Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nemobuscaptain 07-27-05, 12:30 PM	I've been away from D&D for 20 years. Just bought a box set of the basic game to introduce it to my daughters, who have taken an interest in Tolkien. Seemed like it would be fun to let them be hobbits, elves, and dwarves for a time. I was really underwhelmed with the basic D&D box set. I recall the old basic D&D to be somewhat complete, with set of rules on character development, basic combat, and a small monster manual. This is not useful beyond playing the short scenario included with the box set. It has basically just enough rules to take the pre-baked characters and encounter the 6 or 7 monsters in the basic scenario. I feel shortchanged. There isn't even an explanation of how to determine armor class in the rules! I had to find and search the webpage to find it. Did they pay anyone to edit this thing? Frankly, purchasing a full set if those books doesn't seem interesting. What are there, a dozen now? Even the three are around $100. There are no 30th level half-orc, half-dragon, half-minotaur/half-dopelganger, half-gelatinous cube fighter/bard/monk/ranger/barbarian/demigod with catastrophic psionic powers who travels through variouis elemental planes in my future. I'd just like to play some simple role-playing with a heavy Tolkien influence. Perhaps I should have purchased the LOTR rpg. Am I wasting my time with D&D?
Bruunwald 07-27-05, 12:54 PM	You should be able to get the three core books (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual) for much less than $100 if you go online somewhere like Amazon. That's where I usually get mine, taking advantage of the deals where they bust the price by bundling them together, and ship for free for orders over $25. If all you intend to do is run your kids through Tolkien-inspired stuff, you don't need any of the supplemental books. Those are for more hardcore players. I haven't been able to look through the basic set, so I'm afraid I can't comment on that. If I recall the old basic sets correctly, they weren't a huge help to people new to 1st or 2nd ed, either. I remember the culture shock of my first Advanced games. I was totally lost. I've breezed through the most recent LoTR RPG, and it's actually alot different from what it used to be. More like d20 now. I was interested, but the thing is that whereas you can make a Tolkien world with your D&D rules, it's much harder to branch out and play something different if your source books are all LoTR.
Zyphus 07-27-05, 01:11 PM	Did your daughters have fun? D&D has steadily been moving away from Tolkien, so if that flavor is the only one that satisfies, then yes, you probably should get LOTR. I don't know how good it is. But if you want to vary things more, account for fairy tales, fantasy movies, or even cartoons, D&D can work pretty well. You don't have to buy any books, there is the System Resource Document (SRD) online with all the rules you need. My favorite version is at http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm. If people play spellcasters you WILL need a Player's Handbook at some point. I ran my campaign for years with just that and my old 1st edition stuff (I didn't learn about the SRD until more recently). I recommend version 3.5. But simple role-playing doesn't really require anything other than an imagination.
demonpunk 07-27-05, 01:11 PM	Well, I'm a lot younger, but I still remember getting a D&D boxed set around 1990 that had enough rules to get to level five, basic combat and equipment, spells, and plenty of monsters, all in one book. It even had a short (2-page!) chapter on creating dungeons. AND it had some monsters I haven't seen in years (wood and brass golems, Thules--hobgoblin/troll/ghouls)! I haven't seen the 3E boxed set, but it sounds pretty lame. I would recommend finding the three core books online. I think some places have some for as little as $20 each. Heck, just get the PHB and do some research on the website to get some treasure and monster ideas. Hope you and your family have fun!
weasel fierce 07-27-05, 01:31 PM	If you are after a LOTR style of game, D&D may not be your cup of tea. Check amazon or ebay, there are tons of good stuff out there, for any game or edition
nemobuscaptain 07-27-05, 01:48 PM	>Did your daughters have fun? One yes... one not at all. Of course, the one who was interested in the game was immediately killed by a spear wielding trog in the first room. The other didn't want to play anyway, so we ended it there. Of course, they attacked with halfling rogue and an elf wizard, leaving a armored human and dwarf fighters in behind. I wish to allow them to use their imagination AND develop strategic thinking with this. I just don't want to spend the whole damn night trying to figure out armor class. >D&D has steadily been moving away from Tolkien, so if that flavor is the only one that satisfies, I have no interest in naked barbarian women or psionics or multiplanes or any of that. >Well, I'm a lot younger, but I still remember getting a D&D boxed set around 1990 that had enough rules to get to level five, basic combat and equipment, spells, and plenty of monsters, all in one book. It even had a short (2-page!) chapter on creating dungeons. AND it had some monsters I haven't seen in years (wood and brass golems, Thules--hobgoblin/troll/ghouls)! That was my memory too. It had basic equipment lists and weapons list, useable lists that you could modify a bit. I definitely remember quite a few monsters. This thing is little more than a module, not even allowing for design of other scenarios other than re-arranging the dungeon that is included in the box. Trogs, orcs, and skeletons only, please. >I haven't seen the 3E boxed set, but it sounds pretty lame. I would recommend finding the three core books online. I think some places have some for as little as $20 each. Heck, just get the PHB and do some research on the website to get some treasure and monster ideas. It's not just the money. I'm a professional with a nice compensation package. It's not like I cannot afford it. Part of it is that I don't want to spend the next two or three years memorizing all those rules in the new core books. Heck, I may look for an old basic set or perhaps a core set before version 3.0.
darkness ninja of light 07-27-05, 02:19 PM	The basic set is more for use with a brand new DM (no dungeon making experience) AND new players (no character making experience). The three core rulebooks aren't hard to learn at ALL. It doesn't require memorization (and you are not expected to flip through the book with every rules question). Perhaps you could find some a group of people to play with for a little while to help you get up to date with the rules? Also, there is the SRD on the Wizard's site that gives the basic information of the game. There is no character creation stuff though. You'll need the books for that. As far as armor class goes, the third edition (and 3.5) character sheet spells it out for you and your players. Mainly it's just 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + dexterity modifier + size bonus (smaller creatures get a size bonus). A couple of other factors are on the sheet as well but are usually blank at low level. Making a character will help you learn a suprisingly large amount of the rules. As far as Tolkien goes, you're the DM. What is stopping you from making a Tolkien-esque fantasy game? No one is forcing you to buy the supplements. Those are simply for people who would like to add that stuff into their games/characters (with DM's permission). I know the "Races of" series really helped me a lot to go more in depth with my character's cultures as a player. In any case, the supplements don't have much to do with adding in naked barbarian women and super multiverse psionics. I'm not sure where you got that from...
rogueattorney 07-27-05, 02:21 PM	The old versions of the game are still available and available cheaply. If that's what you want to play, that's what you should play. That's what I still play, and I have a ball doing it. Two versions of the old Basic set rules are available for download for less than $5 here: (1977) http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1203& (1983) http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1196& Hard copies are generally available from ebay for less than $10. www.dragonsfoot.org is a site dedicated to supporting OOP versions of D&D. Check it out for resources and forums. R.A.
VanDeBeast 07-27-05, 02:58 PM	I'd kinda wondered what someone new to the current game would think of the new basic set. I've read through it, but I know the rules too well to guess how it would teach them. That said I thought it looked like a good starting point to learn the rules, and the handfull of miniatures seemed neat. Still, I wished it was a little more complete, but then I could say much the same of the old basic set which only covered levels 1-3, or the old basic game which assumed characters were human with a class, or halflings, dwarves or elves, with thier race being thier class. As to the full rules, the three core books gets you pretty much everything you need to play a Tolkienesque game. Just ignore a couple of races, some wierd monsters, a few spells, and a class or two and you'll be fine. Really the rules aren't hard once you get used to them. As to psionics, they aren't introduced in the core books, so you shouldn't have any issues. The LotR game, while a very pretty book, is organized so poorly you could read through all of the key parts in the PHB, DMG and MM in the time it would take you to got through the LotR book once. And I say this as someont who enjoys playing in an LotR game, just the core rulebook is that poorly edited, and heavily erratad, if you poke around online.
Verelor 07-27-05, 03:44 PM	I'm quite hardcore about D&D, so please bear with the complexity of my answer, or lack thereof. Just buy the three core rulebooks (very VERY cheap for what you get, for sure). Just $60 altogether on amazon not counting shipping (Just order them all in one go!) I'll agree, the basic game is one of the many D&D accessories I own. For learning the rules, it is a poorley organized mess. The rules are far too simple yet that is not compensated for with an ability to freely roleplay. The fact that the basic set comes with 16 fully-painted miniatures, a full set of dice, and some nifty map tiles basically makes the entire set pay for itself, so don't feel cheated in the least. It just means the only other things you'll have to purchase now are the core sourcebooks and preferably a little graph paper to map your exploration areas. The Dungeon Master's Guide even comes with a battle grid (a large mat to represent cahracter positions in combats), no need to purchase that either. Then after you're done reading each book once through cover to cover (as hard as it is to believe, doing so is as enjoyable as reading a novel and when you finish your knowledge of the game will be vast), just omit every race/spell/magic item/etc. until you have your own loveable tolkeinesque world that is low on magical arcana combat technicality and glowing half-dragonoid races and higher on imaginative exploration and roleplaying.
skathros 07-27-05, 04:51 PM	Do yourself a favor a get Castles & Crusades from Troll Lord Games. All the goodness you remember from the old days of D&D for under 20$. If you still have any of your OD&D/BD&D/AD&D stuff, you can use them with C&C. The Troll Lord Games site gives you 2 free adventures to d/l and a collection of critters you can also d/l (if you don't want to buy Monsters & Tresures). Easy enough for kids to lern, complete enough for years (and years) of play without anything other than the C&C PH, and roomy enough for you to add complexty if you want without breaking the core engine.
phishhead1991 07-27-05, 05:04 PM	im younger but i was disapointed with the basic game too.my suggestion is to buy the AD&D (orignal) books and teach your daughters that.there still avalible.
GnomeBoy 07-27-05, 05:11 PM	Yet one more idea... you could track down a copy of the 3.0 Player's Handbook, probably cheap since it is not "current" anymore. It has some basic DM stuff and Monsters in the back, since it came out before those books. If interested, you could expand from there... Just a thought... :)
Bruunwald 07-27-05, 05:17 PM	>Did your daughters have fun? One yes... one not at all. Of course, the one who was interested in the game was immediately killed by a spear wielding trog in the first room. The other didn't want to play anyway, so we ended it there. I wonder if the one who does like it has any friends who want to play? She might find that a lot more fun than dragging along the sister who doesn't want to. Nothing brings a game down faster than an unwilling player.
GreyLord 07-27-05, 06:41 PM	Just for another point of view. Me and my wife tried out the 3.5 basic game last year and it got us into playing D20 D&D 3.5 version. My wife actually loved it. She says it's the easiest for her to understand. We used the SRD http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 to fill in the blanks. The only thing missing was experience to level up, which was easy its listed in just about any d20 game system you look at. Or alternately, one could make their own leveling method. Then again, we did have a different take on the whole thing... After one gets comfortable with that upgrading to the three core books is rather simple. I think it was a great introduction to 3.5 myself...and great for the novice. It also helps in giving you miniatures for the game which 3.5 emphasizes more than earlier edition...almost forcing one to have to use them (almost doesn't mean that it does, just to clear that up). Since we already have them, no fuss there. (Though I do like picking up new sets of them anyways). Different experiences for different folks.
Skeane 07-27-05, 07:10 PM	The new box set is really intended to allow players to pick up the game in a few minutes and get gaming. After you go through the first pre-published adventure, you can rearrange the dungeon tiles and recycle the scant monsters provided to play through a couple more times. At $20, you get a couple of minis, some dice and some cool dungeon tiles, not to mention a mini-module. It's definitely 'only an introduction' but the price isn't bad for what's in the box. If your kids liked playing the adventure provided, you can use the information in the box to switch things up a bit and alter the challenge slightly. If they're still into the game after a couple of sessions, I'd consider buying a PHB and downloading a DMG and Monster Manual off the wizards website (they have a downloadable version of all 3 core books). If the kids continue to like it, consider expanding the purchases to buy a DMG... that way, you're not going to spend $100+ dollars on something that they won't really get into... start small and work your way up gradually if needed.
Verelor 07-27-05, 07:38 PM	So to put it simply, follow either mine or skathros's suggestions, everyone else is just repeating redundantly IMHO. The srd is great for reference to things you have not bought yet or don't ever plan on purchasing (such as epic spell rules and psionics, to name only a couple), but horrible for the purpose of learning the game. It is a REFERENCE document, and not convenient for long-term use.
Lord Ian Stark 07-27-05, 07:41 PM	I just don't want to spend the whole damn night trying to figure out armor class. LOL, if you think 3.x D&D is hard to learn with AC be very glad you didn't try to learn 2ed D&D with THAC0. :D If you are not interested in learning a ruleset then I will cut to the chase here and tell you to drop D&D now. I'm not being rude, but this game has had many versions, all including various rules, and the 3.X series is by far the easiest to understand. Outside of just shooting from the hip in your imagination, any RP game you are going to play has rules for you to learn. My suggestion is you get a computer game that you and the kids can LAN on and play that way as rules aren't as important in most video games.
GreyLord 07-27-05, 10:40 PM	LOL, if you think 3.x D&D is hard to learn with AC be very glad you didn't try to learn 2ed D&D with THAC0. :D If you are not interested in learning a ruleset then I will cut to the chase here and tell you to drop D&D now. I'm not being rude, but this game has had many versions, all including various rules, and the 3.X series is by far the easiest to understand. Outside of just shooting from the hip in your imagination, any RP game you are going to play has rules for you to learn. My suggestion is you get a computer game that you and the kids can LAN on and play that way as rules aren't as important in most video games. Never understood why people say things like that. It took me all of 30 seconds to vfigure out 2ed THAC0. Took me several hours to figure out how BAB goes with AB goes with AC goes with FEATS goes with SKILLS goes with AoO, partial actions, full actions, etc. My wife thinks 3.5 was easier to understand, but that's because of the basic set I think. She never got THAC0, but she NEVER really ever could even come close to grasping 3e. It's in how one explains it I suppose. But THACO...overall it was much simpler than even BAB to AB and figuring out which type of Armor bonuses go with what type of armor bonuses (there are several different types of 'armor' AC in 3.x edition...MUCH more than in earlier editions...in that light...IT IS tough to figure what types there are and what an AC could be. In fact, that's the one point that typically I can screw players or DM (depending on what I'm playing as) over with...simply because I can get atrociously high AC's compared to many times their feeble AC's simply because they don't understand the AC types.
Skeane 07-27-05, 10:55 PM	So to put it simply, follow either mine or skathros's suggestions, everyone else is just repeating redundantly IMHO. The srd is great for reference to things you have not bought yet or don't ever plan on purchasing (such as epic spell rules and psionics, to name only a couple), but horrible for the purpose of learning the game. It is a REFERENCE document, and not convenient for long-term use. I'm not reduntantly repeating anyone. My thoughts are 100% original; I just took the scenic route...
weasel fierce 07-28-05, 01:03 AM	Never understood why people say things like that. It took me all of 30 seconds to vfigure out 2ed THAC0. 4th grade math can be quite the obstacle it seems
Tenzhi 07-28-05, 01:43 AM	4th grade math can be quite the obstacle it seems 1st grade math can be an obstacle if it's presented poorly. It's not the math that makes the Thac0/AC system difficult for some people to deal with so much as the overall awkwardness. When you start with the notion that 2 + 5 + 3 + 2 = -8 anything that follows that is bound to make just as little sense.
weasel fierce 07-28-05, 02:32 AM	When you start with the notion that 2 + 5 + 3 + 2 = -8 anything that follows that is bound to make just as little sense. Are you trying to make an example or are those just random numbers ? It can be summed up pretty simply. Roll a D20. Add the armour Class, if its equal or higher than THAC0, you hit. The D20 system is roll a D20, add your BAB, if its equal or higher than AC, you hit. Exactly the same
Tenzhi 07-28-05, 02:54 AM	Are you trying to make an example or are those just random numbers ? Full plate armour +5, adding the dex bonus, and adding the bonus from a shield. 2 + 5 + 3 + 2 = -8 It can be summed up pretty simply. Roll a D20. Add the armour Class, if its equal or higher than THAC0, you hit. The D20 system is roll a D20, add your BAB, if its equal or higher than AC, you hit. Exactly the same Yes, the end result is exactly the same. Hence it must not be the math itself that is messing with people's heads if they easily understand the latter but not the former.
storm_wolf 07-28-05, 02:57 AM	His numbers could mean: AC 2 (Chainmail +3), then something with a +5 AC bonus (shield +4), something with a +3 AC bonus (ring), and something with a +2 AC bonus (cloak), makes a -8 AC. Considering the time some people put in to advocating the older systems AC set up, I figured you would get that one...
weasel fierce 07-28-05, 03:00 AM	Full plate armour +5, adding the dex bonus, and adding the bonus from a shield. 2 + 5 + 3 + 2 = -8 Ah. Well, in that case it reads 2 - 5 -3 -1 = -7 Armour class adjustments were always listed as a minus, and its stated clearly that a shield decreases AC by 1. Yes, the end result is exactly the same. Hence it must not be the math itself that is messing with people's heads if they easily understand the latter but not the former. Its not the most elegant of mechanics, but I have never played with anyone who didnt understand it, after their first combat. Maybe its because we didnt start playing untill 8th grade or so.
weasel fierce 07-28-05, 03:02 AM	Considering the time some people put in to advocating the older systems AC set up, I figured you would get that one... Im not advocating the older AC. Armour class is a retarded system, regardless of which edition you take it from. Just stating that THAC0 isnt nearly as hard as people try to make it out to be.
Tenzhi 07-28-05, 03:32 AM	Ah. Well, in that case it reads 2 - 5 -3 -1 = -7 Armour class adjustments were always listed as a minus, and its stated clearly that a shield decreases AC by 1. You may be right about the Dex bonus and the shield (or you may be referring to 1st Ed and 2nd Ed - which I refer to - may have had some slight differences in presentation) - it's been awhile so I can't clearly say. However, plate armour +5, Ring of Protection +2, Cloak of protection +3, etc. ad nauseum are all examples of AC adjustments that weren't listed as a minus. Bonuses to your hit roll were minuses to your THAC0 and -1 > 10... It was like it was written by an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of calculators. I am, of course, being facetious. Everyone knows that monkeys use abacuses. Its not the most elegant of mechanics, but I have never played with anyone who didnt understand it, after their first combat. Maybe its because we didnt start playing untill 8th grade or so. It had one big advantage. Tables. Even if you couldn't grasp the twisted see-saw of numbers you could likely point to a number on a table and find out what you had to roll. I knew people who could play easily enough with THAC0 but couldn't explain it.
weasel fierce 07-28-05, 03:39 AM	yeah, the fact that magic armour was listed as a +, was rather awkward, and unnescesary. As for tables, yes, they make life much easier for new players. And for people who have a hard time doing head-math, looking on a chart on your character sheet is dirt simple. That goes regardless of edition too.
Lord Ian Stark 07-28-05, 04:03 AM	Weasel and Greylord, since this thread has been de-railed by your argument of THAC0 is easy, might I remind you the OP was trying to teach the game to his daughters who are probrably not even teens or are barely? I don't care if YOU understood THAC0 when it was taught to you, that's irrelevant. If the consensus is that 3.X edition AC is harder to understand than 2ed AC to new comers then I ask you to think again.
weasel fierce 07-28-05, 11:27 AM	My apologies. However, the guy was posting how he was disappointed by the basic set, and didnt feel the price of a set of 3,x books would be worth it. Classic D&D is a quite viable alternative then, particularly if he is going to play with people who arent much into rules, even though you and others were quick to jump on the "3.5 is the only option"
GnomeBoy 07-28-05, 02:40 PM	So to put it simply, follow either mine or skathros's suggestions, everyone else is just repeating redundantly IMHO. I was not merely repeating redundantly! Mine was an unique all-in-one solution that no one else had pointed out! And by the way, I was not merely repeating redundantly...! Peace, GnomeBoy P.S. ...was not repeating... :weep:
Verelor 07-28-05, 03:36 PM	We'll see exatly what he's more into when he repleis to his own topic, something he hasn't been doing.
GreyLord 07-28-05, 06:09 PM	Full plate armour +5, adding the dex bonus, and adding the bonus from a shield. 2 + 5 + 3 + 2 = -8 Yes, the end result is exactly the same. Hence it must not be the math itself that is messing with people's heads if they easily understand the latter but not the former. Actually the TO HIT for a first level fighter would be 28 in that instance... If I understand what the heck you are talking about. THAC0 isn't defined by what you just said...which seems nonsense overall...but instead on the LEVEL. THAC0 for a 10th level fighter is...10...Wow... Now for +5 Full Platemail...that would give you an Armor class of -4 which means that 10th level fighter would need a 14 to hit. A shield would mean he needs a 15 to hit. Now for the last poster... AC is easier...In the old D&D...a ring of protection is not compatible with Armor. However, in the NEW 3.x edition...you can combine MANY different types of AC along the lines of rings of protection, cloaks of protection (as long as they are different types), and oh, that +2 DEX bonus that you get...it's actually can change if you add your ability scores increasing them...which is fundamental to the game... In AD&D in truth there was...one or two types of AC overall that could combine together at a time making it more simplistic... How many types of AC do "you" want to guess at there being in 3.x? It's more than three...and they ALL can be combined... Oh...but wait...it's not over yet... You have to figure in flat footed, dodge, and feat bonuses...sometimes you get a + to your AC...but horrors of horrors...sometimes you have to subtract as WELL!!! Oh my gosh...I thought that was done away with after 2ed was gone!!! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic). And then there's Power Attacks which can add or subtract a variable from your AB...depending on how much you spend... So (though probably not something your going to see normally) if I have a character with a +3 BAB, who spends 3 points in a Power Attack, has a cursed weapon of a -2 to Hits and Damage, And has a 6 Strength... Using that same addage...how do I add a -4 to a roll of 10? Isn't that the same math one would have to use in the OLD D&D system... But then...what about his AC...let's see he has a +3 Divine ring of Protection plus a Chain made of a metal that adds a natural +1 to his AC...plus a Dex bonus of +3 (16 dex we'll say...we'll even say it's a 5th level Bard), and has the Dodge feat which means he can possibly gain a +1 additional AC to his armor for what should be a 3+5+1+3+1+10 = 23 AC...but then he get's surprised does this mean he suddenly has to do a -4 to that AC or a -1 to that AC? And that's treating it more like the traditional version without utilizing ALL the various forms of AC types that can be combined. There's a reason that munchkins and good min/max'ers can have a 35 AC at level 10 (equivalent to a -15 AC in AD&D, if one counts things to be allowed like that), doing 75 points of damage on average, and an Attack bonus of +30...(note that's an attack bonus, not a BAB). In truth THAC0 is simply the number - AC = what you need to roll over. In truth BAB is simply the number you add to your roll to hit their AC. In essence you could get the same thing from doing enemy AC - character BAB = the number you need to roll over.
GreyLord 07-28-05, 06:14 PM	Now, more onto my defense...I believe the first reason I posted was in to give a different veiw of how the Basic set affected us when we played. We had a much different experience. Those accusing a post like that of derailing the conversation...well... In truth I'm surprised at how many decided that meant they had to attack an older edition. I was more thinking they'd all try to put down the basic set considering the mood prior to my posting that we found the 3.5 basic set a great aid, but it seems there are more that are blinded by hatred of anything AD&D. And here I thought we were posting more about the Basic sets rather than BAB OR THAC0 in general. And look, you guys even sucked me into this foolish mathematical nonsense that we are discussing. Who cares...I play 3.5, I play AD&D. How about we return to discussing D&D in a more positive light?
Ranger REG 07-28-05, 07:07 PM	I'd just like to play some simple role-playing with a heavy Tolkien influence. Perhaps I should have purchased the LOTR rpg. Am I wasting my time with D&D? If you want Tolkien influence, then get the game from Decipher or ICE. As for the Basic Game, it's an introduction to three-volume D&D core ruleset. It's not going to be like them red Basic boxed set that featured its own world (now called Mystara) and then follow up with Expert, Companion, Master, etc. (Some believe this was Gygax's attempt to redirect D&D from AD&D.)
Vanigo 07-28-05, 09:46 PM	THAC0 for a 10th level fighter is...10...Wow...And THAC0 for a 10th level fighter with a +2 weapon and +1 to hit from high strength also has 10 THAC0, but he hits more often anyway. Now for +5 Full Platemail...that would give you an Armor class of -4 which means that 10th level fighter would need a 14 to hit. A shield would mean he needs a 15 to hit.Yeah, but IIRC, that's not a 15 on the die. With THAC0, first you determine your THAC0 (easy, look it up on the table), then you determine your target's AC (Adding and subtracting a bunch of numbers), then you compare the two to find your to hit (THAC0-AC, not very hard), then you roll your d20, then you figure out what bonuses you get and add them to the roll, then you compare that to the to hit. That's a lot of steps, even if they aren't all that complex individually. In 3e, you determine your attack bonus (BAB+strength or dex+miscellaneous), you determine your target's AC (10+armor+shield+dex+miscellaneous), then you roll and add your attack bonus, then compare that to AC. That's fewer steps, and the two that can be worked out ahead of time are far and away the most complex. True, there are sometimes conditional penalties or bonuses, but those are almost always simple additions or subtractions with no stacking or anything to worry about. Now there are different AC types - four that see frequent use: AC, touch AC, flat-footed AC, and flat-footed touch AC. There's also incorporeal touch AC and flat-footed incorporeal touch AC, but they rarely come into play and are usually the same as touch AC and flat-footed touch AC anyway. Calculating AC is simple, with well-defined stacking rules. In 2e, you have your "Magic armor doesn't stack with magic rings," or whatever it is, but does magic armor stack with bonuses from spells? Does a ring of protection stack with an armor spell? How about two bonuses from spells? Magic armor and magic shield? Magic shield and magic ring? There are probably rules about these things, but they're separate rules. In 3e, you've got one simple rule about bonus stacking: They stack unless they're the same type or come from the same source, in which case they don't. There is one simple exception to this rule: dodge bonuses to AC stack with each other. Plus, 3e has the major advantage that a plus gives you a plus, which is always good, and a minus gives you a minus, which is always bad. There's none of this "A ring +1 gives you -1 AC which is a good thing." This appeals to the simplistic notion that bigger is better, and we all think that way from time to time. AC is easier...In the old D&D...a ring of protection is not compatible with Armor.And this makes it easier because? However, in the NEW 3.x edition...you can combine MANY different types of AC along the lines of rings of protection, cloaks of protection (as long as they are different types), and oh, that +2 DEX bonus that you get...it's actually can change if you add your ability scores increasing them...which is fundamental to the game...And this is harder because? Sure, there are more numbers, but they all go together in trivially simple and very well-defined ways. In AD&D in truth there was...one or two types of AC overall that could combine together at a time making it more simplistic...Except when you got hit by shocking grasp which ignored metallic armor but not leather armor or something. How many types of AC do "you" want to guess at there being in 3.x?Six. Eight if you count AC and flat-footed AC against brilliant energy weapons, but that's the same as either touch AC or regular AC in 90% of cases. It's more than three...and they ALL can be combined...Not true. You've got two parameters: Attack type (normal, touch, incorporeal touch), and flat-footed or not. They can go together in whichever way. Oh...but wait...it's not over yet... You have to figure in flat footed, dodge, and feat bonuses...sometimes you get a + to your AC...but horrors of horrors...sometimes you have to subtract as WELL!!! Oh my gosh...I thought that was done away with after 2ed was gone!!! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic).The issue isn't that you subtract in 2e. Subtracting is easy. The issue is that +3 makes you subtract in 2e, which is crazy. And then there's Power Attacks which can add or subtract a variable from your AB...depending on how much you spend...Well, gosh, I'm so confused by subtracting three when I say "I use Power Attack to subtract three." So (though probably not something your going to see normally) if I have a character with a +3 BAB, who spends 3 points in a Power Attack, has a cursed weapon of a -2 to Hits and Damage, And has a 6 Strength... Using that same addage...how do I add a -4 to a roll of 10? Isn't that the same math one would have to use in the OLD D&D system...Not really. This is having a negative attack bonus, which means you subtract. 2e, you could have a negative attack bonus due to low strength or whatever, and you also subtracted your target's AC, unless it was negative, in which case you added. It ain't rocket science, but... I'm reminded of a quote I heard somewhere and which I'm undoubtedly mangling: "You don't truly understand something until you can explain it to a six-year-old." Good luck with that one. But then...what about his AC...let's see he has a +3 Divine ring of Protection plus a Chain made of a metal that adds a natural +1 to his AC...plus a Dex bonus of +3 (16 dex we'll say...we'll even say it's a 5th level Bard), and has the Dodge feat which means he can possibly gain a +1 additional AC to his armor for what should be a 3+5+1+3+1+10 = 23 AC...but then he get's surprised does this mean he suddenly has to do a -4 to that AC or a -1 to that AC?[quote]It means you don't get the +3 dex bonus or the +1 dodge bonus (which shouldn't be figured into normal AC anyway), which can be trivially accomplished in one of two ways. You can simply subtract 3 from all your normal ACs and not add the dodge bonus, or you can simply figure out your flat-footed AC ahead of time and put it into the convenient "Flat-Footed AC" box on your character sheet. [quote]And that's treating it more like the traditional version without utilizing ALL the various forms of AC types that can be combined.Not that that ever happens. If nothing else, there are sacred bonuses and profane bonuses. While there's nothing specifically preventing them from being on the same character, it's nearly impossible to pull off as both are rare and obtained only from inherently good and evil sources, respectively. There's probably a build somewhere on the CO boards that uses all possible AC types, but in normal play? Not a chance. There's a reason that munchkins and good min/max'ers can have a 35 AC at level 10 (equivalent to a -15 AC in AD&D, if one counts things to be allowed like that), doing 75 points of damage on average, and an Attack bonus of +30...(note that's an attack bonus, not a BAB).Note that 35 AC isn't all that great. There are plenty of monsters that can hit that easily - monsters can also have +30 to hit without breaking a sweat. And while the min-maxer won't be missing much with his +30 attack, his subsequent attacks won't be as great. Also, 75 damage at 10th level is pretty much unobtainable outside of extreme min-maxed builds that are completely unsuitable for normal play, and even those tend to manage it by getting huge Power Attack bonuses, so they're actually attacking at more like +20/+10. Either that or they do it with damage multipliers from charging with a lance or whatever, which has its own set of strict limitations; i.e. you must be charging on a mount. In truth THAC0 is simply the number - AC = what you need to roll over.Except it's not the roll, it's the roll plus bonuses minus penalties. In truth BAB is simply the number you add to your roll to hit their AC.I assume you mean attack bonus? In essence you could get the same thing from doing enemy AC - character BAB = the number you need to roll over.But why? Then you get into the whole "But if I have a positive attack bonus, why do I subtract it? Aren't higher numbers better?" mess.
Tenzhi 07-29-05, 01:44 AM	Actually the TO HIT for a first level fighter would be 28 in that instance... If I understand what the heck you are talking about. THAC0 isn't defined by what you just said...which seems nonsense overall...but instead on the LEVEL. You're right about THAC0. However, I was speaking of AC. The confusion in the system doesn't come from determining THAC0 itself (after all, that is merely pointing to a table, which doesn't involve math at all), but rather with the various interactions surrounding it involving the determination of To-Hit and AC. Now for +5 Full Platemail...that would give you an Armor class of -4 So Full Plate must give you a base AC of -9 if +5 to it gives you -4, right? And that's the sort of math that forms the basis of AC which is used to determine To-Hit. Hence why some people tend to get confused. Yes, 3.x has lots of modifiers (and I agree that there are way too many, and that combat has become a nightmarish conglomeration of rules) that may be added together to determine AC, but they add together in a logical fashion - one plus one equals two rather than zero and one is always greater than zero.
Tenzhi 07-29-05, 01:50 AM	I was more thinking they'd all try to put down the basic set considering the mood prior to my posting that we found the 3.5 basic set a great aid, but it seems there are more that are blinded by hatred of anything AD&D. Just to note: being able to recognize the absurdities inherent to the system doesn't necessarily mean I hate it.
weasel fierce 07-29-05, 02:03 AM	I dont think there are many people who do NOT recognize the absurdities of D&D, regardless of edition :) We still love it in some incarnation or another, but its still absurd :cool:
Azzy 07-29-05, 02:30 AM	I dont think there are many people who do NOT recognize the absurdities of D&D, regardless of edition :) We still love it in some incarnation or another, but its still absurd :cool: Hear!! Hear!!
GnomeBoy 07-29-05, 03:34 PM	It's not going to be like the red Basic boxed set that featured its own world (now called Mystara) and then follow up with Expert, Companion, Master, etc. (Some believe this was Gygax's attempt to redirect D&D from AD&D.) I'm not sure what you mean by "redirect", but wasn't the coexistence of D&D alongside AD&D due to the fact that Gygax developed AD&D, but Arneson wanted to continue with the simpler rules set? I know this is way off topic, but can you point to a post elsewhere that clears this up? :confused:
Verelor 07-29-05, 06:24 PM	If I remember this correctly, Arneson didn't do much past the original red box set, and his involvement in even that was said to be somewhat minimal according to Gygax. Oh, and by the way, 3.5 edition beats all past editions to a dusty pulp. This I accept as fact. Forget about it, geezer traditionalists, I reject your reality and substitute my own :D Now then, the original starter of this topic HAS NOT replied in a long time. I am starting to believe he just doesn't care anymore and has probably quit current edition D&D in any form, regardles of the countless great ideas and suggestions made within this thread by this lovely community. Pity.
skathros 07-29-05, 11:12 PM	Now then, the original starter of this topic HAS NOT replied in a long time. I am starting to believe he just doesn't care anymore and has probably quit current edition D&D in any form, . or maybe he bought the C&C PH and registered over at TLG ;)
weasel fierce 07-30-05, 01:09 AM	AD&D was developed as the concise, comprehensive tournament game, with D&D as the freeform game for people who like to do their own thing. Gygax supervised the development of basic / expert D&D, but had virtually no input in it. Its development was almost entirely directed by Tom Moldvay (1st version) and the excellent Frank Mentzer (2nd version, which the RC is based on)
Tenzhi 07-30-05, 01:59 AM	And I can't help but say that, despite the fact that overall I prefer the d20 system, the Basic Rules Cyclopedia is the best D&D book IMO.
weasel fierce 07-30-05, 02:02 AM	With a little work, Im sure you could fit in several D20 conventions. Skills shouldnt be too hard, particularly if you use the variant from UA / Blue Rose, where you dont allocate individual ranks. Combat can easily be "flipped" to work like it does in D20. I'd keep the oD&D classes as they are one of the hallmarks of the system, but making more is dirt simple.
Tenzhi 07-30-05, 02:15 AM	I've more a mind to do the reverse and strip the excess rule-baggage out of d20 and make it more like the older games than append the older games with d20 conventions. And it's that sort of easy, stripped down system that I would've liked to have seen for Basic D&D d20 (he says, bringing it around to sort-of-on-topic). No AoOs or insinuated mini-dependence, simplified skill system, etc.
weasel fierce 07-30-05, 02:42 AM	The crazy thing is, I think that would sell. Castles&Crusades is sort of that thing, though I'd have gone further with the simplification
Majorafire77 07-30-05, 09:41 AM	>Did your daughters have fun? One yes... one not at all. Of course, the one who was interested in the game was immediately killed by a spear wielding trog in the first room. The other didn't want to play anyway, so we ended it there. Of course, they attacked with halfling rogue and an elf wizard, leaving a armored human and dwarf fighters in behind. I wish to allow them to use their imagination AND develop strategic thinking with this. I just don't want to spend the whole damn night trying to figure out armor class. If you even looked at the SRD (which is free, www.d20srd.org), you would know the core mechanic: The Core Mechanic Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task you do this: Roll a d20. Add any relevant modifiers. Compare the result to a target number. If the result equals or exceeds the target number, your character succeeds. If the result is lower than the target number, you fail. Armor class is the "target number" I didn't have a problem with that the first time I played, but then again, I've never played any edition earlier than 3.0, so I probably don't completely understand where all of the people who have been playing for a while are coming from. >D&D has steadily been moving away from Tolkien, so if that flavor is the only one that satisfies, I have no interest in naked barbarian women or psionics or multiplanes or any of that. :rofl: First of all, that stuff about the "naked barbarian women" is bull:censored: I don't know where you picked up that idea from, but drop it. Hasn't psionics been around since 1st edition? I've heard that it was horrible back then, but the psionics rules in 3.5 (which can be found in the SRD as well) are considered by many to be quite balanced. If you don't like them from a flavor standpoint, then don't use them, no harm done. Just don't insult them, or you'll start a massive flame war. >I haven't seen the 3E boxed set, but it sounds pretty lame. I would recommend finding the three core books online. I think some places have some for as little as $20 each. Heck, just get the PHB and do some research on the website to get some treasure and monster ideas. It's not just the money. I'm a professional with a nice compensation package. It's not like I cannot afford it. Part of it is that I don't want to spend the next two or three years memorizing all those rules in the new core books. Heck, I may look for an old basic set or perhaps a core set before version 3.0. The only rule that you really need to memorize is the core mechanic, as stated above. If you have a player who's using magic/psionics (same system), get used to that as well. Once you learn the core mechanic, everything else seems to fit into place very nicely. Attacks and Armor Class, Saves, Skill Checks, etc all use the exact same system. I'm not sure if that's how it was "back in the day", but personally, I think it's very easy to pick up. Apparantly you didn't look at the SRD, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about "spending the next two or three years" memorizing the rules. It'll take more like two or three days to memorize the stuff that you really need to know.
C/CPO smith 07-30-05, 03:09 PM	I'm new to DnD and wish to know where to start the basic game or the core rulebooks?
nemobuscaptain 07-30-05, 03:14 PM	>If you are not interested in learning a ruleset then I will cut to the chase here and tell you to drop D&D now. My friend, I don't want to be rude either, but I have quite a collection of degrees with various honors on my wall. I started playing AD&D when I was a pre-teen with friends from honors classes. We were classic D&D geeks. At one point, I probably had all the original AD&D books memorized well enough to play with little more than a flip of a page or two from time to time. I have more than enough ability to read all the rules, but less than enough interest or time to do so. You may be too young to remember, but there was once a time when role-playing did not take 4000 pages of tables and did not include endless debates of what things to add or subtract to the die roll. Frankly, I glanced little at the books as I played with my daughter. I don't really care what they think the roll should be to pick the lock or kick down the door. I have an idea in my mind and I use that. Mine may be 15 or greater on a d20 while the books says 19 or whatever. I know that some would be better off with a computer game, but I'm NOT part of the video generation. I hope that response did not sound to harsh. Thanks to those other ideas, especially the d20 website, the download for old versions, and the ideas concerning ebay. Yes, the 9 year old who is fascinated with elves and hobbits etc. is adapting quickly. She drew her own character and did quite a good job. She is also far more creative, artistic and imaginitive than my other daughter. She wants to play almost every night and has learned not to have her elf and halfiing leading the melee. I see no reason to stifle that by taking a few months off to memorize the new rules. I'll pick up as much as I need and ad lib in the meantime. I do like that d20 reference and it may bridge the gap for me. It certainly gave me components of a smaller monster manual that I can use with some modifications. I will also have to work on equipment. There isn't even a dagger listed on the basic set equipment list. I may also buy one of the older basic sets off ebay, if only to reminisce. I do like the the miniatures and maps that came with the new basic set. I just think it shouild get you through a few months of playing and have enough to run most first and second level adventures, even if it were to cost a few more dollars. In fact, the monster manual on that d20 reference looks a lot like the original basic monster manual. Maybe half those would be enough to make things interesting for a few months. Anyway, thanks to ALL for the help.
nemobuscaptain 07-30-05, 03:36 PM	BTW, RPGnow is very cool. Remember these? http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1210& http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1042& http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1205& http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1209& Wow. Lotsa nostalgia for me.
Verelor 07-30-05, 04:00 PM	I've got an idea. Get the 3 core rulebooks. It works. The three core rulebooks have: No naked barberian women, where'd you get that from? No psionics. And you don't have to have a multiplanar cosmology if you don't want it. I can be a universe, a hell, and a heaven, or even simpler. And if the d20 rules are too hard to learn, you're definitely out of luck, because the oD&D rules are a mess, and the 1st edition Ad&D rules happen to be quite abstract. If you're still feeling exceptionately geezerish, 2nd edition might cut it, but that is hardly any more Gygaxian or Tolkenien than 3.5 edition. Oh, and by the way: Current edition Dungeons & Dragon is BETTER. Get over it. "I don't want to be rude." :P
rbrt_Spade 07-30-05, 04:13 PM	check out the link in my sig-the new D&D player
Adlar Hodge 07-30-05, 06:27 PM	*looks at all the blah blah* I am the father of a 9 year old girl who loves to play Magic:The Gathering, and has played some with me as far as the DnD minatures go and we tried the basic set one night (although I was really tired). I'm going to give the basic set another go at it, but the only thing I'm dissapointed in is the lack of characters to choose from. In the 3.5 one you have 4 and that's it. In the 3.0 one you have several. Other than that here's a few things for the original poster to consider: 1: From a father's standpoint I can probably safely assume that the kids just want to play right? They don't care about character optimization, or what spells are the best, or whatever. The basic set (3.5) gives them the chance to play right away. 2: If a blow would kill them in combat normally, just have it knock them out until they can get healed. I know this may be fudging the dice but something as simple to us as dying quickly in combat may curb their interest in gaming. 3: With as plain and basic as the 3 corebooks are now it's easier for you to add and subtract and do as you wish. If you choose to go this route the only thing you may need to buy (besides minis perhaps) are maps...or you could make your own. Mad props on getting kids to play something besides a video game. :)
Vanigo 07-30-05, 07:01 PM	You may be too young to remember, but there was once a time when role-playing did not take 4000 pages of tablesI'm sorry, but did you just accuse 3e (as opposed to AD&D) of having too many tables? and did not include endless debates of what things to add or subtract to the die roll.What debates? I've never had an argument over bonuses and penalties go more than 90 seconds before somebody either shut up or looked it up. The looking it up took, at most, another minute, and always settled it immediately. The rules on bonuses and penalties may be long, but they're also very well-defined and clearly written. Yes, the 9 year old who is fascinated with elves and hobbits etc. is adapting quickly. She drew her own character and did quite a good job. She is also far more creative, artistic and imaginitive than my other daughter. She wants to play almost every night and has learned not to have her elf and halfiing leading the melee. I see no reason to stifle that by taking a few months off to memorize the new rules. I'll pick up as much as I need and ad lib in the meantime.Months? Try hours for the important bits. The rest you can either look up or make up on the fly. You are at a disadvantage in that you're not playing with an experienced group. It's faster and easier to just ask "Do I add my dexterity modifier to bow damage?" (which, incidentally, you don't) than it is to look it up, and if and when you do mess up, they're more likely to catch you than you are to catch yourself. Playing with an experienced group for a few months is widely considered to be the best way to learn the rules. Of course, it's far from impossible to learn them on your own, you just have to play with the books open most of the time. You might want to mark some particularly important and/or confusing sections with sticky notes for easy reference.
Verelor 07-30-05, 08:19 PM	Yes, playing the basic game demo all the way through 2 or 3 times should be able to resolve a great amny debates you have in your mind about the game.
C/CPO smith 07-30-05, 08:39 PM	I must thank the original poster for giving me advice, but I really want to play, I am going to try to get a group together but need to know where to start. I have played the demo on the website and have even checked out an old monstrous manuel from my local library, and i have been a fan of the novels by wizards of the coast for years.
Agent Cooper 07-30-05, 09:35 PM	C/CPO SMITH Welcome! D&D is a great game and a rewarding hobby. You're going to have alot of fun. First of all, ignore this thread and after you read the rest of my message, log off and DON'T COME BACK TO THESE FORUMS! This place probably scares away more potential new gamers than the Baptist Church. :( Unless you haven't noticed, you won't get very far asking anything here before your thread is derailed by a RULES INTERPRETATION, MUNCHKIN/POWERGAMER or MY EDITION IS BETTER THAN YOURS flame war which won't make any sense to you as a new gamer, anyhow. Okay, now: Don't be confused, it's a very easy game to learn. If you possibly can, find somebody who plays or try to sit in on a game. This is the easiest way to get a feel for how the game works, but if this isn't possible, don't despair! You can easily pick the game up on your own. First, obtain a copy of the Player's Handbook and read that first. The most current edition is 3.5, and you shouldn't have any trouble finding it at a local bookstore or game shop. If possible, it's better to get these at a local game store. You may pay a bit more, but I recommend getting them there because most folks at the game store are RPG enthusiasts themselves, and they'll be happy to answer questions, recommend products, and will help you get started. You may also be able to chat with other gamers at the store, and these folks are usually more than happy to share info about our hobby. Obviously, you'll need a group of friends to play with. All of you need to read through the Player's Handbook. Then, your group must decide on someone to be the Dungeon Master, who will referee the game. That person will need to read the Dungeon Masters Guide, and will need to have a copy of the Monster Manual. (The players should refrain from reading these two books.) These three core rulebooks are really all you need to play the game, but for a beginning DM, it's also usually best to start out with a published pre-written adventure module. (Later on, as you become familiar with the rules, you can create your own adventures, even your own worlds if you want to!) When you first read the rulebooks, it might seem like alot to digest, but don't worry. When you actually sit down to play, everything will come together and it'll all start to make sense. You don't have to remember every single obscure rule every time you play. Just have fun and don't worry too much about getting everything right the first few sessions. Once you have a general idea of the way a game is run and how the rules work, you're on your way. I hope this helped! Have fun, and again, welcome!! ;)
Palin the Wizard 07-30-05, 09:42 PM	nemobuscaptain, Even if there were "4000 pages of tables" and "endless debates", they would refer to combat and not roleplaying. While these are not mutually exclusive, you do not have rules for roleplaying. I am rather surprised that you believe you know what the DC for a given action should be better than the designers do. The rules are there for a reason, and while it is certainly within the right of any DM to arbitrate DCs, how can you do this when you are not even certain how the system works...? Quite frankly, the rules are simple, straight-forward, and easy-to-learn. That was the approach made when 3rd edition began being planned. Playing without understanding those easy rules are rather ill-advised. It is far better to simply read the books and understand the game. It doesn't take months to learn. It takes hours. As long as you understand the principles involved--which I am certain you, with all your degrees decorating your wall, can easily do--the game is remarkably easy to learn. It is, however, difficult to master... but that is a different issue.
weasel fierce 07-30-05, 10:45 PM	Oh, and by the way: Current edition Dungeons & Dragon is BETTER. Get over it. In the same way that Britney Spears can sing, a BigMac is a decent food, Windows is good software and SNIP.
wellyrn 07-30-05, 11:13 PM	I am rather surprised that you believe you know what the DC for a given action should be better than the designers do. The rules are there for a reason, and while it is certainly within the right of any DM to arbitrate DCs, how can you do this when you are not even certain how the system works...? ^^Rules lawyer^^ Playing without understanding those easy rules are rather ill-advised. This is true. A game that exists purely in the imagination of its players is no place for imagination and common sense to prevail. Doing so risks opening a rift in the fabric of reality that could engulf someone who spends $100 a month on WOTC supplements and leave them trapped on the astral plane.
Palin the Wizard 07-31-05, 12:22 AM	Sarcasm. Wonderful. :rolleyes: There's nothing wrong with playing without any rules. He just won't be playing D&D. That's all I am saying. And please, don't label people because of a single comment.
Shazarn 07-31-05, 12:44 AM	just wanted to say that the dnd for dummies book is highly useful if you are having trouble understanding things.
Azzy 07-31-05, 12:45 AM	In the same way that Britney Spears can sing, a BigMac is a decent food, Windows is good software and George Bush is a good president. No, not comparable. Which edition of D&D is better is a matter of opinion.... It's a matter of fact that Britney Spears can't sing, Big Macs are trash, Windows was written by howler monkeys and "W" is lacking at best. :)
Azzy 07-31-05, 12:51 AM	I do like the the miniatures and maps that came with the new basic set. I just think it shouild get you through a few months of playing and have enough to run most first and second level adventures, even if it were to cost a few more dollars. In fact, the monster manual on that d20 reference looks a lot like the original basic monster manual. Maybe half those would be enough to make things interesting for a few months. I completely agree with this.
Tenzhi 07-31-05, 01:45 AM	Oh, and by the way: Current edition Dungeons & Dragon is BETTER. Get over it. I agree. And it's WORSE as well.
nemobuscaptain 07-31-05, 02:36 AM	>All of you need to read through the Player's Handbook. >It is far better to simply read the books and understand the game. It doesn't take months to learn. It takes hours. The PH is 300+ pages and the others are larger. I don't think that would be hours. As for the other post (cannot find it now) that suggest I just join another group with an experienced DM and learn all the new rules and play the different classes until I understand the EASY rules, you have missed an important point. Far better? Pretty subjective there, buddy. I'm not looking for a hobby to take me away from my family. I'm not going somewhere to spend a night or two away every week or so to learn the rules. Frankly, if my youngest hadn't seemed so hooked on LOTR, I would not be back right now. I have fond memories of D&D, but too many personal obligations to need a hobby. However, I'd love to use D&D with at my home with my kids and maybe their friends. My 9 year old isn't going to sit down with the PH and read it. It just isn't going to happen. There used to be a product that served this need. To the poster that suggested I had been run off, not at all. This thread has been quite a help. Like I said earlier, I'm that d20 site is quite hepful. It's very informative and organized for simple access. And I love old site that links to the ebooks with previous editions. I'll probably end up downloading one of the old basic sets. Perhaps part of my original concern with the boxed set product was the poor technical writing. I cannot imagine that anyone with a writing background had anything to do with it. That's a surprise coming from a respected company. Maybe d20 or 3.5 doesn't suffer from this downfall. I'll pay closer attention the next time I'm near one of the 3.5 books. The boxed set seems to have been an afterthought. >just wanted to say that the dnd for dummies book is highly useful if you are having trouble understanding things. Thanks. I'm not. I have no trouble understanding the rules. I'm having trouble FINDING the rules in the basic boxset. I'm having trouble reading the poorly organized content of the boxed set. Like I said, how to calculate armor class is not even discussed, although all the various modifiers (armor/shields, dexterity, size) are. The initiative score is discussed, but is buried within a paragraph and doesn't contain any of the usual elements (bold print, etc) that would indicate that important material is being discussed. I guess I purchased the box set with the expectation that it would be as the basic set used to be, a complete product capable of serving well for levels 1-3. I suppose I was wrong for making this assumption without enough research. Instead, of a complete product, I get a little taste on a stick not unlike the samples they hand out at an ice cream store. I was completely unimpressed with the content of the product--heck, black dragon, dire rat, kobold, orc, troglodyte, and skeleton is the entire MM!--and the complete lack of effort put into organization and editing. Wizards Inc. has not impressed me at all. >A game that exists purely in the imagination of its players is no place for imagination and common sense to prevail. Excellent post. I imagine this kid tossing and turning at night, mumbling to himself about me "freelancing" with the die rolls. "For God's sake man! The rogue MUST roll a 19! A 19 or you're not playing D&D!!!!" :) Thanks for the help.
Tenzhi 07-31-05, 03:56 AM	I guess I purchased the box set with the expectation that it would be as the basic set used to be, a complete product capable of serving well for levels 1-3. They should warn you on the box that it is really little more than one of the demos they hand out at cons with some minis and such thrown in.
Ranger REG 07-31-05, 04:52 AM	AD&D was developed as the concise, comprehensive tournament game, with D&D as the freeform game for people who like to do their own thing. Really? With AD&D, I haven't played in a tournament since never. Had I known, I'd probably should not have been involved with AD&D in the first place. :P Then again, the D&D boxed set series didn't survived long, even when they repackaged it as D&D Rules Cyclopedia. ;)
Tenzhi 07-31-05, 05:03 AM	Then again, the D&D boxed set series didn't survived long, even when they repackaged it as D&D Rules Cyclopedia. ;) Had they marketed it (the RC) as a "new" edition it would've replaced AD&D. As it was, it was barely marketed at all - rather just appearing in dark corners of hobby shops.
Fading away 07-31-05, 05:20 AM	I got the 3.5E of the box. A little over 20 monsters, a (beautiful) set of dice, and the basic rules, yes, even the armor class one and how to make a dungeon. I found it much of a help when I was firstly introduced into the game (about a year ago), and I'm still using those dices (even though I keep losing the d4)
GreyLord 07-31-05, 10:39 AM	Really? With AD&D, I haven't played in a tournament since never. Had I known, I'd probably should not have been involved with AD&D in the first place. :P Then again, the D&D boxed set series didn't survived long, even when they repackaged it as D&D Rules Cyclopedia. ;) That's so true...just a mere 20 years...what a short existence...3.5 has lasted soooo much longer now. :D
Palin the Wizard 07-31-05, 12:58 PM	The PH is 300+ pages and the others are larger. I don't think that would be hours. The 3.5 PHB is 320 pages and is all you need to read to understand the most important rules concerning combat (and as you have the core mechanic, that will help as well). Hours. As I said, D&D is easy to learn. If you want to master it, you'd have to read all the books, but I don't see why you'd want to when all you want is for your daughter to have fun. Excellent post. I imagine this kid tossing and turning at night, mumbling to himself about me "freelancing" with the die rolls. "For God's sake man! The rogue MUST roll a 19! A 19 or you're not playing D&D!!!!" Keep your insults to yourself. I don't care whether or not you change the DCs of a die roll. What I do not understand is how you can do this without even understanding why the DC is what it is in the first place. If you don't understand the game, and you're changing what you don't understand, you're not playing D&D.
darkness ninja of light 07-31-05, 02:10 PM	Excellent post. I imagine this kid tossing and turning at night, mumbling to himself about me "freelancing" with the die rolls. "For God's sake man! The rogue MUST roll a 19! A 19 or you're not playing D&D!!!!" Yes, that was a bit unnecassary since I think he was making a valid comment, whether or not he is "right or wrong". Same goes for any insults that fly on these boards. Forgive me for saying this, but diplomas also have nothing to do with one's ability to learn D&D, that simply sounded like a out of place boast. Plus, I think a large majority of the people in these forums have their share of diplomas and busy work/family schedules. I'm only in college myself so I can't say anything, of course. I've just heard other people on these boards use their Grade Point Averages and whatnot as evidence to their ability to play D&D and insult others without a good grasp of the rules. It always sounds silly. I don't mean to insult, since you are obviously an intelligent, hardworking, responsible person, but it's just that it's not impressive. I'm glad that you've found the help you need, though. Since you're familiar with the rules of the earlier editions then it wouldn't be hard for you to pick it up. That's what you wanted, right? To be honest, I've never heard so many people DEFEND THAC0 though, mostly it's directly the opposite. Far better? Pretty subjective there, buddy. I'm not looking for a hobby to take me away from my family. I'm not going somewhere to spend a night or two away every week or so to learn the rules. We were simply trying to help. We don't know about your schedule so any suggestions we have are simply that: suggestions. We don't mean to suggest that you spend time away from your family. I know that in my first post I suggested playing with experienced friends because that is how I learned in my first few sessions around 3-4 years ago (Once I realized you roll a d20 for practically everything, I was fine from then on. I'm still a rookie though!). I assume others did the same. Anyways yeah, I think you've found what you needed so I guess I'll be quiet now. I hope your daughter has fun! Next time, try changing the rolls of the dice so that your players don't have to die right away by a fluke. Most people agree on this and don't think it's against the rules of D&D (I think it's in the DMG somewhere...). Plus, it's no fun to die right away! My DM has had to do this with new players (me as a helper DM). It's fun to watch every time he rolls a 20 on attack. Oops!
Lord_Brownie 07-31-05, 02:21 PM	I wanted to play D&D with my wife and two step-daughters, I had the box set already and I had DMed 3.0 when it first came out. What I did was use the 3.0 rules from the Player's Handbook for everything, but I ran them through the box set's mini-adventures. These mini-adventures are realy good at giving just enough time in the dungeon and out of it, while at the same time they are easy to fit into any world you want to use. The free adventure from WoTC called "The Burning Plague" was the first thing I tried, but I found that they got bored with too much dungeon early on, just as they got bored with too much role-play early one. The box set mini-adventures aloud me to find a balance that they liked, while getting progressively longer. One note: if you run "The Burning Plague" cut down the number of kobolds in any one encounter--if you dont their numbers will overwhelm the party quickly. LB edit: spelling, and a typo...bad brownie, bad!
Verelor 07-31-05, 04:18 PM	Hm itneresting. Is there a single person here that started playing 3.5 edition D&D with the actual core 3 rulebooks or is everyoen but me just a wierdo? When you combine editions you get a muddier mess than great wyrm black dragon doo. The core rulebooks are the LONGEST of all Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. They don't get longer. The Monster Manual is encyclopediac anyway. If you won't sit down and at least skim a rulebook, which I must say is quite a fun learning experience, you've got no business here. Play an older edition if you wish, but believe me, especially if you house rule it to your needs, older editions are completely inferior. Older editions being worse is entirely the reason new editions succeed. I say all this because I am (hopefully) an experienced and hardcore dungeon master, and read all my rulebooks cover to cover. How does a beginning beginner try to continue to argue. I have not forgotten my beginner days; they were quite recent.
weasel fierce 07-31-05, 05:20 PM	Play an older edition if you wish, but believe me, especially if you house rule it to your needs, older editions are completely inferior. Older editions being worse is entirely the reason new editions succeed. No, they succeed because they are marketed well, and currently in print. Quality has nothing to do with sales in a typical western market economy.
Azzy 07-31-05, 07:43 PM	No, they succeed because they are marketed well, and currently in print. Personally, I feel that there's more to it than that. I believe 3.x's success is also due to the fact that WotC took into consideration a lot of complaints that were voiced about earlier editions of D&D & AD&D to create a game that appealed to old school dissenters (like myself) and to new blood. Of course there's going to be those of the old guard that's not impressed by the newer editions, but that's going be true with any significant change. While I prefer the new edition, I cannot say that it's "better" than previous editions--which edition is better is entirely subjective. I could give dozens of reasons as to why I like 3.x better, those reasons don't amount to much to someone who doesn't like the 3.x rules. Quality has nothing to do with sales in a typical western market economy. Unfortunately, this is only too true. :(
weasel fierce 07-31-05, 07:57 PM	I think what a lot of old timers were wanting (for those that wanted change that is) were more akin to Troll Lords "Castles and Crusades" game.(basically old school D20) WOTC did a LOT of market research, and they found what the majority of gamers seemed to want. Which is what they got. The people who didnt want this, are not commercially worth aiming for, as they will already have other systems they prefer, and most wouldnt want to play D&D anyways, or does not even play fantasy RPG's. They did a calculated gamble as to what they could sell to the broadest audience as possible, and while I dont agree with the game they print, they obviously hit something.
Verelor 07-31-05, 08:17 PM	No, they succeed because they are marketed well, and currently in print. Quality has nothing to do with sales in a typical western market economy. Cynical geezer...
weasel fierce 07-31-05, 08:27 PM	Not particularly. Look at some of the crap that is sold in massive quantities. Doesnt mean a mass produced thing cannot be good. Just that its quality is not nescesarily a factor.
GreyLord 07-31-05, 09:34 PM	It should be noted at the height of 2e time period...D&D (three to four years AFTER the core books came out) was making almost 100 million dollars (and how you squander and take it down that much is beyond me). If you accept WotC's words about the first year of the corebooks release, they sold a million copies (though one could round it up wards to 2 million I'd guestimate overall) making at $20 a book, a maximum of $40 million. Of course that went down DRASTICALLY the second year. However, during the Gygax years, AD&D was on the rise, and in the mid 80s it was actually popular (as opposed as to now which it is seen as something nerds and geeks do...though I know half the people on the boards don't want to admit that such a stereotype still exists) and on the rise. Many of those playing seem to be the "new blood" and many who try to claim they played the old editions, when investigated further...one finds out that they in truth...did not. Even some who did, who play 3e and 3.5, many weren't really into the game scene that much when the older editions were out. 3e brought in a LOT of new blood into the hobby. It had to be the marketing, since I cannot for the life of me figure out how they did it otherwise. I think it may have a lot more to do with the Baldur's Gate engine games and Neverwinter nights however, than many give credit. In truth, though many try to claim that it is more popular today than ever before...well...depends on your term of popular. I still see it as stereotyped as a nerd and geek thing in hollywood movies and TV. That many times is a reflection of how society views something (or at least how they might think of it irrelavant of how things really are). A LOT of it also had to do with slapping on a Logo that was namebrand. Along with advertising that it was new, and under new management, made people who previously weren't interested in D&D...interested (for lack of a better word). This includes those who had fallen away from the hobby for years, in addition to those who had never played. Adding in the OGL so others could use the D&D rules (and admit it, a LOT of the game makers originally liked the D&D rules, but due to copyright issues, couldn't use such rules in their own games) only added to the hype (along with people in those game systems having to buy the core rules in order to play some of the systems that switched to D20). The OGL and D20 License also made the common joe who was interested in making their own D&D game or campaign feel more free to do so. In truth, the OGL was a stroke of genius in my opinion. However, the reason the OGL worked was because of the namebrand of D&D. Had they slapped on the name brand of...let's say...Wizards of the Coast Magic Roleplaying Game...I imagine they may have brought in some...but overall the OGL would not have had even an inkling of the success it had because of the D&D brand name (In my opinion of course). If they had done the same with OD&D and AD&D, releasing an OGL license with them, remarking that they were revamping the system (by getting rid of the slack with kits, and other such items and reverting back to the core rules), as well as bringing back old classes (such as the Monk), and also releasing the BG games and perhaps a revised NWN game...Not only would they have brought in new players, but also kept the old ones, and not had the upset people who felt decieved and betrayed. Hence, all the marketing would have still worked...only they wouldn't have put a huge rift in the community (Once again in my opinion). Instead, what occurred was that they got some fellows who had worked on the 2.5 stuff. Things that were with the new and fully loaded rules of options, and they incorporated that along with some stuff that WotC and the R&D wanted, and slapped the D&D Logo on it. In effect, making it a completely different game than the one envisioned by Gygax or any of the original creators...OR players...of D&D. In truth however, kudos does go to those 3e creators. They went with option two of using the new options instead of reverting back to older rules, and pared down a huge lot of it, cutting off perhaps 60% to 70% of optional rules that had loaded down 2.5/revision and Rules Options for AD&D. Unfortunately they tossed in some of their own ideas in the process of paring it down, some of it in order to keep some of the ideas of the Rules Options, and others...who knows...because they just liked those rules. They DID cut out a lot of junk (once again, for lack of a better word). From it they came out with a rather good and strong system. It's the system we know of as 3e. Ryan Dancy (I think that's who it was) was a big proponent of making it OGL...something that WotC I believe at the time wanted to shout down. They weren't as fond of it as some may think. However, somehow through some miracle it got through. One of the smartest moves in my opinion that's ever happened. So yes, it is all in the marketing and the logo. With continued research into the market, and seeing what the market wants, as well as incorporating even further changes into what became 3.5, WotC continues to flourish. Now it's not so much the books, as it is (or at least was, they aren't doing as well currently as they were, or so I'm under the impression) are the miniatures. Treating them sort of like the cardgames which they've been so famous for, putting out miniatures with commons, uncommons, rares, and the rest, was also a marketing strategy that has put food on the table...so to speak (which means...you like D&D...go buy some miniatures...NOW!!!). Yes, the books sell still, but not quite in the numbers they were. Or at least most of them don't sell as stellar as when the entire thing began. Of course, as with others, much of this IS my opinion. On another note does anyone else find this response by Verelor humorous... I say all this because I am (hopefully) an experienced and hardcore dungeon master, and read all my rulebooks cover to cover. How does a beginning beginner try to continue to argue. I have not forgotten my beginner days; they were quite recent . No offense...but experienced and quite recent...seem to oppose one another. As long as you enjoy the game...cheers...but your insult to the other guy...I actually found it quite humorous. No offense intended.
Rallaster 07-31-05, 09:43 PM	Even the three are around $100. Amazon - All three books. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786934107/qid=1122860531/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/103-0499874-2571839)
Azzy 07-31-05, 10:15 PM	However, during the Gygax years, AD&D was on the rise, and in the mid 80s it was actually popular (as opposed as to now which it is seen as something nerds and geeks do...though I know half the people on the boards don't want to admit that such a stereotype still exists) and on the rise. That popularity must've been really short lived, because by the time I got into D&D/AD&D in 87/88, it was back to being the sole pervue of nerds, geeks and giftos. Problem is, I've never heard of this golden age when the "cool kids" were playing D&D. I think the closest we get to D&D being cool was getting (briefly) featured in ET. :)
Palin the Wizard 07-31-05, 10:23 PM	D&D is a LOT more "cool" nowadays than it ever was before.
GreyLord 07-31-05, 11:04 PM	D&D is a LOT more "cool" nowadays than it ever was before. Things must be WAAAAY different where you live. Gangsta dressing, Cars, Football, and Sports are the cool things for the Young men where I live. Music, clothes, and spending money seem to be the popular things for the young women. For old guys like me...who cares about what's cool or what's not anymore, We just hope that we don't tear or stretch a muscle when we walk to the car in the morning much less worry about cool anymore!!! :)
Palin the Wizard 07-31-05, 11:15 PM	I didn't say it was cool. I said it was more cool now than it ever was before. The social stigma against playing D&D is ebbing away.
Lord Zeta 08-01-05, 02:20 AM	[QUOTE=GreyLord]It should be noted at the height of 2e time period...D&D (three to four years AFTER the core books came out) was making almost 100 million dollars (and how you squander and take it down that much is beyond me). If you accept WotC's words about the first year of the corebooks release, they sold a million copies (though one could round it up wards to 2 million I'd guestimate overall) making at $20 a book, a maximum of $40 million. Of course that went down DRASTICALLY the second year. I'm curious where you have gotten your numbers. My own research shows TSRs best year was 1981 when they made 16.5 million dollars with a profit of 4.25 million dollars. In 1985, the year Gary Gygax was pushed out, TSR was 15 million dollars in debt. In 1997 when Wizards bought them out they were 30 million dollars in debt. Second Edition was released in 1989. How did they squander it? First, Second Edition was not the universal hit you seem to want to make it out to be. In fact I would say it fractured the D&D community.I lot of 1e players didn't make the jump. I lot of others ( myself included ) eventually stopped playing AD&D all together and started playing other companies games! I think there was a down-turn in the rpg market in the late 80's-early 90's; I lot people just quit playing period. Magic and other ccgs hit like a lead hammer, and computer and video games didn't help either. Throw in the Internet/copyright fiasco, bad marketing decisions ( Buck Rodgers anyone? ) and trying to sue Gygax into oblivion that will pretty much take care of it. However, during the Gygax years, AD&D was on the rise, and in the mid 80s it was actually popular (as opposed as to now which it is seen as something nerds and geeks do...though I know half the people on the boards don't want to admit that such a stereotype still exists) and on the rise. Many of those playing seem to be the "new blood" and many who try to claim they played the old editions, when investigated further...one finds out that they in truth...did not. Even some who did, who play 3e and 3.5, many weren't really into the game scene that much when the older editions were out. 3e brought in a LOT of new blood into the hobby. It had to be the marketing, since I cannot for the life of me figure out how they did it otherwise. I think it may have a lot more to do with the Baldur's Gate engine games and Neverwinter nights however, than many give credit. Yes WOTC marketing is good but here is the reason they succeeded: They had the guts to make the necessary changes that the 2e designers wouldn't or couldn't do. The AD&D Core Rules were written in 1977-79. The RPG design community has had no good ideas since then? The idea that D&D couldn't be improved on is ludicrous. If it seems that 3e made too many changes its because 2e didn't make enough, and the changes they did make they "bolted" on sloppily. We D&D players have actually gotten off lucky. What edition is Call of Cthulhu on? How about Traveller? Do they still print Traveller? In truth, though many try to claim that it is more popular today than ever before...well...depends on your term of popular. I still see it as stereotyped as a nerd and geek thing in hollywood movies and TV. That many times is a reflection of how society views something (or at least how they might think of it irrelavant of how things really are). A LOT of it also had to do with slapping on a Logo that was namebrand. Along with advertising that it was new, and under new management, made people who previously weren't interested in D&D...interested (for lack of a better word). This includes those who had fallen away from the hobby for years, in addition to those who had never played. Adding in the OGL so others could use the D&D rules (and admit it, a LOT of the game makers originally liked the D&D rules, but due to copyright issues, couldn't use such rules in their own games) only added to the hype (along with people in those game systems having to buy the core rules in order to play some of the systems that switched to D20). The OGL and D20 License also made the common joe who was interested in making their own D&D game or campaign feel more free to do so. In truth, the OGL was a stroke of genius in my opinion. However, the reason the OGL worked was because of the namebrand of D&D. Had they slapped on the name brand of...let's say...Wizards of the Coast Magic Roleplaying Game...I imagine they may have brought in some...but overall the OGL would not have had even an inkling of the success it had because of the D&D brand name (In my opinion of course). If they had done the same with OD&D and AD&D, releasing an OGL license with them, remarking that they were revamping the system (by getting rid of the slack with kits, and other such items and reverting back to the core rules), as well as bringing back old classes (such as the Monk), and also releasing the BG games and perhaps a revised NWN game...Not only would they have brought in new players, but also kept the old ones, and not had the upset people who felt decieved and betrayed. Hence, all the marketing would have still worked...only they wouldn't have put a huge rift in the community (Once again in my opinion). Instead, what occurred was that they got some fellows who had worked on the 2.5 stuff. Things that were with the new and fully loaded rules of options, and they incorporated that along with some stuff that WotC and the R&D wanted, and slapped the D&D Logo on it. In effect, making it a completely different game than the one envisioned by Gygax or any of the original creators...OR players...of D&D. In truth however, kudos does go to those 3e creators. They went with option two of using the new options instead of reverting back to older rules, and pared down a huge lot of it, cutting off perhaps 60% to 70% of optional rules that had loaded down 2.5/revision and Rules Options for AD&D. Unfortunately they tossed in some of their own ideas in the process of paring it down, some of it in order to keep some of the ideas of the Rules Options, and others...who knows...because they just liked those rules. They DID cut out a lot of junk (once again, for lack of a better word). From it they came out with a rather good and strong system. It's the system we know of as 3e. Ryan Dancy (I think that's who it was) was a big proponent of making it OGL...something that WotC I believe at the time wanted to shout down. They weren't as fond of it as some may think. However, somehow through some miracle it got through. One of the smartest moves in my opinion that's ever happened. So yes, it is all in the marketing and the logo. With continued research into the market, and seeing what the market wants, as well as incorporating even further changes into what became 3.5, WotC continues to flourish. Now it's not so much the books, as it is (or at least was, they aren't doing as well currently as they were, or so I'm under the impression) are the miniatures. Treating them sort of like the cardgames which they've been so famous for, putting out miniatures with commons, uncommons, rares, and the rest, was also a marketing strategy that has put food on the table...so to speak (which means...you like D&D...go buy some miniatures...NOW!!!). No it is not just all marketing and logo, if you put out a product and you don't sell enough to cover your cost your out of business. If some one puts a fancy logo on a turd and spends a million dollars marketing it, he is probably going bankrupt. RPGs unfortunately are a poor business to make lot of money on. Once you buy the core rulebook(s) you never need to buy anything again. WOTC needs to sell to stay in business. Would you perfer 5+ rulebooks a month that overwhelm the core market and scare off new players? Yes, the books sell still, but not quite in the numbers they were. Or at least most of them don't sell as stellar as when the entire thing began. Without a side-by-side comparison we don't know how many books they sell now compared to the past. Of course, as with others, much of this IS my opinion. I respect your opinion, ( your right to post it and you, yourself ) but I don't agree with it in this case. Jeeze I really needed to rant!! :shocked:
Lord Zeta 08-01-05, 02:33 AM	That popularity must've been really short lived, because by the time I got into D&D/AD&D in 87/88, it was back to being the sole pervue of nerds, geeks and giftos. Problem is, I've never heard of this golden age when the "cool kids" were playing D&D. I think the closest we get to D&D being cool was getting (briefly) featured in ET. :) No man, it was when we were called Satan worshippers!! :devil:
Ranger REG 08-01-05, 03:34 AM	That's so true...just a mere 20 years...what a short existence...3.5 has lasted soooo much longer now. :D What I mean is, it's no longer in print. I've always thought that D&D and AD&D are two different entities. Now, the D&D Adventure Game (3.0e) and D&D Basic Game (3.5e) are more in-sync with the D&D Core Rulebooks. We've yet to see the Known World (aka Mystara) revived for 3.5e ... other than the Dragon magazine's "Campaign Classics" issue (#315).
nemobuscaptain 08-01-05, 02:20 PM	I know we weren't cool. But that was the early 80s when everyone tried to be a valley girl or boy. "Like D&D is so totally UNcoool. Like, ya know?" The Satan worshipping thing didn't help any in the bible belt either. I downloaded the old basic set (4th printing it said). It will serve to assist me with better equipment lists and a monster manual, though the monsters will have to be modified. I DO see what you mean about the combat in 3.5. It does seem to make more sense than the old version. It's been 25 years for me, so there is a little dust in the attic concerning the details of the old rules. I do not, in general, like some of the skill checks from 3.5. The old basic set was faaaaaaaaaar more complete, but I would say that the 3.5 basic game is easier (and perhaps more exciting due to miniatures and dungeon maps) than the old school stuff. Last post, I assume. Thanks for all the help.
weasel fierce 08-01-05, 02:45 PM	What I mean is, it's no longer in print. I've always thought that D&D and AD&D are two different entities. They are. The philosophies and mentalities between the two are completely different
Ranger REG 08-01-05, 05:05 PM	They are. The philosophies and mentalities between the two are completely different Oh, good. At least I'm not the only one that hallucinated it. :P
Verelor 08-01-05, 09:56 PM	What can I say? The 80's was an absolute suckfest. It was an entire decade of meaningless crap that we'll never get back. I do, however, URGE you, beg you even, Nemobuscaptain, to drive to your local book store and flip through a copy of the 3 core rulebooks. You have no idea what you're missing. The actual full game is spectacular.
Ranger REG 08-03-05, 05:52 PM	What can I say? The 80's was an absolute suckfest. It was an entire decade of meaningless crap that we'll never get back. Really? Because I believe the 90's were the worst. TSR didn't want to update OA into 2nd edition, yet introduced too many setting products.
Azzy 08-03-05, 08:46 PM	What can I say? The 80's was an absolute suckfest. It was an entire decade of meaningless crap that we'll never get back. Bah! The miniskirts of the 80s beat the flannel of the 90s any day of the week.
nemobuscaptain 08-18-05, 11:15 PM	OK, just an update. Some of you missed the point. It's not that I cannot add or that I cannot read a table (though I don't want to have to thumb through thousands of them), or that I just couldn't figure it out. There is NO EXPLANATION of armor class (or whatever it's called) in the 3.5 basic set. One sentence would have done it. You play the characters that come in the set or nothing, though all the rest of the basic character generation stuff is in there. I think that was an editing error and a shows that the product wasn't well produced. It doesn't stand alone and that didn't meet my expectation, regardless of whether it was planned as "just an appetizer" for 3.5 or not. I'm still not happy with the box set, but the mini's and castle map makes it less of a bad purchase. I did download a mini monster manual from the D20 site and that gives me some options. I also downloaded some old D&D (Cyclopedia and the second basic set, I don't remember the color of the box now). I also downloaded almost all of the d20 modern rules (except the magic and psionics stuff). Played with the girls one more time using D20 Modern and a made up "Undercover Brother" scenario. If you haven't seen the movie, it's hilarious. The firearms damage in D20M seem odd, but they had a good time and I'll get back around to the D&D thing later with a elf adventure that my 9 year old will like. I think the Gygax Castles and Crusades stuff may enter my library soon. I like what I read about it. Maybe Spycraft also. Thanks for the help guys.