Post/Author/DateTime	Post
gordjohnson 01-30-07, 11:39 PM	why isnt it as fun as second?
Artector 01-30-07, 11:42 PM	That's a matter of opinion. I have plenty of fun in 3rd edition. Anything specific?
Tempest Stormwind 01-30-07, 11:43 PM	why isnt it as fun as second? The only reason people will generally agree on is "nostalgia".
pukunui 01-30-07, 11:47 PM	I never played 1st edition ... I started on 2nd and I think 3rd is much more fun! There are some things I miss from 2nd edition, but it's mostly the fluff and flavor. I don't miss 2nd edition's mechanics at all.
gordjohnson 01-30-07, 11:59 PM	first of all the spell... the spells that were fun, funny, or just plain weird, the ninth level spells that were worth knowing, and the fact that every spell wasn't for combat secondly the D.M. was omnipotent and infallible third, there was so much more role playing, and thats not just a matter of who the D.M. is fourth, feats. i needn't say more fifth and final there were no books each with more powerful classes than the previous making the game less and less balanced as they came
bestone 01-31-07, 12:02 AM	yaay for twinkers handbook (book of 9 swords)
bestone 01-31-07, 12:05 AM	hehehe, with the new complete scoundrel skirmish feats i can kill all in teh 1 hit just 5 more books and i should have enough power to be inviciballlllll!!
pukunui 01-31-07, 12:27 AM	third, there was so much more role playing, and thats not just a matter of who the D.M. isGood Nostalgia! Cast off thy rose-colored glasses! fourth, feats. i needn't say moreWhat've you got against feats? Skills and feats are better than the inanely named "non-weapon proficiencies". fifth and final there were no books each with more powerful classes than the previous making the game less and less balanced as they cameAlas, poor Nostalgia.
a_psh 01-31-07, 12:33 AM	secondly the D.M. was omnipotent and infallible1. He still pretty much is now. 2. This is a terrible idea to begin with. third, there was so much more role playing, and thats not just a matter of who the D.M. isBy that standard, nearly every game produced in the last 5-10 years is worlds above all versions of D&D. fourth, feats. i needn't say moreYeah. Giving people actual choices rather than just going "pick one of these handful of options" was clearly a terrible design decision. :rolleyes: fifth and final there were no books each with more powerful classes than the previous making the game less and less balanced as they cameYou never read Player's Option, did you? Or all those books with kits in them.
Tempest Stormwind 01-31-07, 12:34 AM	first of all the spell... the spells that were fun, funny, or just plain weird, the ninth level spells that were worth knowing, and the fact that every spell wasn't for combatNot every spell is for combat in 3e as well. The difference is that the spells have streamlined mechanics and don't have as many ways for the DM to go "neener neener you screwed yourself over". (That, I think, was Gary Gygax' mantra.)secondly the D.M. was omnipotent and infallibleStill is. The difference is the players understand the rules as well. What you consider a difference is not a difference in editions, it is a difference in *respect*. And that's not the fault of editions at all -- I've taught many people to play D&D as I learned it myself, with it being a *cooperative* game that works better if everyone treats everyone else like a partner. you're not competing against each other. You're not competing against the Dungeon Master (or your players). You're competing against challenges the DM sets out for your characters, and you have a good time while you do it. third, there was so much more role playing, and thats not just a matter of who the D.M. isBollocks. There's just as much roleplaying in 3e. Edition doesn't change that. Sort of like above.fourth, feats. i needn't say moreYou haven't presented a case. Unless that case is against customization. Which 2e seemed to be, by the way. This fighter from an Aztec culture, that fighter from the high seas, that fighter from the northern Viking cultures, that fighter from the gladiator pits, that fighter from the archetypal dwarf military -- all of them identical except for their weapon choice. I could counter with an honest case in point on this one, since *everyone* agreed they were problematic: Level restrictions. THAT is something I needn't say more on.fifth and final there were no books each with more powerful classes than the previous making the game less and less balanced as they came*snicker* Player's Option. The Will and the Way. The Complete Thief's Handbook (Blade kit there). Pot. Kettle. Black. yaay for twinkers handbook (book of 9 swords)As an experienced optimizer, I can say that the CO boards have been trying to tear that one apart since it came out. The best we've got relies on obscure CustomerService rulings. Mechanically, they work out comparable to existing fighters, with the exception of having options in a fight and as such aren't useless at higher levels. Check your facts before making an assertion. It only *looks* strong to those who don't know what to look for. (I.e. these are people who think Delayed Blast Fireball is better than Polymorph Any Object.)
pukunui 01-31-07, 12:42 AM	Level restrictions. THAT is something I needn't say more onQFT Racial level restrictions was arguably the dumbest rule in 2nd edition. Another thing I don't miss: THAC0
Seerow 01-31-07, 12:44 AM	No, we need level restrictions back. For example, restricting players to 2 levels of fighter would preemptively solve a LOT of problems.
Mister_Sinister 01-31-07, 12:44 AM	/rant Oh, not this inane discussion again. Can't people just agree to disagree? I thought 2nd edition rules were odd and made no sense, as well as having little logical consistency. I don't trumpet that view. Why do you elitists insist on doing so? What did we ever do to you? /rant off But seriously. The biggest offense is taken by claiming that ToB is broken. It is far, far, far from such. You want broken, it's the core wizard, druid or cleric. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is broken, and has been proven broken more times than I care to imagine. Nothing you could pull out of the Tome could even come remotely close. Again, people going 'oh wow, this is new, it must be bad/broken/not as good as in the olden days'. Seriously. Enough's enough.
OneWinged4ngel 01-31-07, 12:47 AM	fifth and final there were no books each with more powerful classes than the previous making the game less and less balanced as they came Funny, because 3 of the 4 classes generally recognized as the most powerful all are from the PHB. Also many of the most powerful spells. QFL.
bestone 01-31-07, 12:47 AM	Which 2e seemed to be, by the way. This fighter from an Aztec culture, that fighter from the high seas, that fighter from the northern Viking cultures, that fighter from the gladiator pits, that fighter from the archetypal dwarf military -- all of them identical except for their weapon choice. I disagree, it depended on how you roleplayed, and how you acted, really, when it comes right down to it, what seperates one fighter from the other? weaponry and equipment is a big one. But it also depended on how you played the thing, you could trip and disarm in second edition, you just didnt need feats to make it viable, you could try anything you wanted in combat *ex -called shots * So sure the basic build of a fighter was essentially the same, but you were also encouraged *and im not saying this isnt the case in third* to do a plethora of different things. If you were a straight up fighter you could be, if you were a finesse fighter and liked to trip and disarm, you could be, again, it was how you played it. In 3rd its, "if you dont have a feat you cant do it" (again not an entirely correct statement, but a sum of the feel) you could of course sunder and punch without the improved feats, your just not as good imho i dont think either system is superior, both are fun to play, i feel third is *slightly* more restricting and dumbs it down, you dont have to think of what you want to do, you just pick what you want to do from a list. And that list has grown pretty large and all encompassing. Depends on the players too tho, but all im saying is i think (and this is just my opinon, your entitled to your own) that third edition disencourages combat roleplay, combat is more mechanical and picked from lists of options....but it is streamlined , faster.... .and in some cases more fun no need to knock either edition
Deekin 01-31-07, 01:31 AM	http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w247/kolboldbard/11514628073367xe.jpg
Ramses III 01-31-07, 01:43 AM	3rd edition and 3.5 are miles better as game systems than 2nd. I and most of my friends had quit playing D&D for years before 3rd came out; there were just much better games out there to play. Games with sensible skill systems, character options that let you play something other than a cookie-cutter duplicate from the book, and mechanics that didn't require a calculator every time you rolled to hit. 3rd edition fixed so many things. Scalable skills and a core mechanic that makes sense are the biggest, but feats, viable multiclassing, prestige classes and all the little things also went far to making a D&D that was eminently more fun and more playable. I actually enjoy the game again.
bestone 01-31-07, 02:03 AM	An argument of opinion is really pointless :P
Tyler Do'Urden 01-31-07, 03:04 AM	why isnt it as fun as second?That's your imagination.
JoAT 01-31-07, 03:34 AM	After: yaay for twinkers handbook (book of 9 swords) And: hehehe, with the new complete scoundrel skirmish feats i can kill all in teh 1 hit just 5 more books and i should have enough power to be inviciballlllll!! The only statement I can really agree with is: An argument of opinion is really pointless :P Of course, I fondly remember playing a planar half-orc fighter with the Berserker Kit, a bunch of rolls from the tables in the Complete book of Humanoids, using Skills and Powers; his Con score was high enough that he naturally regenerated, and he had 3 separate berserking abilities, one of which healed me as I killed things, and never ended, all at first level... Of course, 2e never had as much twinkery as 3e does, according to some people :rolleyes: I disagree, it depended on how you roleplayed, and how you acted, really, when it comes right down to it, what seperates one fighter from the other? weaponry and equipment is a big one. But it also depended on how you played the thing, you could trip and disarm in second edition, you just didnt need feats to make it viable, you could try anything you wanted in combat *ex -called shots * And if you wanted to hit things with your fist, or grapple someone, you rolled on a table to find out what kind of maneuver you could make, at least until Combat and Tactics came along. no need to knock either edition An important statement - I'd advise going with it.
ae020704 01-31-07, 07:19 AM	Nostalgia! QFT. Seriously. Now, can some friendly mod come and lock this thread, please. It's pointless.
Gecon 01-31-07, 08:35 AM	Eh... 2nd ed more fun than 3rd ? Sorry, but I dun think so at all. I just recently started Icewind Dale 1 because I never played that one before and man, it really sucks to have ADnD back. So many stupid limitations, so little possibilities to customize your character, and don't make me start about these "graphics". So I actually wonder more how 4th edition will be. In the thread I've started there where a couple constructive answers and then the most childish flamewar I've seen in a long time... if not ever. Then BANG a moderator killed the thread. R.I.P. ...
christOrisen 01-31-07, 09:26 AM	This is really just a matter of opinion. I think the OP is entitled to his opinions on the matter. I kind of agree with him. But that is just my opinion. It is only a game, not really worth fighting over.
Seeker95 01-31-07, 09:57 AM	why isnt it as fun as second?People who aren't having as much fun with 3e as they had with 2e have simply aged into less-fun people. :P
Millennium 01-31-07, 10:17 AM	first of all the spell... the spells that were fun, funny, or just plain weird, the ninth level spells that were worth knowing, and the fact that every spell wasn't for combat Plenty of those spells are still there, and not every spell is there for combat. secondly the D.M. was omnipotent and infallible The DM is still omnipotent and infallible, as far as I'm aware. When did this change? third, there was so much more role playing, and thats not just a matter of who the D.M. is While I agree that there have been a few moves that outright discourage roleplay -the huge influx of gratuitous core classes and PrCs being chief among them- there are easy ways around that. fourth, feats. i needn't say more Actually, yes, you do need to say more. What's wrong with feats? fifth and final there were no books each with more powerful classes than the previous making the game less and less balanced as they came We actually agree on this as a serious problem, but it's easy enough to fix: go Core-only, possibly with a few campaign setting books and the books that outline alternate systems if you use them.
christOrisen 01-31-07, 10:18 AM	People who aren't having as much fun with 3e as they had with 2e have simply aged into less-fun people. :P I dont think that is true at all. i think the flavor of 3e is very different than the flavor of 2e. For some people this is an improvement. For others it is a bad thing. People who do not like mechanics as much probably gravitate toward 2e. People who like mechanics seem to like 3e. 2e was very convoluted but allowed for wider interpretation of rules. 3e is streamlined, but a little more complicated and rules are much more important. I think 3e is a much tighter system, but that does not mean it must be more fun for everybody. There are different styles of play out there. Not everyone loves d20, that does not mean they have grown into less fun people, it just means they enjoy a different style game. Personally I prefer the white wolf system (but I dont like the white wolf settings very much). Its just preference. Nothing more.
Gecon 01-31-07, 10:25 AM	Duh, DnD3 is actually a LOT streamlined, and IMHO much more elegant, than ADnD. And its rules are everything, but not MORE complicated than ADnD with its many many tables and weird special rules and limitations.
christOrisen 01-31-07, 10:29 AM	Duh, DnD3 is actually a LOT streamlined, and IMHO much more elegant, than ADnD. And its rules are everything, but not MORE complicated than ADnD with its many many tables and weird special rules and limitations. I disagree. The tables were easy enough to look up in 2e. The rules are so interconnected in 3e that rules mastery is much more vital. This makes the game more complicated. Maybe your experience is different form mine, but I find myself reaching for the PHB alot more in 3e than in 2e.
Tempest Stormwind 01-31-07, 10:38 AM	I disagree. The tables were easy enough to look up in 2e. The rules are so interconnected in 3e that rules mastery is much more vital. This makes the game more complicated. Maybe your experience is different form mine, but I find myself reaching for the PHB alot more in 3e than in 2e. I just noticed that everything was a pattern and used some math along with the DM's Best Friend (+2/-2). Meanwhile, if I wanted to make consistent rulings in 2e, I had to look through three separate tables in two separate chapters and then explain to the players why it made sense that the character *they* wanted to play couldn't work the way *they* wanted it to in the game. General rule of thumb: If it says "Cross-reference" in the rule, it's going to eat up too much time or require too much memorization. Those of us in 3e have only seen this once (3e psionic combat, quite possibly the worst mechanical scum to ever be published by Wizards). In 2e, it was the staple of the day -- meaning that to keep the game rolling you either had to memorize all of those tables (which often weren't easily expressed mathematically) or make **** up on the fly. More often the latter than the former, actually. Some people prefer that, though. I know one guy who plays 2e exclusively around here simply because he's a staunch conservative in *everything* and refuses to try new things. However, he's comfortable with the 2e ruleset (his version of it, actually, since it's been extensively rewritten and actually resembles 3e in many areas now), so that's what he runs.
Millennium 01-31-07, 10:59 AM	I disagree. The tables were easy enough to look up in 2e. They were easy enough to look up, perhaps, but in 3e the few tables that exist are almost unnecessary. They make excellent mnemonic aids, but the content almost always follow simple mathematical patterns: understand these, and you no longer need the tables. The rules are so interconnected in 3e that rules mastery is much more vital. It's more important, perhaps, but it involves less rote memorization and more pattern recognition. Ultimately you're left with less to memorize, and mastery of the rules is easier overall. When everyone has mastered the rules, things very suddenly get a lot faster. This makes the game more complicated. From one perspective, perhaps. On the other hand, you spend far less time looking things up in books and more time actually getting stuff done. I tend to consider this a significant advantage of 3e.
christOrisen 01-31-07, 10:59 AM	I just noticed that everything was a pattern and used some math along with the DM's Best Friend (+2/-2). Meanwhile, if I wanted to make consistent rulings in 2e, I had to look through three separate tables in two separate chapters and then explain to the players why it made sense that the character *they* wanted to play couldn't work the way *they* wanted it to in the game. General rule of thumb: If it says "Cross-reference" in the rule, it's going to eat up too much time or require too much memorization. Those of us in 3e have only seen this once (3e psionic combat, quite possibly the worst mechanical scum to ever be published by Wizards). In 2e, it was the staple of the day -- meaning that to keep the game rolling you either had to memorize all of those tables (which often weren't easily expressed mathematically) or make **** up on the fly. More often the latter than the former, actually. Some people prefer that, though. I know one guy who plays 2e exclusively around here simply because he's a staunch conservative in *everything* and refuses to try new things. However, he's comfortable with the 2e ruleset (his version of it, actually, since it's been extensively rewritten and actually resembles 3e in many areas now), so that's what he runs. I found that the tables were not much of a problem because they were right on the DM screen. I guess why I liked 2e was that it was not so focused on being consistent. I also prefered having fewer choices because the end result (in my opinion) was a less corny array of characters. I honestly find that combat takes longer in 3e. Part of it is that there is a rule for just about everything. Nothing is done on the fly. I understand alot of people like this because it makes the world more consistent. Again, it is really just a matter of preference, no one is right or wrong in this discussion. I am just trying to point out that the OP is entitled to his view, and that he should feel comfortable playing a system that makes him happy. I do see the value in 3e, but it is just not my cup of tea (like I said I much prefer the white wolf system). As a DM I have found 3e much more difficult to run because it requires so much more rules mastery than 2e (because every situation seems to have a rule). I will grant that in 2e THAC0 could be a pain (as could some of the other charts) but if they were on the DM screen I did not find them time consuming. I find that 3e with its different actions in combat, its stacking rules, its large number of feats and prestige classes, and skill rules that cover just about any circumstance; is much more difficult to learn and run. I am sure many of you out there have had a different experience with this. I personally find it a very cumbersome system. Again, I can see how others would not view it that way.
christOrisen 01-31-07, 11:02 AM	They were easy enough to look up, perhaps, but in 3e the few tables that exist are almost unnecessary. They make excellent mnemonic aids, but the content almoat always follow a relatively simple mathematical pattern: understand these, and you no longer need the tables at all. It's more important, perhaps, but it involves less rote memorization and more pattern recognition. Ultimately you're left with less to memorize, and mastery of the rules is easier overall. From one perspective, perhaps. On the other hand, you spend far less time looking things up in books and more time actually getting stuff done. I tend to consider this a significant advantage of 3e. I find that I spend alot more time looking stuff up. Most of the pattern issues have to do with character creation and advancement. But the bulk of the rules require memorization or referencing. I also find that, in addition to looking more up, the game is slower because there is very little room for ad hoc calls.
Coven 01-31-07, 11:59 AM	As a person who started on 2nd... 3rd is more fun!
Salla 01-31-07, 12:47 PM	why isnt it as fun as second? That's entirely subjective. I think it's an improvement over 2nd edition (and 1st, and original, and basic) in every way, including fun.
Olskool 01-31-07, 02:47 PM	I think 2e has a couple advantages over 3e and vice versa. The biggest advantage 2E has over 3E is that with slower lvl progression it supported long term play better than 3E's alternative. But that can be easily fixed with some simple houseruling. The wealth of options that 3E offers can be a little ovrwhelming. But just remember that options are optional, and as DM, you can limit them yourself to prevent them from detracting from the quality of your game. I've had a lot of fun playing both editions. I don't see a reason to bash either system.It's possible to discuss the merits of each without it turning into an ugly argument.
Grand Theft Otto 01-31-07, 02:52 PM	why isnt it as fun as second? Reading a 1st edition book is a lot like going through your junior high school yearbook and looking up the "pretty girls" from 6th grade, and seeing the gawky, pimply, goofy looking things for what they are. If you're still attracted to either one of them, something is wrong with you.
Olskool 01-31-07, 02:56 PM	Reading a 1st edition book is a lot like going through your junior high school yearbook and looking up the "pretty girls" from 6th grade, and seeing the gawky, pimply, goofy looking things for what they are. If you're still attracted to either one of them, something is wrong with you. Or we can just compare people who like older editions to pedophiles. That's another option to having a civil discussion about it.
Grand Theft Otto 01-31-07, 03:17 PM	Or we can just compare people who like older editions to pedophiles. That's another option to having a civil discussion about it. The OP was a troll, I fed it apporpriately. If you want to fondly remember crappy rules, the whining grognard circle jerk is this way... http://www.dragonsfoot.org
Olskool 01-31-07, 03:24 PM	The OP was a troll, I fed it apporpriately. If you want to fondly remember crappy rules, the whining grognard circle jerk is this way... http://www.dragonsfoot.org So according to you People who prefer older editions are whiny grognards, who gather for the express purpose of manually satisfying one another. And the OP is the one who's a troll? OK. I guess that makes sense.
Sleepwalker13666 01-31-07, 03:44 PM	Me and some of my friends decided to pick up a few secound edition books from half price, and give 2nd a go for a change of pace and for old times sake. What a nightmare that turned out to be. I really wonder how I understood that bizarre backwards math and still got through algebra. My first idea was an Elven Ranger, oh yeah racial restrictions (can somebody please explain why elves where restricted from ranger?) so I played an Elven Fighter, I then began looking for some way to gain an unarmored AC bonus, but no kit was available to me. I pictured this character wearing something like a harem dancers skirt and being fairly mobile in combat (if it was 3rd I would be working my way towards dervish). But in 2nd it just was'nt going to happen. We gave it one game and decided 3rd was the way to go, simpler system, better options. The roleplaying you bring to the table, not the game, so that has never been an issue for my group.
Grand Theft Otto 01-31-07, 05:17 PM	So according to you People who prefer older editions are whiny grognards, who gather for the express purpose of manually satisfying one another. And the OP is the one who's a troll? OK. I guess that makes sense. Basically yes. Oh no, RP is SOOOO down in 3rd edition, from the "glory days" of everyone being Elfy ElfElf, Gandalf #48, Dwarf MacDwarf (see, hes got a SCOTTISH accent!) and the other crappy LOTR carbon copies that infested 80's roleplaying. I'm seeing a ton more inventive character types than I saw in the 80's. At first its because I assumed its because older gamers matured, but no, its really not. Any time I get dragged to a con, the crusty old geek crowd never fails to disappoint by trotting out the same stereotypes while the younger crowd tries something new. I know the small gaming circle I've kept in touch with cant be the only ones who played older editions who wanted to branch out, but it sure as hell feels that way. Oh no! Feats allow people to have different characters! Whaaa! I liked it when everyone was the same! When every fighter used a longsword and shield, or two handed sword vs large creatures because everything else was mechanically inferior. Oh no! Non-casters can contribute to the game at upper levels! Gygax didnt intend for this! Jocks beat me up in high school, my wizard should be better than any physical combatant. The old system sucked. Post your preference for something that sucks, and I'll mock you for it. No, I dont feel the need to couch every statement I make in terms of some wussy "IMHO", because I dont want to give the slightest impression I think your way of playing and mine are the least bit equal. If you want a bunch of whining fatbeards to agree with you, I pointed out the site where you can find plenty. Doubtless you can spend many hours moaning about the state of gaming today with them. Doing so on a 3rd edition site makes you an idiot, a troll, or likely both.
bestone 01-31-07, 08:42 PM	Basically yes. The old system sucked. Post your preference for something that sucks, and I'll mock you for it. No, I dont feel the need to couch every statement I make in terms of some wussy "IMHO", because I dont want to give the slightest impression I think your way of playing and mine are the least bit equal. If you want a bunch of whining fatbeards to agree with you, I pointed out the site where you can find plenty. Doubtless you can spend many hours moaning about the state of gaming today with them. Doing so on a 3rd edition site makes you an idiot, a troll, or likely both. People are entitled to any opinion they want, and if they think second edition is better, well then thats thier opinion. Who do you think you are saying you can mock them just because you dont agree? Calling someone an idiot and a troll, is very low, and no way to argue or show a point, it just shows how immature you are, and unable to accept that someone doesnt like what you like, as much as they like what they like.