptive the 3e system is to changing major systems. The Logic is that any system should allow for maximum tweaking by the DM or Players. 3e deos not ao therefor it's own steamlining and innate interdepencdancy between resolution systems are more flawed than anyone wants to admit.
q'afuu 01-10-04, 11:02 AM	Humbug. If the change you want to make is stupid, that's not the system's fault. It's yours. To stick with your stat mod example, the fact that you could change the stat mods with less of an impact in AD&D than in 3E is meaningless. You can very easily change every single aspect of those stat mods separately and achieve whatever effect you want to achieve. As for 3.5 being inferior to 3.0, I'm glad you took the time to argue your opinion so thoroughly.
Nytmare 01-10-04, 12:43 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes First of all 3.$ is inferior to 3e. second the Idea was just to illustrate how unreceptive the 3e system is to changing major systems. The Logic is that any system should allow for maximum tweaking by the DM or Players. 3e deos not ao therefor it's own steamlining and innate interdepencdancy between resolution systems are more flawed than anyone wants to admit. So then both 2nd Ed and the collective 3s are inferior to an empty book? I'm getting the hang of this. Or maybe the book isn't all the way empty, maybe we can just have one rule in there that says: "1. Tweak this rule." I'm liking this. How much do I have to pay you for this RPG system? It rocks the house.
Mr.Waesel 01-10-04, 02:43 PM	is "interdependancy" a word? :confused:
Kem 01-10-04, 03:06 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes First of all 3.$ is inferior to 3e. second the Idea was just to illustrate how unreceptive the 3e system is to changing major systems. But of course. So what is this mystical system 3.$? Or am I suppose to think you as clever as the Micro$oft people? The Logic is that any system should allow for maximum tweaking by the DM or Players. It does. In fact it gives you the means to do so. I think you just don't know HOW the system is designed to be tweaked. I'd recommend Arcana Unearthed for some tweaks. And then Everquest RPG for some more. 3e deos not ao therefor it's own steamlining and innate interdepencdancy between resolution systems are more flawed than anyone wants to admit. What resolution systems? There is only one.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-10-04, 05:13 PM	Originally posted by Nytmare "1. Tweak this rule." I'm liking this. How much do I have to pay you for this RPG system? It rocks the house. Well I'm releaseing the first set of cores this fall at a discount but I may have to revise in 3 years so you get to pay twice.... . I'd recommend Arcana Unearthed for some tweaks. And then Everquest RPG for some more. Funny, I actually use alot of AU. Everquest I looked at but nothing really jumped out at me.
clarkcd 01-10-04, 05:38 PM	Originally posted by Mr.Waesel is "interdependancy" a word? :confused: Yes. >definition< (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=interdependent) The thing about 2E, for me anyway, was that at the time I didn't realize how convoluted it was because I'd always played it. 3E is a much more streamlined and intuitive. 2E oddities: Thac0 wasn't hard to use but it wasn't easy to learn. A +1 to your armor gave you a -1 to your AC, which was a good thing but a +1 to your weapon gave you a +1 to hit and damage, which was a good thing. Spells cast had a different save than spells out of a wand. Multiclassing prevented you from using your old class abilities until your new class level equaled your old class level. Duel classing allowed you to be almost as powerful as 2-3 other characters combined. Every class had a separate XP chart. Fighters had percentile strength but no other class did. 3E smoothness: All bonuses add to whatever you're doing and all penalties subtract. A higher AC is better than a lower AC. A uniform XP chart. Stats were streamlined. Saves were streamlined. Multiclassing was infinitely improved. Duelclassing was effectively eliminated. 3E is far more flexible than 2E and it is more intuitive. For me, 3E and the D20 system is a far superiour system to 2E. That doesn't mean it's superiour for everyone else and their tastes.
thalious 01-10-04, 05:45 PM	Originally posted by Sedriis I refuse to perchase a 3.5 Orientaladventures, manaul of planes, and psionic handbook wasting over 100 dollars on somthing that should have been done in the first place Garbage. I agree. I also won't be buying the 3.$ PHB, DMG, or MM. I vote with my wallet and my post.
Nytmare 01-10-04, 06:34 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Well I'm releaseing the first set of cores this fall at a discount but I may have to revise in 3 years so you get to pay twice.... You are currently my favorite person that I never agree with.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 01-10-04, 07:56 PM	Thanks :rofl:
Drax Alcronis 01-10-04, 08:04 PM	I wish I could get easy marks(customers) like the ones who fell for the bull dung called 3.5. :looloo:
mad mac 01-10-04, 08:08 PM	More generalizations.........cause everyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously an idiot right?:rolleyes: Heck I LIKE 3.5, and I don't buy squat.
Drax Alcronis 01-10-04, 08:10 PM	Originally posted by mad mac cause everyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously an idiot right?:rolleyes: Yup, you got it.
Geethree 01-10-04, 10:08 PM	Well I'm releaseing the first set of cores this fall at a discount but I may have to revise in 3 years so you get to pay twice....Will you offer the changes for free on the internet? That would rock.
WizO_Catoblepas 01-10-04, 11:13 PM	Ok it is time to close this thread, and it isn't due to some hatred of the subject. Though these threads usually stay on topic and discuss the pluses and minuses of the systems (which is well within the rules of the Code of Conduct), they usually degenerate into why one set of posters who like one system is better and smarter than another set of posters who like a different system (which is not within the rules of the Code of Conduct). I hate to say it, but sooner or later, the threads always come to this. Apparently, this thread is no exception.