Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wabbit 04-14-06, 10:17 AM	Hi, I quit playing AD&D back in the mid 80's (mainly because the game was less fun due to too many Monty Hall players and DM's), but I am interested in getting back into it again. Now I am pretty confused about the whole version issue. Is it D20 now, or 3.5 or what is the newest version? What are the differences? What should I get to get back into the game? Thanks for any help!
Illion the Red 04-14-06, 10:47 AM	Well, as someone who grew up on AD&D and such, I'd like to say Welcome Back! The 3.5 ruleset is the current one. Ignore everything that is 3.0. The differences are too vast to name, but to get back in, you should pick up the three "core" books: Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, Monster Manual. They have everything you need to get started and keep going for quite a while.
Seeker95 04-14-06, 10:51 AM	d20 is the "system". It is a set of mechanics that can be used to create fantasy games (like D&D), science fiction games (babylon d20, etc.), modern games (d20 Modern), and even genre-specific games like spycraft. 3rd edition is the Dungeons and Dragons that uses the d20 set of mechanics. 3.5 Revised Edition is the most current set of rules using the d20 set of mechanics. [list] If you just want to play, you need the 3.5 Player's Handbook and find a DM with a group. If you want to DM, you need the Player's Handbook and the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide. The 3.5 Monster Manual is also a highly recommended purchase. In either case, you will need a set of dice too. Your old dice, if you still have them, are perfectly suited to the newest edition of the game.[/list[Welcome back! (Disclaimer: I have played D&D since 1978, enjoying every edition as it was released. 3.5 is by far my favorite for its solid integrated mechanics. I miss the "newness" that my 1983 to 1986 high school playing days carried, but the solidity of the new rules compensates for that.)
Wabbit 04-14-06, 11:12 AM	Thanks for the replies! Ok, I think I get it: 3.5 is a D20 system, so I don't have to chose between the 3.5 and D20. All D&D games now use the 20 sided dice for everything, rather than the variety of dice we used to lug around? It's a little daunting to try and get back into the game with a very different system. In some ways the old system had a LOT of variety, but was not very customizable. How does the new system compare?
Farland 04-14-06, 11:17 AM	As someone who played 1e and 2e, let me say that the 3.5 system is far superior to 2e. The rules are tighter yet more flexible, and they allow for far better play. Give it a shot, read the PHB and the DMG with an open mind, and I think you will like it.
Illion the Red 04-14-06, 11:47 AM	Ok, I think I get it: 3.5 is a D20 system, so I don't have to chose between the 3.5 and D20. All D&D games now use the 20 sided dice for everything, rather than the variety of dice we used to lug around? Actually, no...you still need to lug around all of the odd dice. The D20 System is based on the success or failure of actions being resolved by a roll of a d20 (VERY basic description). You still need all of the other dice for determining damage, hit points, percentages, and the like.
Azezel 04-14-06, 01:26 PM	In one sentence: The outcome of any action which has the possibility of failure is decided by rolling a d20, adding or subtracting appropriate modifiers, and comparing the result to a target number. That's just about it. You do however need another six kinds of dice to roll things like weapon damage or spell effects.
Wabbit 04-14-06, 02:05 PM	Ok, gotcha! Now, I've been wasting work time looking through the website, and there are articles about the differences between v3 and 3.5, but I can't find anything about the differences in classes and races and such between v1 and 3.5. Also, is it possible to get the PHB and other books in an electronic format? Thanks!
mearls 04-14-06, 02:19 PM	Ok, gotcha! Now, I've been wasting work time looking through the website, and there are articles about the differences between v3 and 3.5, but I can't find anything about the differences in classes and races and such between v1 and 3.5. Also, is it possible to get the PHB and other books in an electronic format? Thanks! The system reference document (SRD) is available online. It collects all of the rules that are available for use under the open game license (OGL) and the d20 system license. It's somewhat complicated, but in essence WotC allows other publishers to use material from the SRD to make D&D compatible books and adventures. You can find the SRD here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 It isn't written as an easy guide to learn the game, but it should give you an idea of how the mechanics work. The D&D Basic Game might be a good starting point. It has a set of intro rules to get you going, along with dice, miniatures, and dungeon tiles you can use when you move on to the PHB, DMG, and MM.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-14-06, 04:02 PM	It's probably worth noting that DnD 3e and 3.5 are the direct successor to AD&D, not D&D. But since the D&D line went defunct years ago, there's no need to distinguish between DnD and Advanced DnD, so the current version is just D&D 3.x.
celtredleg 04-14-06, 04:14 PM	Wabbit, I went fromm 1st ed ADD to 3.5 about 2 years ago. I did not have to much trouble. The new rules are a lot cleaner, and more consistant than the old ones where. There is a bewildering variety of additional books out there that all add more or less to what you can do. To start with, stay away from them, stick to the basic three. It will not take long to get back into the swing of how it works.
Herald@Large 04-14-06, 07:12 PM	Now, I've been wasting work time looking through the website, and there are articles about the differences between v3 and 3.5, but I can't find anything about the differences in classes and races and such between v1 and 3.5. Thanks! Greetings! I've been playing since the early days of 1st ed and can help you out a bit here. RACES: Still the basic 7 (human, half-elf, elf, dwarf, gnome, half-orc, halfling) but now any race can be any class. Level limits are gone. CLASSES: Quite a few more: there's barbarians, bards, sorcerers and several others. Some of the class names have changed: thieves are now called rogues, and magic-users are wizards. The XP bonus for high scores is gone, as are minimum ability scores for classes. Multi-classing is vastly different. EQUIPMENT: Lots more weapons and some new armor types. SPELLS: Many more than there used to be, and some of the "old standards" have changed in various ways (damage, casting time, etc.) Clerics can now cast 9th-level spells, just like wizards. There are specific lists of spells for all the different spellcaster types. SKILLS AND FEATS: A new wrinkle which can make your character more effective, versatile and individualized. So before you buy *anything* else, get the 3.5 PHB and read it through, especially the sections on Skills, Feats, Combat, and Spells. Then read it again. And again. Welcome to 21st-century gaming! :)
CthulhuRyleh 04-14-06, 07:22 PM	D20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/)
Eclipse Lutgehr 04-14-06, 07:24 PM	As an expansion upon what mearls posted, a somewhat easier read for the basics of the rules can be found here: http://www.d20srd.org/ I myself started in AD&D, then jumped through both iterations of 3rd edition. The rules are a bit more complicated, but allow for VASTLY more flexibility when it comes to your gaming needs. After giving a once-over though the SRD (site or document), I'd suggest picking up the Player's Handbok and reading that through a few times to give yourself a good knowledge of the rules. As it's been said before, Welcome Back!
caeruleus 04-14-06, 07:31 PM	Hi, I quit playing AD&D back in the mid 80's (mainly because the game was less fun due to too many Monty Hall players and DM's), but I am interested in getting back into it again. Now I am pretty confused about the whole version issue. Is it D20 now, or 3.5 or what is the newest version? What are the differences? What should I get to get back into the game? Thanks for any help! Ah, I haven't heard the phrase "Monty Hall" in such a long time! These days people use the term "munchkin" (or whatever). Check out 3.5, but also keep in mind that there's nothing wrong with playing the older editions of the game, especially if you've still got all the books and have people to play with. There's also Castles & Crusades by Troll Lord Games (Gary Gygax has written stuff for this system). C&C basically uses the convenience d20 system, but sticks much more closely to the older editions. Also keep in mind that many people (myself included) think that 3.0 and 3.5 very easily lend themselves to Monty Hall gaming, more so than earlier editions. I still play 3.5 myself, but it's something to be aware of. For example, the Challenge Rating system used to make balanced encounters assumes that the PCs are loaded with a certain amount of magic items.
The_Levitator 04-14-06, 07:37 PM	I just wanted to add that I personally prefer the 3.5 version of Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting over the 2nd edition version too. It seems like it's a lot more detailed. If you used FR before, I think you'll like the new version, even though it still has its share of critics. It took me a little while to get acquainted with 3.5, but I really really like it!
Valeur 04-14-06, 07:56 PM	I have nothing to add, besides this easier, more browsable version of the SRD: SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html)
Shemeska the Marauder 04-14-06, 08:17 PM	I just wanted to add that I personally prefer the 3.5 version of Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting over the 2nd edition version too. It seems like it's a lot more detailed. Not to pass any value judgements about which edition is better, but it's rather incorrect to suggest that the 3.5 FR material is more detailed than the 2e FR material. The 2e material has a significantly larger amount and percentage of fluff and detail than the 3.x supplements, though both are well written (and I have easier access to the 3.x books than 2e ones, but if I want a richer level of detail, I go for the 2e versions).
Alac Luin 04-14-06, 08:35 PM	A few things new to old school gamers THAC0 is Now BAB, BAB works backwards compaired to THAC0, but since THAC0 was backwards to begin with... AC is still AC, but works backwards: see THACO 3 saves ref, wil, and fort. no more PP&P, DM or other obscure saves
druidess4life 04-14-06, 09:20 PM	also another added bonus from 2nd to 3rd is that the weapons score criticals not just on a natural 20, and without the use of magic not ever fighter is going to have the same saves, which I think is wonderful :D
druidess4life 04-14-06, 09:20 PM	also another added bonus from 2nd to 3rd is that the weapons score criticals not just on a natural 20, and without the use of magic not every fighter is going to have the same saves, which I think is wonderful :D
Seeker95 04-14-06, 09:38 PM	Ah, I haven't heard the phrase "Monty Hall" in such a long time! These days people use the term "munchkin" (or whatever).It's Monty Haul (based on Monty Hall, the Let's Make a Deal game show host). The Haul is the hominym of Hall, using the definition of "carrying a lot". Monty Haul refers to the DM (today often called a munchkin herder) while munchkin generally refers to the player.
Malruhn 04-14-06, 09:54 PM	I started with D&D in 1980, AD&D in '81, then sold my soul to 2nd edition. I've now been playing 3.5 for about a year... and in my opinion, it is MUCH better than 2nd Ed. The big things that gave me a problem are as follows: THAC0: it used to be so easy... now you get a Base Attack Bonus (BAB) per level (+1 for fighters at 1st lvl) that gets added to your d20 roll to hit against the AC (after adding magic bonus and STR). WAY simple! AC: Standing in your undies, you are AC10. Each set of armor gives you an AC bonus... a chain shirt gives a +4. Viola! You are now AC14. Add a large metal shield and it is AC16. With magic and dex and feats, you can get ACs in the stratosphere (the highest I have heard is about AC72). WAY simple! FEATS: These are special things your character either is/has/or can do that makes him/her special. They run the gamut from being able to scribe a scroll to having a high endurance (+3 Hit Points!), to running really fast to being uber-blaster with a weapon and more. WAY cool. (used to be done with house rules) SKILLS: Stupid every day things that Joe Average can do that gives depth. These run from being able to appraise an item to being able to craft a carving to your knowledge of royalty/nobility to understanding Spellcraft. It used to be house-ruled before alternative rules came in late in 2nd Ed. WAY simple and WAY cool! MULTICLASSING: Wanna be a fighter? Go ahead and take a level. Now do you wanna be a fighter/rogue (thief)? Go ahead and take a level. Now do you wanna be a fighter/rogue/wizard? Go ahead and knock yourself out! HOWEVER, you are now a third level character but still only fight as good as a first level fighter, and cast spells as good as a first level mage... it makes you flexible, but weakens you significantly in the long run. WAY simple - but has a price. CR (Critical Risk): This is how hard a monster it is to beat... a CR7 monster is supposed to be able to be beaten by a group of FOUR seventh level characters after a good fight. It can be hard to a DM to figure out at first, but comes as PRETTY simple. DR (Damage Reduction): Some critters have it, like were-critters having DR 10/Silver. That means the first TEN points of damage done is ignored... unless the weapon is silvered. DR5/Magic/Adamantine = ignore 5 points of damage unless you have either magic weapons OR adamantine weapons. DR1/Good and cold iron = ignore ONE point of damage unless the weapon is aligned GOOD AND is made of cold iron. WAY simple. PRESTIGE CLASSES: There are some "uber" classes that specialize for five/seven or ten levels. You meet prerequisites (like able to cast arcane spells of 2nd level AND being able to sneak attack (rogue)), and you can take the Prestige class if you are interested. They are flavor, but can REALLY impact the ability of the character. PRETTY simple and WAY cool. I am COMPLETELY sold on the new system, and nearly all my house rules are thrown away (after years of work!).
caeruleus 04-15-06, 12:23 AM	It's Monty Haul (based on Monty Hall, the Let's Make a Deal game show host). The Haul is the hominym of Hall, using the definition of "carrying a lot". Yes, I know where it comes from, and it's been spelled both ways when referring to a type of campaign.
Solaris 04-15-06, 02:06 AM	Yes, I know where it comes from, and it's been spelled both ways when referring to a type of campaign. Only by people who don't know better. The 1979 AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide refers to "Monty Haul" campaigns; some people probably heard the phrase instead of reading it, didn't realize there was a pun, and started mistakenly spreading the "Monty Hall" spelling.
Ranger REG 04-15-06, 03:03 AM	Hi, I quit playing AD&D back in the mid 80's (mainly because the game was less fun due to too many Monty Hall players and DM's), but I am interested in getting back into it again. Now I am pretty confused about the whole version issue. Is it D20 now, or 3.5 or what is the newest version? What are the differences? What should I get to get back into the game? d20 System is the name of the rule system that powers Dungeons & Dragons, Star Wars d20, d20 Modern, etc. It was formally introduced in the Third Edition (3e or 3.0e) of Dungeons & Dragons. 3.5e is the revision of 3.0e, released just three years after the initial launch. It would be easier to get into the most current incarnation (i.e., 3.5e) since WotC only put out 3.5e compatible products. If you find the three core rulebooks material overwhelming and intimidating, you can try the Basic Game boxed set to ease into the new ruleset. Unlike the previous editions, there are no separate D&D and AD&D.
caeruleus 04-15-06, 02:39 PM	Only by people who don't know better. The 1979 AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide refers to "Monty Haul" campaigns; some people probably heard the phrase instead of reading it, didn't realize there was a pun, and started mistakenly spreading the "Monty Hall" spelling. And because of that, later rulebooks noted both spellings. The spelling of a word isn't an eternal Platonic form.
Pennarin 04-15-06, 03:15 PM	I have nothing to add, besides this easier, more browsable version of the SRD: SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html) I totally agree. That is the nicest, best-looking SRD I've found. And its downoadable too! Once you've done so you just click on the file on your computer and it recreates all you see in the webpage. It can be faster than flipping through the PHB and DMG. Wabbit, I strongly suggest you put that link into your favorites, or download it (http://www.files.bz/files/4343/sovelior_sage_srd.zip). Happy gaming! :D
Solaris 04-15-06, 04:20 PM	And because of that, later rulebooks noted both spellings. The spelling of a word isn't an eternal Platonic form. Which books? I'm not doubting it --- ignorance is, after all, a powerful force in language change --- I just never noticed it.
caeruleus 04-15-06, 05:09 PM	Which books? I'm not doubting it --- ignorance is, after all, a powerful force in language change --- I just never noticed it. Hmm... the particular example I have in mind is from one of the DMGR books of 2e. I distinctly remember seeing it more than once, I just can't give you an exact page to look up. Also, the "Monty Hall" article on Wikipedia, while it's primarily about the person, has a section on the roleplaying useage. It uses the "Hall" spelling, and lists "Haul" as an alternative. Having said that, I tend more towards using "Haul", but I was just responding to the OP with the same spelling he used. Kinda like how I prefer Canadian spellings, but tend to use American spellings on these boards, because that's how most people here write. When in Rome... it's just a habit of mine. But I still try to only use "appropriate" spellings, and I've already discussed why I think "Hall" is appropriate. I wouldn't spell it as "Haull", for example, even if someone else did.
Kursk 04-15-06, 07:33 PM	Hi, I quit playing AD&D back in the mid 80's (mainly because the game was less fun due to too many Monty Hall players and DM's), but I am interested in getting back into it again. Now I am pretty confused about the whole version issue. Is it D20 now, or 3.5 or what is the newest version? What are the differences? What should I get to get back into the game? Thanks for any help! It's called "Dungeons & Dragons". Current version is 3.5. I've played for 28+ years and Monty Hall is bigger and more popular than ever since the 3.x versions came out. Just find a good group that knows what an RPG is and have fun!
Vanamir 04-16-06, 09:50 AM	Although the 3E rules are a vast improvement over those of older editions i fear that the problems of Wabbit are not solved by the actual rules. 3E has a very strong focus on tactical combat, building up your character stats and acquiring treasure as well magical items. In a certain way the rules have returned to the 1E style of play of merry dungeon crawling whereas 2E was leaning somewhat more towards story based roleplaying. If i understand Wabbit correctly, he didn't like that most adventures back then were around going into an arbitrary dungeon, slaying all inhabitants and leaving with unbelievably large amounts of treasures and magical items. At least that is what i understand under Monty Haul (or Hall). But i fear that this is exactly the style of play that is encouraged by 3E. This is even suggested in the rules as written since magic and magic items are usually easily available. If you are acustomed to the amounts of treasure you had in 1E or 2E the wealth guidelines of 3E can appear to be rather shocking. Another problem of 3E is that in general it is more high-powered and magic rich than previous editions. This is not a problem if you mainly use monsters as adversaries but becomes rather annoying when you use ordinary NPCs as opponents. In my experience enemy NPCs become quickly unfeasible as opponents unless you start to equip them with magic items by default. Of course this again leads to Monty Haul syndrome of to much treasure.
Wabbit 04-18-06, 12:21 PM	Wow! Go away for a couple days, and come back to a full thread! First of all, thanks to all the folks who posted! Thanks to Herald@Large, Alac Luin and Malruhn for the detailed breakdowns, they give a good overview. One thing that will be really nice about getting back into the game now is that there is more access to the whole community through forums like this. I went ahead, blew my allowance and placed my order for the 3 core rule books! Should have them sometime this year... Now, I ebay'ed all of my old AD&D stuff a long time ago, but I still have a lot of the modules and such as PDF's. Can they be adapted easily to the new system? I'd love to play the Slave Lords or Giant series again! Ok, I want to address some of the information posted: * * * It's Monty Haul (based on Monty Hall, the Let's Make a Deal game show host). The Haul is the hominym of Hall, using the definition of "carrying a lot". Monty Haul refers to the DM (today often called a munchkin herder) while munchkin generally refers to the player. You're right, Seeker95, I should've spelled it right, and you got a good one on me, even if being out of the loop for 20 years caused me to forget this detail while sloppily making my thread. I do agree with Caeruleus that it has been written in a variety of publications in both forms. It might make me an old fogey, but I'll probably stick with the good 'ole "Monty Haul" term. Munchkin just sounds too cutesy. How/ when did it become "munchkins" in the first place? * * * Although the 3E rules are a vast improvement over those of older editions i fear that the problems of Wabbit are not solved by the actual rules. [Edit] If i understand Wabbit correctly, he didn't like that most adventures back then were around going into an arbitrary dungeon, slaying all inhabitants and leaving with unbelievably large amounts of treasures and magical items. At least that is what i understand under Monty Haul (or Hall). [Edit] Another problem of 3E is that in general it is more high-powered and magic rich than previous editions. [Edit] Of course this again leads to Monty Haul syndrome of too much treasure. True, it wasn't really the rules that I had a problem with, though new and more concrete rules will certainly make it easier to run a game. I guess it was the attitude of the players and DM's that I was coming in contact with. I was lucky that my initial introduction to AD&D was through a friend who was not in the least bit a Monty Haul-er. Even though it was heart breaking to see my 873rd character get slaughtered just after he made it to 4th level, forcing me to roll up character number 874 at first level, it was really satisfying when I made it to the unbelievably powerful 9th level, and each one of those characters that made it past first level had something memorable. When I moved and had to find new players, I was dropping into games with high level (15+) characters, all of whom owned "Black Razor" or who had really odd explanations of how they ended up with a 23rd level Gnome Paladin/ Illusionist (back before the rules allowed this). Or the time the party dropped through a time portal into the 20th century and ransacked a drug gang for their various guns, all of which the players somehow knew how to use. Contrast that with my former DM, who led us through "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks", where we were forced to play as if we didn't know we were exploring a crashed UFO. I nearly killed my character trying to figure out how to use a magic staff (laser rifle). All the emphasis on cool magic treasures and tons of money made the game less fun, because rather than have to think of innovative ways to get around a problem, someone would have a magic item that would do the trick. And I love the hack and slash aspect of the game, but it was more fun when you went into melee with the realization that you'd probably have to make a new character if you didn't play it smart. All in all, it seemed the way I was used to playing was tougher, grittier, darker, and much more fun. I'm dissapointed to find out that the new system lends itself more to the Monty Haul way, rather than the other (we need a name for that way). I imagine that it would take some pencil-in-the-margins adaptations to the rule books to adress this (for encounter tables and such). Running or playing a campaign, I'd rather have one where magic items are uncommon (for minor +1 stuff) to rare for anything more interesting.
caeruleus 04-18-06, 01:46 PM	When I moved and had to find new players, I was dropping into games with high level (15+) characters, all of whom owned "Black Razor" I'm assuming you mean that each had their own "Black Razor" (which is supposed to be a unique item) rather than ownership of one sword belonging to the group (uncommon among Monty Haulers)... in that case, Yikes! :eek: Or the time the party dropped through a time portal into the 20th century and ransacked a drug gang for their various guns, all of which the players somehow knew how to use. Hey, that sounds like my group back in junior high... :embarrass I'm dissapointed to find out that the new system lends itself more to the Monty Haul way, rather than the other (we need a name for that way). Rather than... "roleplaying"? ;) Anyway Wabbit, it's awsome that you're getting back in. I remember getting into 3e after having stopped playing 2e for a few years. You must be excited.
Bullgrit 04-18-06, 03:01 PM	I'm dissapointed to find out that the new system lends itself more to the Monty Haul wayIt doesn't. Monty Haul is and always has been a player/DM mindset and style, not a feature/bug of the rules system. For instance, having multiple Blackrazors in a campaign is not a problem of the AD&D1 system, nor a fault of the White Plume Mountain adventure. Welcome back. I've played since 1980 (BD&D, AD&D1, and a little dabbling in AD&D2). D&D3.x is a worthy heir of the throne. Bullgrit
Valkaun_Dain 04-18-06, 03:38 PM	Now, I ebay'ed all of my old AD&D stuff a long time ago, but I still have a lot of the modules and such as PDF's. Can they be adapted easily to the new system? I'd love to play the Slave Lords or Giant series again! Slave Lords? Giant Series? Brother, you need Greyhawk (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=353).
a_psh 04-19-06, 02:41 AM	Slave Lords? Giant Series? Brother, you need Greyhawk (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=353).Also, if you want to play Greyhawk, I highly suggest the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (that "Living" is important - make sure it's the book with 192 pages, not 60-something). It's basically an update of the Greyhawk world to 3e, though very light on rules. A great setting synopsis if you want background for play the old adventures but don't have a lot of your old books (note that it does move the base timeline ahead a couple of years, though). A bit hard to find these days, but a good product with essentially 0 rules information. If you only used Greyhawk as a backdrop for adventures, the stuff in the core books and some of the other supplements is probably enough for you (the gods listed in the Player's Handbook are Greyhawk gods now, for example). If you're wondering, the two big settings currently supported by WotC are Forgotten Realms, which has undergone a bit of a facelift but still has most of the same major attributes it did 10 years ago, and Eberron, which is a new setting that's designed to be a combination of pulp (Indiana Jones) and noir (Maltese Falcon) styles and tightly integrated with the current ruleset.
AkaKageWarrior 04-19-06, 04:49 AM	the current 3v5 rules are the BEST rules ever!!! I started in 1986 with AD&D 1st edition and never stopped playing. I'm always suspicious of new versions, fearing that mainly publisher's greed created these... 3v5 rules rule! :D flexibility, power, "realism" AKW
babysamurai 04-19-06, 07:38 AM	I've been playing since 1986, and I by far prefer 3.x to any previous edition. I started with 1st edition, then went on to 2nd edition in 1989, and somewhere around 1994 I became disillusioned with 2nd edition - it started to lose focus and become a sort of "Frankenstein's Monster". I would rather play 1st edtion than 2nd edition. Hell, I would rather play OD&D than 2nd edition - 2nd edition had no character. That's one of the great things about 3.x; they brought back some of that mystique that 1st edtion had. Of course there is nothing in this world like that 1st edition DMG.
Ranger REG 04-19-06, 04:41 PM	the current 3v5 rules are the BEST rules ever!!! Meh. Too bad it is marred by its release just three years after 3.0e debuted. Good for people who didn't buy 3.0e prior to 2003, sucks for those who do. 3v5 rules rule! :D flexibility, power, "realism" Why oh why are you using that dirty "R" word here? :P
AkaKageWarrior 04-19-06, 05:04 PM	Too bad it is marred by its release just three years after 3.0e debuted. Good for people who didn't buy 3.0e prior to 2003, sucks for those who do. agreed! but the improvements are striking, so I finally think 3v5 is okay. (I was actually pi$$ed of for at least a year or so before buying the new PHB) Why oh why are you using that dirty "R" word here? :P :D I'm an engineer, so there must be an explanation for everything - even magic! :P AKW
Vanamir 04-20-06, 05:25 AM	... Now, I ebay'ed all of my old AD&D stuff a long time ago, but I still have a lot of the modules and such as PDF's. Can they be adapted easily to the new system? I'd love to play the Slave Lords or Giant series again! I fear that older modules cannot be easily converted to the current edition without a lot of work. Although both AD&D and 3.5E are both are called Dungeons&Dragons and share common concepts they are nevertheless very different systems. Especially if you want to run the old slavers series i think you will run into trouble because these adventures are very NPC heavy. Character and thus NPC generation rules are much more complex than in previous editions and and converting stats from 1E to 3E will take a serious amount of time and effort. Furthermore you have the problem of increased power levels in 3E. Comparatively characters in 3rd edition rise faster in their power levels than in 1E/2E because. So a lot of the low-level NPC encounters that are present especially in the slavers series will be even more superfluous than before. Even then you will run into the problem that the relative strengths and weaknesses of monsters sometimes changed between editions, so encouters that were balanced in 1E won't necessarily be in 3E. Effectively you will have to make a lot of rebalancing yourself and this can be really time consuming and difficult for a novice GM. ... All the emphasis on cool magic treasures and tons of money made the game less fun, because rather than have to think of innovative ways to get around a problem, someone would have a magic item that would do the trick. And I love the hack and slash aspect of the game, but it was more fun when you went into melee with the realization that you'd probably have to make a new character if you didn't play it smart. All in all, it seemed the way I was used to playing was tougher, grittier, darker, and much more fun. I'm dissapointed to find out that the new system lends itself more to the Monty Haul way, rather than the other (we need a name for that way). I imagine that it would take some pencil-in-the-margins adaptations to the rule books to adress this (for encounter tables and such). Running or playing a campaign, I'd rather have one where magic items are uncommon (for minor +1 stuff) to rare for anything more interesting. [/QUOTE] I fear you will find out that the emphasis on magic weapons in 3E is stronger than ever before. The problems of low-magic campaigns have extensively been discussed on these boards and a lot of people found that giving out only few, low-powered weapons strongly unbalances the game to the disadvantage of primary fighters. In 3E standard, non-artifact weapons and armour can have magical enhancements of up to +5 plus other magical properties for an effective enchantment of up to +10 and the game designers meant the players to use them. Magic items have well defined creation rules and even low level casters can make them, so magical gear is quite abundant. Even player characters will often take feats like brew potion or craft wondrous item so your efforts to keep magical gear from the players may be thwarted. Of course all this is less of a problem whenever you have a group of mature players who are mostly interested in roleplaying and don't care about the rules. Alas, whenever i come to these boards i fear that many of players today have a very strong interest in character optimisation and they won't be happy if you keep them short on magical gear which they consider vital for the validity of their character concept.
Wabbit 04-20-06, 08:12 AM	I fear that older modules cannot be easily converted to the current edition without a lot of work. [Edit] Well, that's ok. I guess it wouldn't hurt to come up with an updated version of those, anyways... I fear you will find out that the emphasis on magic weapons in 3E is stronger than ever before. [Edit] Alas, whenever i come to these boards i fear that many of players today have a very strong interest in character optimisation and they won't be happy if you keep them short on magical gear which they consider vital for the validity of their character concept. So it's less about role playing these days, huh? Bummer.... < Spin the wheel of magic stuff...> :banghead:
jasper 04-20-06, 09:38 AM	no roleplaying is still the same as depends on group or person. Now Enworld and other sites have conversions of old modules. A major difference is now 4 pcs and maybe their familiar and pets, compared to 6 to 8 pcs their familiar and pets. If you restart remember for first year of gaming core rules books only. Pick up the sunless cithadel, forge of fury modules. Freeport is good city state I hear and the one city state campaign of the Judges Guild has been converted to 3.5 Leveling up is faster. every 13 to 14 encounters = party level your pc will go up. Some people have change the rate of xp by either changing the chart or giving out less xp. Also no gp to xp. Players maybe able to by magic off the shelf Monsters have stats to. So an orc does long sword + str bonus. Npc can go up to 20th level to include commoners. bad if you want to be detailed npc require a character sheet. I suggest you use your old campaign and just update it. Most of time it will require little changes. Some my normal items are now unusual items due changes in rules. Attacks of Oppurnity. Basically one free swing per rd (6seconds) but your mage can get a gut shot and still has chance to fireball the bad guy.
Bullgrit 04-20-06, 09:40 AM	So it's less about role playing these days, huh? Bummer....No. Roleplaying is a Player/DM/group style choice, not something about the rules -- same as it ever has been. Actually, there is more info about and for RP in the D&D3.x books than there was in the old AD&D1 books. Bullgrit
a_psh 04-20-06, 12:17 PM	So it's less about role playing these days, huh? Bummer.... < Spin the wheel of magic stuff...> :banghead:I most certainly wouldn't say that. The world has just been tweaked a little bit to be more self-consistent, which has made magic items more common (before: why would a wizard ever burn Con to make a stupid +1 sword?). So by-the-book magical items can, in fact, be purchased, traded, &c. I think this actually works out pretty well, since it becomes a little bit easier to customize a character, as you can spend your gold on item crafting rather than just having to rely on the DM and the dice to give you the items you want. Basically, you'll see more magic stuff like at low levels, but it'll be low-powered. Like rings of protection +1 or the like. Magical wealth doesn't really get that big before 10th level or so. It's more group-dependent than anything else, but I find the new system and some of the new setting material have helped roleplaying more than hurt it.
caeruleus 04-20-06, 12:35 PM	I think there are ways of having low-magic campaigns. One thing that helps is simply not using creatures that can only be hit by magic weapons. Or, just remove/reduce Damage Reduction of the creatures that have it. Keep Spell Resistance, though.
a_psh 04-20-06, 08:22 PM	I think there are ways of having low-magic campaigns. One thing that helps is simply not using creatures that can only be hit by magic weapons. Or, just remove/reduce Damage Reduction of the creatures that have it. Keep Spell Resistance, though.That's low-magic-item. Caster still get tons of magic. Unless you change that... which is doable, but hard. You just have to remember that all classes benefit from items, but that they do so in different ways: a typical fighter needs magic items both for offense and defense, for example, while a wizard primarily relies on them for defense.
caeruleus 04-20-06, 10:52 PM	That's low-magic-item. Caster still get tons of magic. Unless you change that... which is doable, but hard. You just have to remember that all classes benefit from items, but that they do so in different ways: a typical fighter needs magic items both for offense and defense, for example, while a wizard primarily relies on them for defense. Fair enough. However, "low magic" can mean different things. It could mean that you nerf spellcasting classes, or it could mean that spellcasters are just not common. The former is a low magic campaign, the latter is a low magic setting, even if the PCs may have a fair bit of it.
RPG_Tweaker 04-21-06, 12:34 AM	Third edition D&D is leaps and bounds better than previous editions. By streamlining cumbersome rules, adding consistency to the mechanics, removing artificial barriers and categorizing game effects, the core set (PHB, DMG, MM) is much improved and easier to grasp than its predecessors. [1] That said, while I wouldn't classify the rules as promoting Monty Haul gaming, there is a modicum of power creep that has been built into the system. If you strictly follow the DMG Challenge Ratings (CR) and recommended treasure-by-level, then you must keep a fairly steady flow of magic items to the adventurers lest they be underpowered. I wouldn't let this discourage you though, it doesn't mean that players need to trudge around backpacks full of relics, it just means that the DM should keep vigilant attention to the power levels; a clever DM can do this though quite easily. Additionally there are house rules and leveling magic items that are mechanically built to "grow" with the power level of a character. Overall I would say, beyond the rules, the most important element to enjoying Dungeons and Dragons (of any edition) is that the DM and players need a similar enthusiasm, play-style and maturity level. Collectively they decide whether the game tends towards Roleplay or Rollplay... If you are really interested in limited-magic roleplay you may want to check out Monte Cook's Iron Heroes. If you are looking for classic module conversions try the EN World Conversion Library. [1] I would suggest avoiding the vast majority of products beyond the core set. If so, choose wisely. They quickly begin to clutter the game with rules covering every bit of minutiae, reducing the DM's role as Arbiter to a mere rules-reciting mentat. It also installs a meme of rules-over-fun to the game. The worst of the lot is the enormous influx of "crunchy bits"... new skills, new feats, new prestige classess. Each seemingly more broken than the last. In addition to the massive headache these things inflict on the DM keeping track of them all, they bloat character construction time and tend to induce "min-maxing".
caeruleus 04-21-06, 01:04 AM	If you are really interested in limited-magic roleplay you may want to check out Monte Cook's Iron Heroes. I second that recommendation (if you're looking for that sort of thing). And don't worry, even if Iron Heroes is what you want, the core books you ordered are still useful (I bring them along when I play Iron Heroes). Iron Heroes is gritty sword-and-sorcery action. The characters are more powerful than standard D&D characters, because it tries to maintain the same balance without magic items.
Wabbit 04-21-06, 08:43 AM	Those who said that the role play issue really depends more on the players and DM are right. I guess I'm just not looking forward to all the layers and tracking that comes with modifying the existing rules, tables, etc. to fit the genre I am envisioning. I'm not looking for a "low magic" setting, per se. I just want a setting that makes the concept of finding a magic item something to be excited about, rather than like finding a good deal on sneakers on ebay. I'd like the idea of giving low level spell casters a bit more to work with, as they were nearly useless as low level-single classes in v1, but I want to make sure that characters have to be inovative rather than just pulling the correct magic spell or item out of the bag of tricks. I imagine one way is to use the concept of high-quality, non-magical items, like a +1 sword or sheild that is just much better quality than the average. Same effect, so I guess it wouldn't make much difference... As for some of the additional rules, I haven't seen enough to really know what I'd be missing, but I'm not too impressed with what I've seen of the prestige classes. You know what I think would really be nice? A non-specific class system. Rather than being pigeon-holed into a specific class, it would be cool if you took training in specific skills to build your character, and the limitations that the skill requires affects your character. So, for instance, you might take some skills in longsword and picture your character as primarily a fighter, but he might also pick up some theif skills, like lock-picking, or some mage skills like casting a few low level spells. To cast spells, he wouldn't be able to wear armor, though he could if he didn't plan to cast spells. I think Rolemaster had a system like this, but the rules system, especially combat, was so complicated it was impossible to play.
babysamurai 04-21-06, 08:59 AM	You know what I think would really be nice? A non-specific class system. Rather than being pigeon-holed into a specific class, it would be cool if you took training in specific skills to build your character, and the limitations that the skill requires affects your character. So, for instance, you might take some skills in longsword and picture your character as primarily a fighter, but he might also pick up some theif skills, like lock-picking, or some mage skills like casting a few low level spells. To cast spells, he wouldn't be able to wear armor, though he could if he didn't plan to cast spells. I think Rolemaster had a system like this, but the rules system, especially combat, was so complicated it was impossible to play. Then Unearthed Arcana is for you - it has 3 generic classes that cover Warrior/Skill/Caster-types.
caeruleus 04-21-06, 01:55 PM	I'm not looking for a "low magic" setting, per se. I just want a setting that makes the concept of finding a magic item something to be excited about, rather than like finding a good deal on sneakers on ebay. I'd like the idea of giving low level spell casters a bit more to work with, as they were nearly useless as low level-single classes in v1, but I want to make sure that characters have to be inovative rather than just pulling the correct magic spell or item out of the bag of tricks. The thing with 3e is that the magic items are listed with a market cost, implying that they're sold in stores. But you don't have to have it that way. One thing I've done is allow players to buy simple things somewhat regularly (a few potions of cure light wounds, for example). When it comes to more expensive items, I still allow them to purchase them, but the items need to be made (you don't have +5 swords sitting on racks), and there's typically an ingredient or two needed, and would they be willing to travel to blah blah blah to get some? It might be a bit dangerous... you get the idea. :) You know what I think would really be nice? A non-specific class system. Rather than being pigeon-holed into a specific class, it would be cool if you took training in specific skills to build your character, and the limitations that the skill requires affects your character. So, for instance, you might take some skills in longsword and picture your character as primarily a fighter, but he might also pick up some theif skills, like lock-picking, or some mage skills like casting a few low level spells. To cast spells, he wouldn't be able to wear armor, though he could if he didn't plan to cast spells. I think Rolemaster had a system like this, but the rules system, especially combat, was so complicated it was impossible to play. Babysamurai is right, Unearthed Arcana is a good source for that sort of thing. It can be found at http://www.d20srd.org (just look under "Variant Rules" at the bottom of the page) if you don't want to buy the book just yet. But also keep in mind that multiclassing works differently in 3e. Everyone uses the same XP table, and whenever you go up one character level, you go up one class level, ie, you pick a class and increase your level in that class. If you want to pick a different class, you can do so (unlike earlier editions, all races multiclass in the same way now). So you can take a level of fighter, then later a level of rogue, and so forth. You can split your levels evenly between these classes, or you can take one or two levels of one and keep advancing more in the other. As for casting spells in armor, they now have this thing called "arcane spell failure" for armor. A wizard can wear armor, but there's a percentage chance that the spell will just fail (if it has a somatic component, which most wizard spells do). Sounds like you might like what you see when you go through the books. :)
Bullgrit 04-21-06, 03:38 PM	The thing with 3e is that the magic items are listed with a market cost, implying that they're sold in stores. The AD&D1 DMG also had prices listed for all magic items (even artifacts -- Wand of Orcus = 10,000gp). If Wabbit didn't have "magic stores" in AD&D1, he can just as easily not have such in D&D3. One very simple thing I would suggest, to address what Wabbit is saying on the subject, just eliminate (house rule out) item creation feats (at least for PCs). That means the PCs must rely on finding magic items rather than creating them. Bullgrit
caeruleus 04-21-06, 04:08 PM	The AD&D1 DMG also had prices listed for all magic items (even artifacts -- Wand of Orcus = 10,000gp). If Wabbit didn't have "magic stores" in AD&D1, he can just as easily not have such in D&D3. Thanks for the note, I didn't realize that. I know for sure that 2e and BECM/RC didn't have prices listed, and those are the ones I played before 3e.
RPG_Tweaker 04-21-06, 09:23 PM	I imagine one way is to use the concept of high-quality, non-magical items, like a +1 sword or sheild that is just much better quality than the average. Same effect, so I guess it wouldn't make much difference... D&D has them. They're called masterwork items. You know what I think would really be nice? A non-specific class system. In that case, you might want to look into True20 (by Green Ronin)... or for a very flexible system with NO class barriers, check out the Omni System (by Morrigan Press).
purpledragon 04-21-06, 11:45 PM	I'm not looking for a "low magic" setting, per se. I just want a setting that makes the concept of finding a magic item something to be excited about, rather than like finding a good deal on sneakers on ebay. I'd like the idea of giving low level spell casters a bit more to work with, as they were nearly useless as low level-single classes in v1, but I want to make sure that characters have to be inovative rather than just pulling the correct magic spell or item out of the bag of tricks. familiarize yourself with skills, feats, and spells very carefully. Players will try to confuse the rules from time to time in their favor. I know, I'm one of them. Though, I don't ever do it on purpose. I imagine one way is to use the concept of high-quality, non-magical items, like a +1 sword or sheild that is just much better quality than the average. Same effect, so I guess it wouldn't make much difference... As previously stated there are masterworked items. weapons give a +1 to hit with no damage addition. Other items reduce the penalties for certain skills while wearing them or whatever based on what type of item it is. As for some of the additional rules, I haven't seen enough to really know what I'd be missing, but I'm not too impressed with what I've seen of the prestige classes. You know what I think would really be nice? A non-specific class system. Rather than being pigeon-holed into a specific class, it would be cool if you took training in specific skills to build your character, and the limitations that the skill requires affects your character. So, for instance, you might take some skills in longsword and picture your character as primarily a fighter, but he might also pick up some theif skills, like lock-picking, or some mage skills like casting a few low level spells. To cast spells, he wouldn't be able to wear armor, though he could if he didn't plan to cast spells. I think Rolemaster had a system like this, but the rules system, especially combat, was so complicated it was impossible to play. Rolemaster still had character classes.
MysteryGilgamesh 04-22-06, 06:41 PM	Of course all this is less of a problem whenever you have a group of mature players who are mostly interested in roleplaying and don't care about the rules. Alas, whenever i come to these boards i fear that many of players today have a very strong interest in character optimisation and they won't be happy if you keep them short on magical gear which they consider vital for the validity of their character concept. ...That is AMAZINGLY elitest of you. What, "mature players" don't like mechanics? Bah. In any event, this is 3rd. Remove your old ways of thinking where you were lucky, by 10th, to see a +1 weapon and maybe have more HP than 3 orcs put together. Those days are gone, and thankfully, buried. Now, your characters actually feel like they're going places, feel like they're getting ahead in "life", and generally feel more like characters, rather than a bunch of unflinching, unchanging clones where the only difference was Bob used a longsword, while Al used a scimitar, and the rogue was 7 levels ahead of everyone due to horribly done Exp tables.
a_psh 04-22-06, 10:35 PM	In that case, you might want to look into True20 (by Green Ronin)... or for a very flexible system with NO class barriers, check out the Omni System (by Morrigan Press).Caveat: if it's been a while since you've played an RPG with a lot of rules and combat, start out with D&D3.5, not one of the variants. Most of these tend to be "advanced" systems that try to introduce flexibility but tend to be really hard to really get going with. It's much easier to deal with all the new character creation, spellcasting, &c. variant rules out there if you've had a chance to play through some vanilla D&D games and really learn how the combat engine itself works. On a related note... I recently got a good, long look at Iron Heroes, the aforementioned low-magic high-action d20 game, and I'm very impressed by the ruleset (not so much the explicitly-defined parts of default campaign setting, but there's all of 2 pages of text about it in the book; I find no fault in the implicit style of the game, though).
Hlethvagi 04-23-06, 12:17 AM	Can someone tell me just what was so wrong with 2nd edition? It's the edition I started with and came up with. I loved the variety of different things that came out for it. Now all we get are FR or EB, and all the core stuff is...just kinda cookie cutter in presentation and content. 2nd edition had so many different things coming out all the time. Chronomancer, Planescape, Ravenloft, FR, Mystara, and the list goes on. As a DM there were numerous things to cull from each of these settings and expansions. Cull or just add to what you were already doing. Now we have to look to 3rd party publishers, who use inferior printing techinques and inferior artists to get some of what we used to have. Don't get me wrong, I think 3.5 is great. I just would like WotC to produce more worthwhile product like TSR and I believe WotC used to do.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-23-06, 01:14 AM	Can someone tell me just what was so wrong with 2nd edition? Depends on who you ask. I started in 3e and I see little to overtly criticize the edition (or 1e) for. That said, the 2e ruleset was rather complicated and byzantine in places near the end of its tenure, but I see virtually no difference in such between 2e and 1e. A majority of the most virulent anti-2e sentiment out there is going to come from people who started in 1e, and for various reasons have cultivated a shared sentiment that 2e was an abomination, though the reasons tend to usually be generalizations, some of which don't really have a basis in what 2e was or developed into. Some of the most frequently leveled criticism is that 2e 'took away our demons and devils'. Fiends weren't given stats in 2e for a period of two years, which apparently equates to the edition burning all prior source material and banning people from using them because of a lag in giving them stats in the new edition. I don't get the sentiment at all, because when 3e hasn't updated a 1e or 2e monster into 3e stats immediately, nobody accuses WotC of 'taking away our Rilmani' which weren't given 3e stats till the FF, or 'taking away our Visages' which got 3e stats in Libris Mortis. It's a silly statement really. Then there's the notion that 2e was squeeky clean, which may have briefly been the case for the first two years or so of the edition out of thirteen or so years, during the time when when a lot of those 1e players who hate 2e were bailing out, never to return till 3e. As 2e progressed however, it produced material that is darker than anything produced before or since, and which makes anything in 1e look like an episode of Barney & Friends by comparison ('Faces of Evil: The Fiends' being one such example). The way I see it from my perspective, it's a mixture of sour grapes and kneejerk rejection brewed within decades of nostalgia for the edition that it replaced. It's the edition I started with and came up with. I loved the variety of different things that came out for it. Now all we get are FR or EB, and all the core stuff is...just kinda cookie cutter in presentation and content. 2nd edition had so many different things coming out all the time. Chronomancer, Planescape, Ravenloft, FR, Mystara, and the list goes on. As a DM there were numerous things to cull from each of these settings and expansions. Cull or just add to what you were already doing. The absolute depth and quality of settings were the strong point of 2e, I'll certainly agree with you there.
Ranger REG 04-23-06, 02:42 AM	Can someone tell me just what was so wrong with 2nd edition? There's nothing wrong with 2nd edition. It is just a refinement of 1st edition. Even though they were good in their own right, there was something missing that other RPGs at the time were capitalizing. The character kit was a good idea on paper but for some reasons it became inconsistent as new kits after kits were introduced. For me personally, I was disappointed when the Revised 2nd Edition came out with a much shorter list of allowed multiclassed character combination for elf. If there is anything good that came out of the 2nd Edition era, it would be the creative fluff, which I'm sure many gamers today -- the more hardcore 3e fans -- feel it is unnecessary, they want crunch. For me personally, crunch with little or no fluff is like playing a videogame showing only a bunch of 0's and 1's on the screen (IOW, machine language).
caeruleus 04-23-06, 02:32 PM	If there is anything good that came out of the 2nd Edition era, it would be the creative fluff, which I'm sure many gamers today -- the more hardcore 3e fans -- feel it is unnecessary, they want crunch. For me personally, crunch with little or no fluff is like playing a videogame showing only a bunch of 0's and 1's on the screen (IOW, machine language). Great analogy. I agree that creative flavor (I hate the word "fluff" because it sounds so dismissive) is what made 2e material great. I think that those who don't care for flavor either can't tell the difference between well-written and poorly-written text, are completely disconnected from the human condition, or have simply never had the chance to experience well-written flavor text and so don't know that it's possible for such a thing to exist in gaming material (which might be the case for those who have only experienced WotC's current fluff--and yes, I'm happy to use the dismissive word "fluff" when it comes to what WotC tends to produce these days).
RPG_Tweaker 04-23-06, 04:59 PM	Can someone tell me just what was so wrong with 2nd edition? Nothing is "wrong" with 2E per se; it's hardly some abomination to RPGs. The problem isn't so much the game-system itself as the "corruption" of style and integrity that initially attracted many to the game. The new commercially friendly design philosophy that TSR employed for 2E was contrary to the principles of a large population of players at the time; my gaming group included. 1E was more of a grungy garage punk band, whereas 2E was a polished pop teen-idol band. We just hated the new style and what motivated the change. Eventually, several interesting campaign worlds were released under 2E but the damage had already been done, we'd moved on to other RPGs. This D&D rift lasted until WotC presented 3E. This was such a well-conceived evolution of D&D that even deeply jaded players such as my group were reunited with the predominant D&D community. Now we have to look to 3rd party publishers, who use inferior printing techinques and inferior artists to get some of what we used to have. I completely disagree with this statement. Many modern publishers actually have top-quality printing techniques and artists. Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and Fantasy Flight to name a few. What quality 2E printing techniques are you speaking of? Their perfect bound books almost invariably failed and the paper they used was flimsy and easily torn/creased. As for art... hmmm... a very tricky and slippery slope of opinion. There is NO way to objectively evaluate whether one edition's art is better than another. For me, a few 2E artists stood out through its run, like Parkinson and DiTerlizzi, but only one truly shined, Brom. Beyond them, I found the vast majority of the other artists uninspirational, poor on theme or just plain bad. This includes the big "icons" like Easley, Caldwell and especially Elmore (Why did so many of his women have perms?).
MysteryGilgamesh 04-23-06, 05:26 PM	I think that those who don't care for flavor either can't tell the difference between well-written and poorly-written text, are completely disconnected from the human condition, or have simply never had the chance to experience well-written flavor text and so don't know that it's possible for such a thing to exist in gaming material (which might be the case for those who have only experienced WotC's current fluff--and yes, I'm happy to use the dismissive word "fluff" when it comes to what WotC tends to produce these days). ...Or they're the people with active imaginations, who don't want, or need, to be spoonfed garbage by other writers that will never be used, because while mechanics can work in ANY game world, flavor text is completely meaningless unless you work to incorporate it into a world, or your world uses it from the get go. Flavor text is just someone holding your hand, like a child being led around by his parent. It dulls your own thinking, and forces you to rely on the generic garbage being spewed out in the "generic" line of books (ie: non-FR, non-Eberron books). I for one, don't need to be coddled like that, when it comes to generic books. I'm all for flavor text, in books that it belongs in. Which are campaign specific ones, and nowhere else. Otherwise, keep the garbage, boring, trite, useless flavor text out of the generic line. It serves no purpose but to replace actually useful material (aka: MECHANICS) with garbage that is, at best, completely subjective, and at worst, ignored and scorned for wasting space better devoted to giving us something not just any monkey with a pencil in his hand can make: Good mechanics. Any idiot can write out flavor text, or tell us how the fake kingdom of Bologna has 32 princesses. But the number of people who can write even half-balanced mechanics are far fewer. And when garbage flavor text (like the sort that appears, constantly, in the generic line now) replaces truely useable material (like new feats, PrC's, classes, etc., MECHANICS, PEOPLE!), thats a waste of money, for all gamers, whether they want to admit it or not.
caeruleus 04-23-06, 06:55 PM	...Or they're the people with active imaginations, who don't want, or need, to be spoonfed garbage by other writers that will never be used, because while mechanics can work in ANY game world, flavor text is completely meaningless unless you work to incorporate it into a world, or your world uses it from the get go. Flavor text is just someone holding your hand, like a child being led around by his parent. It dulls your own thinking, and forces you to rely on the generic garbage being spewed out in the "generic" line of books (ie: non-FR, non-Eberron books). I for one, don't need to be coddled like that, when it comes to generic books. I'm all for flavor text, in books that it belongs in. Which are campaign specific ones, and nowhere else. Otherwise, keep the garbage, boring, trite, useless flavor text out of the generic line. It serves no purpose but to replace actually useful material (aka: MECHANICS) with garbage that is, at best, completely subjective, and at worst, ignored and scorned for wasting space better devoted to giving us something not just any monkey with a pencil in his hand can make: Good mechanics. Any idiot can write out flavor text, or tell us how the fake kingdom of Bologna has 32 princesses. But the number of people who can write even half-balanced mechanics are far fewer. And when garbage flavor text (like the sort that appears, constantly, in the generic line now) replaces truely useable material (like new feats, PrC's, classes, etc., MECHANICS, PEOPLE!), thats a waste of money, for all gamers, whether they want to admit it or not. Oh, please. :rolleye2: If any idiot could write flavor text, there wouldn't be so much crap out there, whether in gaming supplements, or in novels, or even in movies. I agree that not everyone can make a mechanically balanced class, but flavor text is no different. And it's not like the game mechanics that WotC puts out is all so perfectly balanced as you make out. If anyone with creativity and insight can write flavor text, then anyone with creativity and insight can make balanced mechanics. If we don't need publishers to produce one, we don't need them to produce the other. But having both produced is useful. No one can think in a vacuum, we're most creative when we see other ideas, compare and contrast them, incorporate elements into our own, and so forth. That's true for both flavor and mechanics.
Hlethvagi 04-23-06, 06:56 PM	"What quality 2E printing techniques are you speaking of? Their perfect bound books almost invariably failed and the paper they used was flimsy and easily torn/creased." I didn't mean to imply that 2E printing was better. What I meant, was Green Ronin, Sovereign, and others use inferior printing techniques to WotC. Paizo does a great job at this, but whatever White Wolf call the D&D imprint stinks, IMHO. I also didn't mean that 2E art was better, but that WotC has better artist IMO than the 3rd parties.
Lord Mhoram 04-23-06, 08:02 PM	For me, it was that it was just an outgrowth of 1st ed. I played first ed, and had a binder full of house rules to make the game run the way I wanted. 2nd ed didn't fix any of what I considered to be the problems. So I didn't feel the need for the mechanical side of 2nd ed. So that left the worlds, and the flavor therein. FR was okay, I really didn't like Dark Sun, Ravenloft and loath Plansecape with the disgust that amount detestation. The only setting that came out for 2nd that I really liked was Spelljammer. So I didn't feel the need for the setting side of 2nd ed (aside from having a full run of Spelljammer stuff). Now some of the later books that came out I might have liked, but having distanced myself from 2nd, never having purchased any of the rulebooks, I just skipped the later stuff. So we just kept playing 1st ed with our houserules. Then 3rd came along. It fixed a great deal of what I felt was wrong with earlier editions, and it seemed flexible enough for my tastes - my main RPG is HERO, and so flexibility is very important to me - so I gave it a try. I also loved the open game content idea, and with so many non-WotC publishers putting out material, there was always something for me to enjoy. I have an odd way of creating characters and campaign ideas (as a player or GM respecitvely). I almost always get really great story ideas and fill in campaign flavor because of something that was sparked by a mechanic. Odd, I know. But I can read a 3 or 4 page piece of history for an item that bores me to tears, and then read a 2 paragraph mechanical description and based on it's ability, know where it came from in my world, who had it, and how it will interact with the characters' stories.
Aristulous 04-23-06, 08:14 PM	Can someone tell me just what was so wrong with 2nd edition? I just would like WotC to produce more worthwhile product like TSR and I believe WotC used to do. You mean like the way they were running the game into Bankruptcy as explained by the CEO of TSR at the time ??? Here's a quote from the TSR CEO in his own words and here is the link to the article I quoted http://www.magweb.com/sample/swk/swk03ran.htm "It's no secret that TSR has had severe financial difficulties in recent years. TSR has operated at a loss for almost three years, and even when it was profitable it was only barely so. If your image of TSR is that of a large, wealthy corporation swimming in money, you're in for a surprise." I also wouldnt describe Monte Cook's brilliant line of products as "inferior ". http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?malhavoc
Verelor 04-23-06, 08:34 PM	Ok, here's just a few things about the current edition that completely trump 2e. The book quality (material and verbal) The rules aren't an arbitrary, inconsistent piece o' confusion Two first level fighters actually have a chance at being different from each other The art quality Completely scaled, internally consistent system for doing everything and anything A level up means a damn You don't need to look up the rules every nine seconds The game now makes the company money Everything has jsut the right amount of flavor text rather than a restrictive amount.. The list goes on and on... :) <3 you all
Lord Gwydion 04-23-06, 08:37 PM	I'm all for flavor text, in books that it belongs in. Which are campaign specific ones, and nowhere else. Otherwise, keep the garbage, boring, trite, useless flavor text out of the generic line. It serves no purpose but to replace actually useful material (aka: MECHANICS) with garbage that is, at best, completely subjective, and at worst, ignored and scorned for wasting space better devoted to giving us something not just any monkey with a pencil in his hand can make: Good mechanics. Any idiot can write out flavor text, or tell us how the fake kingdom of Bologna has 32 princesses. But the number of people who can write even half-balanced mechanics are far fewer. And when garbage flavor text (like the sort that appears, constantly, in the generic line now) replaces truely useable material (like new feats, PrC's, classes, etc., MECHANICS, PEOPLE!), thats a waste of money, for all gamers, whether they want to admit it or not. Serious question here, I'm not trying to flame you. How do you feel about the current PrC presentation, that gives you the mechanics for the class, then cut-and-paste repeats them a page later with the sample NPC? That's space wasted on "mechanics" when it could be devoted to more flavor text, or even more mechanics. And I'll have to respectfully disagree with your idea than "anyone can make flavor text." Sure, anyone can write some poorly thougth out flavor text, just as anyone can make a poorly thought out feat, class, spell or magic item. Making quality flavor text takes effort, just like making quality mechanics. Also, reading another writer's ideas (whether it be from novels, comics, movies, RPG rulebook or TCG flavor text, video games, etc.) is literally "food for thought." Even if it's crap, that feeling of "Man, this sucks, I can do better than this" inspires you to DO better than that. So you shouldn't just dismiss flavor text as worthless just because you're making a homebrew campaign. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Back to the original topic--I think 3rd Edition is a much more streamlined, customization-friendly ruleset than any previous edition, but it can be easy to lose the feel of the game with the overload of books chock full of mechanics and not much else.
Vanamir 04-24-06, 02:37 PM	Can someone tell me just what was so wrong with 2nd edition? As someone who played 2E starting in 92 before switching to 3E in 2000 i would say that the greatest shortcoming of 2E would be that it is not a rules system but rather a rules collection. In 2E there is no clearly defined system for how a character acomplishes anything. For attacks and saving thows you roll a D20 aiming for a high result, for non-weapon proficiencies you roll a D20 for a low result whereas thief skills are a percentil roll. Often the rules just tell you to roll a die with no regard for a character's abilities or actions. Also a lot of stats and abilties are just arbitrarily assigned without any or at best questionable regard to overall game balance. This affects almost every area of the game including attributes, racial abilities, class features, spells, weapons stats etc. Likewise you have a lot of ad hoc rulings without any consistency. For instance Al-Qadim and Dark Sun are both desert settings but they use completely different rules for the effects of wearing heavy armour in the heat of day. In a similar case there are many monsters causing supernatural fear in the characters yet the individual effects varied drastically from monster to monster. This happened all the time. Also quite distracting is that AD&D doesn't really have a working skill system. Non-weapon proficiencies are just tacked on and are clunky to use and secondary skills aren't even that much. And a personal pet peeve of mine would be: Combat rounds with a duration of one minute! :noway: Way to long for any practical purpose. Unfortunately houseruling them to be somewhat shorter was surprisingly problematic for it screwed up most spell durations. Nevertheless i totally a gree with previous posters that the quality of flavour texts and atmosphere in 2E was way above anything published for 3E up today. Another favourable point would be that it is much faster do GM for than 3E which requires at times excessive preparation times. Besides i am quite curious why so many 1E players dislike 2E. Every single thing that i ever found wanting in 2E where things it inherited from 1E. :cool:
caeruleus 04-24-06, 04:25 PM	Likewise you have a lot of ad hoc rulings without any consistency. For instance Al-Qadim and Dark Sun are both desert settings but they use completely different rules for the effects of wearing heavy armour in the heat of day. It only needs to be consistent for your own campaign. Al-Qadim and Dark Sun had different authors, and were separate campaign settings. Even now, if you use Sandstorm, you'll get different rules for desert adventures from those you would find in 3rd party books. Back in the day, we didn't care if we played the same way as anyone else. Sure, consistency was important in tournaments, otherwise it didn't matter. I still play that way with 3e. As long as we're consistent with a given campaign, it's all good. Sometimes the same DM with the same players changes some rules, but as long as the changes are for another campaign, and everyone know about them, it's okay.
MysteryGilgamesh 04-24-06, 05:30 PM	Serious question here, I'm not trying to flame you. How do you feel about the current PrC presentation, that gives you the mechanics for the class, then cut-and-paste repeats them a page later with the sample NPC? That's space wasted on "mechanics" when it could be devoted to more flavor text, or even more mechanics. I do consider that wasted space as well. You don't need to keep repeating the same material, especially when it's not even a half a page away from the source! Especially since when they repeat it, they frequently make mistakes, thus dragging the product quality down even further. What kind of monkey-in-a-suit can't C+P freakin' text right and ensure it matches up with what is literally not even a page away? As a customer, WotC has been POing me greatly, as of late. Useless flavor text filling it's generic books, tossing useless "NPC statups w/a PrC tacked on" every other page when they print a PrC, half-baked adventure locales taking up space in COMPLETE books, and tons of wasted space on useless list reprints (check Complete Psi for that little number, in a book where they CUT 40 damn pages, and were "concerned" about the lack of space, yet felt they had enough space to REPEAT THE WHOLE PSI POWER LISTING, and include eratta, which no other Complete book has ever done before), no less...Ugh. It feels like the quality is rushing right down the drain, lately.
burning_blood 04-25-06, 12:22 AM	Wabbit (if you're still reading this), I would recommend that when you finally get your copies of the core rulebooks and have read them and understand the basics, spend some time figuring out how Attacks of Opportunity work. When my group converted to 3e from 2e, the rules governing AoO's took us far longer to figure out than any of the others. Apart from that, the d20 mechanics are really quite simple.
Wabbit 04-25-06, 11:18 AM	Wabbit (if you're still reading this), I would recommend that when you finally get your copies of the core rulebooks and have read them and understand the basics, spend some time figuring out how Attacks of Opportunity work. When my group converted to 3e from 2e, the rules governing AoO's took us far longer to figure out than any of the others. Apart from that, the d20 mechanics are really quite simple. These threads do wander from time to time, don't they? Thanks for the heads up! I recently received my set of the 3 core rule books and I am reading through the PHB now. Looks like a pretty good design, so far. I will pay special attention to AoO. I can see what some people talk about "fluff" and "crunch". In the core rules, I think it would make it easier to keep the "fluff" in a separate section from the crunch, especially since I have never been too impressed with the stock religeons. There's nothing wrong with including it, but I'd rather see that sort of thing in a separate section or book. I'm looking forward to getting back into a game sometime!
Ranger REG 04-26-06, 04:44 PM	Now we have to look to 3rd party publishers, who use inferior printing techinques and inferior artists to get some of what we used to have. I wouldn't knock nor dismiss third-party products. At least they give some out-of-the-box take on making a popular fantasy RPG more flavorful and more personal to each individual gaming groups, other than WotC's philosophy. It doesn't matter whether they're playing a proper D&D game. The idea of d20 is to make the rules in your game your own.