Post/Author/DateTime	Post
samusco 02-20-07, 12:29 AM	We've all herd that Wizards just dumbed down D&D a little so more people would get into it. The 2.0 version is much better. One thing that pisses me of is the spell system, in 2.0 there was a mana system right? Well with the new 3.5 theres a number of spells you can do a day for different lv spells. Its a bit stupid in my opinion. Theres lots of things 3.5 dumbed down from the classic 2.0. And I'm wondering if any of you feel the same way, or still play the old 2.0 version. I'm going to get back into that, because I remember it being much more fun, (even though it was a little more complicated) *EDIT* Yeah ok mana was a old house rule. Sorry bout that. Ignore that part
Almast 02-20-07, 01:06 AM	I'll be the first to say... Mana? I don't recall that from 2.0.
HomebrewedMonster 02-20-07, 01:07 AM	My opinion of your post has formed into three parts. 1. You never played 2nd edition because you believe there was a "mana" system. 2. Complicated is not better. 3. Troll.
Iddig Ap Nil 02-20-07, 01:11 AM	Definately no Mana in the books...Perhaps it was something that your DM used as a house rule? Or, perhaps something from the Skills and Powers books? Definately nothing resembling Mana in my mass of tomes for 2.0 though...
bestone 02-20-07, 01:17 AM	3. Troll. I think thats just an insulting thing to say, i dont care what its meaning is If he doesnt like 3rd, fine, he's stating why tho, the spell system, he wants a mana based spell system. instead of being a jerk why not just direct him towards the unearthed arcana's mana type system, as that seems to be his major problem with things. So to samusco. There are many optional rules in the book unearthed arcana. Including a system like mana (they call it spell points) for spellcasting. I suggest you try it out, and see if that will suit more of what you were looking for.
Almast 02-20-07, 01:22 AM	I think thats just an insulting thing to say, i dont care what its meaning is You should care what the meaning is. It's very, very important. It means someone is posting not for feed back, but rather to cause problems; they are interested in starting a flame war, a spam fest, or something, not on giving info and being part of a community. He's also not saying he really wants a mana system, so much as declaring that 2nd Edition had a mana system, which it doesn't have core.
bestone 02-20-07, 01:25 AM	You should care what the meaning is. It's very, very important. It means someone is posting not for feed back, but rather to cause problems; they are interested in starting a flame war, a spam fest, or something, not on giving info and being part of a community. He's also not saying he really wants a mana system, so much as declaring that 2nd Edition had a mana system, which it doesn't have core. So correct him, and point him in the direction of what he wants, dont just insult him, Cripes. Have some courtesy, be nice
Kojiro James 02-20-07, 01:27 AM	One thing that pisses me of is the spell system, in 2.0 there was a mana system right? :uh-huh: Uhhhh..... no........... :looloo:
Almast 02-20-07, 01:27 AM	That's just it; the indication of Troll isn't an indication that he's just on the wrong path. It's an indication that he isn't interested in a right path, only in dragging up a thread that has no point. It's also not an insult, really; it's a state of being, one which can easily be refuted if he is hurt by the indication (posting again and showing his understanding of what's going on).
bestone 02-20-07, 01:29 AM	That's just it; the indication of Troll isn't an indication that he's just on the wrong path. It's an indication that he isn't interested in a right path, only in dragging up a thread that has no point. It's also not an insult, really; it's a state of being, one which can easily be refuted if he is hurt by the indication (posting again and showing his understanding of what's going on). By calling someone a troll, or telling them they are trolling, your trolling yourself, its only looking for trouble. Take the upper hand man, be courteous and respectfull... just because someone makes a comment people dont like does not mean you have to flame them? what kind of logic is that...... ignore them if they are ignorant, and correct them if they are wrong But you should at least have some respect
Almast 02-20-07, 01:32 AM	First off, don't lecture me on being courteous; all I said was "There wasn't a mana system in 2nd." However, when someone says something like "Regardless of the meaning behind something, it is insulting," I do feel like chiming in and saying, "Meaning is important." I corrected what he was wrong about, and I felt like attempting to provide knowledge against the ignorance you had against the term. I've not flamed anyone, or anything. I have simply provided information about a term being used, and the ramifications of using it. If you would like to talk about the term, then yeah, I'll continue, but don't act as if I was the one to call him that, and that I am flaming anyone. I suppose if you feel I'm being overly aggressive my posts to you, you can accuse me of flaming, but I feel secure enough in the politeness of my posts that such an accusation wouldn't bother me all that much.
samusco 02-20-07, 01:34 AM	lol don't worry about him, I find that kinna stuff funny (I go on ytmnd after all). Anyway I believe that was a house rule... the mana system that is. But I remember they cut a lot of other things out... anyway lets change the subject. Which do you like better? I think old school D&D players like 2.0 while people new to the game like 3.5. But trust me, I'm not a expert when it comes to D&D. I played 2.0 when I was 5... maybe 6. So forgive me If I screw up a few things. I'm still new to D&D if I think about it... but anyway, the point, what do you like better?
bestone 02-20-07, 01:37 AM	First off, don't lecture me on being courteous; all I said was "There wasn't a mana system in 2nd." However, when someone says something like "Regardless of the meaning behind something, it is insulting," I do feel like chiming in and saying, "Meaning is important." I corrected what he was wrong about, and I felt like attempting to provide knowledge against the ignorance you had against the term. I've not flamed anyone, or anything. I have simply provided information about a term being used, and the ramifications of using it. If you would like to talk about the term, then yeah, I'll continue, but don't act as if I was the one to call him that, and that I am flaming anyone. I suppose if you feel I'm being overly aggressive my posts to you, you can accuse me of flaming, but I feel secure enough in the politeness of my posts that such an accusation wouldn't bother me all that much. I never said you were/were not courteous, i simply said calling someone a troll, and accusing them of trolling is imho bad form. Instead why not just correct him, and point him in helpfull directions?. Already the claim of trolling (and yes this is in part due to me, i take some blame) has hijacked this thread, and turned it into an argument. My origional comment wasnt directed at you, and my comments about courtesy werent directed at you either.
Almast 02-20-07, 01:38 AM	3.5. I like internally consistent rules (the basic conflict resolution of 1d20+Values vs the DC) partially because they're easy to remember off the top of my head, but also because it's much easier to teach new people. While THACO was not a massively difficult system, it was a bit bass ackwards to a new person. Being able to sit down a new player and explain it as "Roll this, add this," in almost every situation made it a lot easier to DM the waves of new players I tend to have. Furthermore, inter-class balance is important to me. While we're still a long way from it, I think that 2nd edition prevented any attempt at it by having different levels have different EXP tables. Furthermore, the racial issues (what with limited class levels, overpowered abilities compared to humans, and drastically different multi classing rules dependent on what race you were) made it a headache. In general, 3.5 is more streamlined, easier to teach, and easier to DM for, because it more readily defines the rules of the game that the players can use.
Almast 02-20-07, 01:39 AM	I never said you were/were not courteous, i simply said calling someone a troll, and accusing them of trolling is imho bad form. Instead why not just correct him, and point him in helpfull directions?. Already the claim of trolling (and yes this is in part due to me, i take some blame) has hijacked this thread, and turned it into an argument. My origional comment wasnt directed at you, and my comments about courtesy werent directed at you either. But you quote me and then say I should do X and Y; I'm not saying I hold it against you, but it seemed like you were accusing me. I'm glad that's not the case, and I do agree that over all insulting people isn't the way to go. I do feel, though, that in some situations it's needed to call troll and have people wipe their hands of things.
bestone 02-20-07, 01:40 AM	lol don't worry about him, I find that kinna stuff funny (I go on ytmnd after all). Anyway I believe that was a house rule... the mana system that is. But I remember they cut a lot of other things out... anyway lets change the subject. Which do you like better? I think old school D&D players like 2.0 while people new to the game like 3.5. But trust me, I'm not a expert when it comes to D&D. I played 2.0 when I was 5... maybe 6. So forgive me If I screw up a few things. I'm still new to D&D if I think about it... but anyway, the point, what do you like better? I prefer lots of things to second, and lots of things to third, i love them both, and still play them both. Second has lots of nostalgia for me, like its obviously got for you. And i did find *contrary to popular belief* second to be faster *expecially at higher level combats* but this being only once you memorized the overly confusing thaco system. Third imho is way more fun as a player, Way more options, you can be what you want, its just way more open, and in a lot of way makes more sense. Theres a lot to read but once you got it down and play it a few times its good fun. I was skeptical to try, but after only a few gaming sessions it became my preffered method of play. And like i was trying to say, there are so many optional rules, in the multitude of books, that you can almost get anything you want out of it. Like i said earlier, try the unearthed arcana, nice options book, has variants on spellcasting, it just changes the game lots, it makes it like several different games.
bestone 02-20-07, 01:41 AM	But you quote me and then say I should do X and Y; I'm not saying I hold it against you, but it seemed like you were accusing me. I'm glad that's not the case, and I do agree that over all insulting people isn't the way to go. I do feel, though, that in some situations it's needed to call troll and have people wipe their hands of things. Yes and i understand, i just dont like it, it always turns things south imho.
Return of the Flumph 02-20-07, 01:41 AM	I started out on 2nd edition, and I saw 3.0 as a vast improvement. 3.5 seemed a bit unneccesary to me, but the new core manuals were written much better and contained more options for building on the game, so I suppose it was worth it. 2nd edition was fun and all, but it was also inane. There were no standardized rules for anything, your ability scores almost never affected game play, everything had random level caps that ruined the versimilitude of the world, and the rules were arbitrary, needlessly complicated, and usually limited to a single circumstance. It was still an excellent game, but the newer edition was a needed improvement. And yes, the mana system must have been houseruled, and can therefore exist in 3E just as easily as it did in 2E.
CharlieRock 02-20-07, 04:07 AM	Furthermore, inter-class balance is important to me. While we're still a long way from it, I think that 2nd edition prevented any attempt at it by having different levels have different EXP tables. Well, the classes that had the fastest rate of advancement were the weaker classes. It was that edition's balance. Thieves in particular needed all the help they could get (d4 HP and 10% chance of detect/disarm traps that do at least 1d4 damage?! yeah, "thieves in front looking for traps" my hieneken :noway: )
ORC_Paradox 02-20-07, 04:18 AM	No need for a flame war.