Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SevSaint 12-18-06, 06:17 PM	I have a friend who currently likes to dm under 2nd edition rules. Right now im trying to convince him that 3rd edition (though more detailed) is easier to dm. All the information for skill checks and feat rules is there so it leaves alot on the fly rule making easier. Anyone else help me point out how being a dm is better under 3rd edition.
Edymnion 12-18-06, 07:14 PM	Being a DM under 3e is actually more difficult than it was under 2e. The players are more powerful, and while the DM can do anything the players can, it still requires putting a lot more work into it. 2e was also much more forgiving of (and encouraging of) the DM just fudging things on the fly. 3e, with the heavier ruleset makes that kind of thing harder, both for trying to make it work, and for later repercussions. 3e is more structured than 2e, with all of the advantages and drawbacks that entails.
PenderGrass 12-18-06, 07:24 PM	Convincing him to switch to v3.5 might work better than v3.0 - unless you meant v3.5 when you said "3rd Edition." :dragon: ****
Edymnion 12-18-06, 07:26 PM	Convincing him to switch to v3.5 might work better than v3.0 - unless you meant v3.5 when you said "3rd Edition."Last time I checked, 3e still covered both 3.0 and 3.5. They're still both third edition.
Doc225 12-18-06, 07:27 PM	3.5 is only easier if you know where to look and what to do. If someone is used to doing something a certain way, they won't think that something else is easier until they get used to it. I would suggest asking him to try it for a month or more, depending on how often you play. Once he gets used to it, he can decide which is easier. I agree with you, BTW that 3/3.5 edition is easier to Dm, once you learn enough. The appeal of 2nd, is the "fast and loose" method that most DM's are used to. You didn't often get players pointing out X rule from Y book that says that encounter should work differently. What the Dm said, went (for the most part) This, IMHO, is where rule-0 originated, and some still liketo bring it up at every chance. Rule-0 is still around, but it should apply to things like what sources are allowed or what variant rules. Too many DM's seem to want to use rule-0 to screw the players, when it's really just a crutch for the lazy DM, again IMHO.
PenderGrass 12-18-06, 07:39 PM	Last time I checked, 3e still covered both 3.0 and 3.5. They're still both third edition. Specifically, 3rd edition was the verbage that WotC used for their new release. When v3.5 came along, they changed their marketing to say v3.5 and dropped the 3rd edition wording. Even their website states v3.5 for things updated and v3.0 for things old. "Third edition" and all its variants are for the most part abandoned for the more exact identifiers "v3.x" and so on. :dragon: ***
Mock26 12-18-06, 07:50 PM	Don't convince him to switch. Dungeons and Dragons is NOT about which version is better. D&D is about playing D&D. Both 2nd Edition and 3.0/3.5 have their strong and weak points, and, in my opinion, and in the opinion of quite a few people, neither is better than the other. If he wants to play 2nd edition, then let him. If he is to be your DM, then maybe you should give it a try. You might find that you like playing 2nd Edition. I still play 2nd Edition D&D and three of the 6 people in my group also play in 3.x campaigns with other people, and one of them had never played 2nd Edition until he joined my campaign. Yet, these people still continue to play in my 2nd Edition campaign! It just goes to prove that the version you play isn't as important as who you play with. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 07:55 PM	Show him the mechanics and see which version he prefers because yes D&D is not the mechanics being used it is the group using them.
Ampolitor 12-18-06, 10:18 PM	see what he prefers, 2nd i think is much easier to DM than 3, but you need to learn it sometime due to the fact that its now the standard. Im not very happy with 3, it seems like a bunch of rules lawyers got hold of 2nd and made a darn rule for everything! It has some good points but I still prefer 2nd.....:)
Merryadocc 12-18-06, 10:38 PM	I still play both, but mainly 3.25, as a DM I prefer 3.25 as it makes for a game where I can do some really kewl customization on the monsters. One of my 2nd ED playing mates recently payed a game of 3.x, when he dropped the first few Kobolds easily with low damage rolls. When it came to some Elite kobolds I hade made his jaw hit the floor when he critted and said "Do I even have to roll for damage?", I said "Yes", he then added up his damage ad said "18, it's so toast", when I said the Kobold was still standing he went "F*CK, they really changed DnD didn't they". In 2nd Ed the most annoying thing for me was lack of behind the screen options, that for me is the biggest selling point of 3.x, and I also like the 3.5 skills. When players finaly "get" the rules they start doing level dip things to create characters that have a little more flavor, I once seen a level 11 character with 7 different classes that was built the way he was, to be a really good slayer of incorpreal undead that refused to wear armor. They are both good, but the munchkin factor seems to reck alot of good systems, at least with 3.x there are some no brainer builds that keep the people that don't know how to build a variation of characters in line with power gamers. Both are good, may you and your friend enjoy some godd roleplaying! :)
Sildatorak 12-19-06, 12:32 AM	As a DM of both 2e (PO and pre-PO) and 3.5 (never have and never will DM under 3.0), I have to say that the difficulties of both are very different. 3e offers a wider arrange of tools in the form of premade traps, systems for calculating just how tough an encounter should be, and ballpark figures on the difficulty of various tasks. It also opens the door for customization very wide. These, taken collectively, are double-edged sword, IMO. They make it easy to focus on the encounters rather than the whole campaign, and I find the greatest challenge of 3e to be in dealing with preparation. 2e offers greater flexibility in on-the-fly DMing, but because the rules are clunkier, the players will generally not know them as well. This has slowed play down in my experience, simply because it takes a lot more hand-holding to get your players to a point where they are experienced enough to really do their thing without any help.
CroBob 12-19-06, 12:46 AM	The one thing that got me to think of 3e as better, was that monsters had stats. None of them were "exceptional". Why do they get a bonus that high or low? Arbitrary assignment? No, because their Dex is 15! Modifying monsters has never made more sense. It may be more difficult, there may be more things to keep in mind while doing it, but it makes sense.
Hochiu 12-19-06, 01:23 AM	The main bonus I see to 3e over 2e is that you don't have to do the sheer amount of house ruling to enable a game to flow well. It's playable "out of the box" as it were, which 2e largely is not. 3e also offers a lot more "freedom for everyone" and no one class or race is limited in the amount of people there are, who can join the class (unless it's a PrC) and the maximum level that you can progress in the class. It's straight through level 1-20 for EVERY one of the base classes and every race. Secondly, you don't need a degree in astrophysics to understand how to figure out what hits you (e.g. THAC0). Armor class is much easier to understand and work around, and the same goes for the rest of the meet or beat system that d20 employs. There are drawbacks, just as everyone said. The rules are so detailed that people who know more than them can (and do) potentially abuse them, which results in munchkining. Also, I've noticed that a lot of 3e games "level up" faster than the reports I've heard of the 2e games. I mean, come on, I was playing a character for four semesters in the 3e/3.5e game and was level 17 (16 with one level graced to us) by that last semester. I hear reports of 2e players playing characters for years longer than that and still not being anywhere near it. D&D 3e is, when compared to the other systems, a young one. You figure, 2nd edition was released in 1977 with a revision coming 12 years later (1989). That later revision (referred to now as 2e or even 2.5 moreso than the '77 version) lasted for almost another 10 years or so until TSR went under and WOTC picked D&D up in '97. That's a -lot- of gaming time and a lot of time to get it instilled on the older players, just about 20 years, a little over if you count the release date of 3e being 2000. A lot of the older players, I feel, cling to this notion that 2e is better simply because they can't stand parting with it. I feel 3e is superior in that it helped spawn a broad spectrum d20 system market where 3rd party providers could (and do) create their own suppliments that for better or worse can be dumped right into any D&D style game with little to no tweaking. Does playing 2e mean you're a better roleplayer? No. Does playing 3e mean you're a powergaming munchkin who wants to kill hundreds of gods? No. I've heard people say that about 3e, and I've seen a lot of negative comments towards 2e players because of it. People fail to understand that it's a game and it's supposed to be taken in good humour and fun. I have a friend who got into a screaming argument with me about how far superior the HackMaster rules are than the d20 system, one that I was particularly loathe to get into. It happens. What I think you should do is I think you should get someone else (maybe yourself) to DM a 3e game so you can show your friend how to play it first. It's a lot to expect of people to not only pick up a brand new system and instantly be able, or want to, DM it. Get your friend's feet wet first and if he likes it, he'll consider doing it and if not, then what's the problem? As people have said before. It's not about what system you use. It's about having fun, killing dragons, saving the princess (optional), and getting the treasure. .. ...That is. Unless you're NOT playing by the Gygaxian style of play. Then you can do whatever the heck you want.
Sleepwalker13666 12-19-06, 04:41 AM	I've played almost all versions of the game, I did most of my playing in 2nd. 1rst edition was basiclly the same as 2nd, most of changes where simply balance issues and options cut, mechanically they where pretty much the same. When 3rd came aloung I really resented it, I would play in it but I refused to run, and until 3.5 came out with the minatures handbook I continued to have a strong resentment for it. My biggest problem with 3rd when it first came out was the limited options, 3.5 has come a long way and possible has more options than 2nd. Mechaniclly 3/3.5 is easier to understand, but 2nd once you understand it is a lot more streamlined, it's all about the adventure, no double checking books, no does this stack with that and are you sure you can do that. I hav'nt played 2nd in a long time, and I do occasionly miss it, for third I find you have to know as much about the rules as your character as possible to avoid rules lawyering bottlenecks as possible, in 2nd the rules trully where within the dms hands and in many ways that was a good thing. At the same time rules that cover as much as possible is a big help, but some things I really wish they would leave open to Dm interpretation.
Mock26 12-19-06, 04:47 AM	I posted this in response to a post in another thread and I think that it fits in very well here so I'm reposting it: I find that the biggest difference between 2nd Edition and 3.5 is Tone. 2nd Edition was a dungeon-crawl-y, generic adventure game. You roll up a character and play. Fighters are fighters, wizards are wizards. 3.5 brought in the elements of constructing specific characters. It was more building characters, not rolling one up. Fighters could take feats to be more rogue-ish, hypothetically, and a wizard can even gain spells from a cleric spell list with a splatbook. That's just my interpretation. I respectfully disagree with you on this. I've been playing 2nd edition since about a week after the books were released for sale at my local gaming story. I still play it to this day, though I have played enough 3.0 and 3.5 to know enough about it that I don't want to give up playing 2nd edition. I have even created the stats for a monster for 3.5 that were published at the last couple of GenCon's. I have never foudn that fighters are fighters and wizards are wizards. Even before the various optional handbooks there was variety to be found, if a player used their imagination. I had a fellow player who created a gladiator by simply choosing proficiency in appropriate gladiator weapons and donning gladiator armor. He didn't need a sourcebook or a new class or anything but his own imagination to come up with his gladiator. People talk about how feats give characters more variety. I won't argue with that because I see it as being true. But, that doesn't mean that there wasn't variety to be found before feats. The variey was there if people simply used their imagination. Even back in the first edition days I played and played along side mages who specialized in specific spell schools such as conjuration or evocation. Not being able to use every basic weapon forced a fighter to pick a few weapons with which to use. This is also where some of the variety came from. It isn't much different than every 3.x fighter being skilled in every basic weapon and then choosing different feats. Second edition, with the non-weapon proficiency system, basically created what is almost the same as the Skill system in 3.x. They both serve the same function and work in almost the same way. The only real major difference between the two, in my opinion, is the way the die rolls worked. That is it. With non-weapon proficiencies a fighter could take more thief-like skills. If you look at a lot of the skill and feat system of 3.x you will find that quite a few of them serve the same function as weapon and non-weapon proficiencies. They simply have a different name. And all of that was just from the basic books. When the Handbooks came out, and they were listed as option rules, all they did was create optional kits that further allowed for more variety with a character's class. If your fighter wanted to be a pirate it presented a template on what skills would best suit a pirate. These handbooks weren't necessary to create a pirate, they were merely a tool to help you create one. Much the same way that a lot of sourcebooks are now. The Options Rulebooks expanded on this even more. If you wanted to play a mage with exception strength, it presented a system for doing this. I feel that the Options Rulebooks were a bit cumbersome and overloaded with data, but they were no more so than a lot of the books that have been printed for 3.x, and I'm not even talking about third-party sourcebooks. To me one of the major differences between 2nd Edition and 3.x is that where 2nd edition allowed variety within a specific class 3.x provides more classes to give the same variety. Granted, I do admit that there are a LOT more class and race options within 3.x and this does give greater variety, there was still variety to be found within 2nd Edition to those who had and used their imagination. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john. PS I personally think that 2nd Edition is better for me and my group. I don't think that 2nd is better than 3.0 or 3.x or 1st or Basic. As I said up above, I think it should be more about D&D and less about which version you play.
Falln 12-19-06, 04:55 AM	I play 2nd edition and I've read a lot about 3rd Ed. (Adventures, Campaigns, the manuals, here on the forum, ...) My conclusion is the following: it are 2 different games, with different rule sets. the only thing that binds them is the fact that it are two pen and paper adventures in the same type of campaign world. 3rd edition is made by people who want to know every rule, evrything that can happen has some kind of check involved with it. Players want to min/max their characters, players can hide behind rules to discuss stuff with the DM. 2nd edition was mor fun. The Dm could very easy allow thing or not. If the DM said: do a dexterity check to see if you fall, the you simply rolled a D20. No-one asked the DM: are you sure it's a dexterity check? i have 3 feats that can help me, what type of ground am I stading on? From which side is the wind coming? ... I also DM in a small group. The main purpose of D&D is the story. The players are hero's who want to do something. The road they take to get from start to end, that's what to players want to know. Sicne the DM is "god" he can change this road as often as he wants to. If the DM says: the first player who enters will fall in the water, then that player will fall. If the DM makes an encounter with 5 zombies and he thinks (during the fight) that the encounter is to weak/heavy then he can very easy interfere. Which rule you use for this doesn't matter, the only thing that matters are the players saying: wow that was a close fight but we made it, now we can ... OR yeah we are getting stronger every day, I think we are ready to ... What I hear a lot when I talk about 2nd vs 3rd is that players have more options in 3rd edition. I don't think this is true. In 2nd edition the DM can allow everything that he wants to allow, he can change classes, add skills, ... We have a rule for example that every player can have up to 12 non-weapon proficiencies that fit the way he wants to play his character. We allow all kits from all manuals we own (players, mages, druids, rangers, priests, necromancers, thief, fighters, ninja, paladins, bard). Befor we allow a character in the campaign, players allways need to discuss that character with the DM. The player can also allways ask things to the DM. (for example: he plays an elf who wants to become a paladin: the DM can allow that player to start as a fighter, who needs more experience to level up, but with each level up he gains one paladin skill) Conclusion: where 2nd edition is in my opinion more about the fun, the game, the story. 3rd edition is more like a game with lots of rules.
Anaxander 12-19-06, 05:04 AM	In my opinion, 3rd edition democratized the game for players. This is cool because you have more player options (skills, feats!, class abilities), right out the box, by which you can enhance your impact on the game as a player. The complete and race series stretch this even further. However, players now sometimes know too much of the game mechanics: D&D has lost much of its inner mystery. It becomes more difficult for a DM to immerse players in a world and a story in order to see beyond the game mechanics.
Mock26 12-19-06, 05:10 AM	The main bonus I see to 3e over 2e is that you don't have to do the sheer amount of house ruling to enable a game to flow well. It's playable "out of the box" as it were, which 2e largely is not. 3e also offers a lot more "freedom for everyone" and no one class or race is limited in the amount of people there are, who can join the class (unless it's a PrC) and the maximum level that you can progress in the class. It's straight through level 1-20 for EVERY one of the base classes and every race. While 2nd edition didn't have the plethora of classes and races that 3.x has, it still had variety within each class. It just required an imagination during character creation. It was also playable "out of the box." This is evident in the fact that when 2nd edition was released it was just the 3 main books and they sold amazingly well long before any of the supplements came out. I picked up the PHB and DMG, read them within a week, and was fully ready to go. How was it not playable out of the box? Can you give specific reasons? Secondly, you don't need a degree in astrophysics to understand how to figure out what hits you (e.g. THAC0). Armor class is much easier to understand and work around, and the same goes for the rest of the meet or beat system that d20 employs. THAC0 was easy to understand and only required the ability to do simple math. Sure, you might have needed a chart to know it, but with the exception of a fighter it only changed every couple of levels and all you had to do was write it on your character sheet. Other than a different formula it really isn't much different than the base attack bonus used in 3.x. To use THAC0 you simply subracted to numbers. Need to know what AC you hit? Subract your die roll from your THAC0. If your THAC0 was a 15 and you rolled a twenty you hit AC -5 (15-20=-5). Need to calculate what you need to hit a specific AC? Subract your THAC0 from the AC. If your THAC0 is 15 and you want to hit AC -5 you would need a 20 to hit (-5 -15=20). Yes, I fully admit that the 3.x system is easiery, but not by much. Subtracting two numbers is easy to do, even if one number is a negative. I feel 3e is superior in that it helped spawn a broad spectrum d20 system market where 3rd party providers could (and do) create their own suppliments that for better or worse can be dumped right into any D&D style game with little to no tweaking. Theoretically the same thing could have happened if WOTC had opened up the 2nd edition market to 3rd party providers. I think the blossoming of 3rd edition 3rd party providers has more to do with a changing market system than the edition that is being played. Does playing 2e mean you're a better roleplayer? No. Does playing 3e mean you're a powergaming munchkin who wants to kill hundreds of gods? No. I've heard people say that about 3e, and I've seen a lot of negative comments towards 2e players because of it. People fail to understand that it's a game and it's supposed to be taken in good humour and fun. I have a friend who got into a screaming argument with me about how far superior the HackMaster rules are than the d20 system, one that I was particularly loathe to get into. It happens. What I think you should do is I think you should get someone else (maybe yourself) to DM a 3e game so you can show your friend how to play it first. It's a lot to expect of people to not only pick up a brand new system and instantly be able, or want to, DM it. Get your friend's feet wet first and if he likes it, he'll consider doing it and if not, then what's the problem? Well said. As people have said before. It's not about what system you use. It's about having fun, killing dragons, saving the princess (optional), and getting the treasure. .. Always with the killing of the dragons. No wonder they hate people so much. All you folks ever want to do is kill them. Well, let me tell you, if you had several species constantly trying to kill you you'd develop a bad attitude toward them, too. I say, "Save a dragon, slay a princess." :D Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
High Octane 12-19-06, 05:23 AM	1 word: Thaco. If that isnt enough to convince him to shift, Start asking him how to do anything in combat besides attack. Ask him how to trip, ask him how to sunder, and him how a thief is supposed to get any sort of damage after round 1. Ask him what a cleric can do besides heal. Ask him how a cleric is supposed to have any spells besides healing. Ask how a thief has the same chance to sneak past an 11th level ranger as the village idiot in plate doing jumping jacks. Ask how come a thief is unable to try again when opening a lock. Ask how come someone cant search an area more than once and the only thing allowing anybody to have a more than 1 in 6 chance of finding anything is to be another race. Ask him why anybody would be human if they are the only ones who dont get a single racial bonus and cant see in the dark. Ask why anyone would ever want to play a magic user at low levels and why anybody would want to play a fighter after level 7. Ask why anyone would want to play a magic user period since everything past level 7 has spell resistance. Finally ask why a player may never scribe a scroll, create a potion, create a +1 sword, or ever create thesewonderful items that some guy in town can do yet somehow you cant.
Mock26 12-19-06, 05:29 AM	skills, feats! To which I would reply, Proficiencies! Non-weapon proficiencies are exactly the same thing as skills. Some are different but they serve the exact same purpose, just under different names. Proficiencies, both weapon and non-weapon, actually overlap quite a few feats. For example, 3.x feats: Blind-fight, Alertness, Mounted Combat, Two-weapon Fighting, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Brew Potion. Their second edition counterparts are: Blind-fighting, Alertness, Land-based riding proficiency, Ambidexterity, Weapon Proficiency, and Brewing. While there are some subtle differences in the descriptions and there are differences in how they are handled, they pretty much serve the same function. And, if you look at a lot of the Feats, they are really the same as skills but with a different name. Here is part of the definition of the word skill over at www.m-w.com: 2 a : the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance b : dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks 3 : a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability A fair number of feats would fall under this defintion. Mounted combat is a physical skill. Negotiator is an intellectual skill. Run is a physical skill. Stealthy is greatly influenced by physical skill. Exotic weapon proficiency is a physical skill. Track is a physical and mental skill. Acrobatic is a physical skill. Shield proficiency is a physical skill. All of these, and a decent number of others, are skills that are learned through training. This makes them exactly the same as skills. The only difference is in the name. Granted, there are some feats that are truly feats (Eschew Materials, Extra Turning, and all the Metamagic Feats). But most of them are either exactly the same as skills in how, if this was a real world, you would go about learning them and using them or have elements of physical/intellectual skills as part of them, such as Power Attack or Lightning Reflexes or Craft magic items. Remember that skill is another word for proficiency and sometimes the word Feat is used to describe a skill. I'm not saying that one system is better than the other. But, the two systems used in 2nd and 3.x are VERY similar. It is kind of hard to argue that they are not. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Boshi 12-19-06, 05:35 AM	Falln: I'm not quite sure why you're claiming that 2nd Edition is more customizable. By definition every game system under the sun is customizable and the players/DM/whatever can always change the rules. What exactly keeps the DM from doing all the stuff you mention in a 3rd edition game? Also in my experience having solid rules that fit most situations is a good thing. Some DMs are good at the fluff side of things and some are better at the crunch side of things. Combining a DM who isn't so strong on the crunch stuff (no matter how awesome he is at the fluff stuff) with a less tightly-defined rule system then its very easy for a single DM-call to throw off the balance of the game. A DM who's good at the crunch side of things will always be able to put rules lawyers in their place no matter what the system is.
Falln 12-19-06, 05:46 AM	1 word: Thaco. If that isnt enough to convince him to shift, Start asking him how to do anything in combat besides attack. Ask him how to trip, ask him how to sunder, and him how a thief is supposed to get any sort of damage after round 1. Thaco isn’t hard. Thaco minus attack roll needs to be the target AC or lower. In the 3rd edition: attack + attack roll needs to be higher then the armor. I don’t see much difference in these. Ask him what a cleric can do besides heal. Ask him how a cleric is supposed to have any spells besides healing. According to the books we use Clerics have 100+ spells to chose from. They can use healing proficiencies like herbs or medicine if they want to, they can rely on magic to heal. They are also the 2nd best fighters in the game and can wear armor and shields. Ask how a thief has the same chance to sneak past an 11th level ranger as the village idiot in plate doing jumping jacks. Ask how come a thief is unable to try again when opening a lock. Ask how come someone cant search an area more than once and the only thing allowing anybody to have a more than 1 in 6 chance of finding anything is to be another race. The thief has move silently and hide in shadows skills, he can also use non-weapon proficiencies like camouflage. If you use the rules in the ranger manual then you can even allow stealth while wearing heavy armors. We don’t use the search roll with the D6. we only use the part to notice a secret or hidden door while passing by and without looking. Magic must help the players or they have to say what they do to exactly. Ask him why anybody would be human if they are the only ones who dont get a single racial bonus and cant see in the dark. And why don’t humans have a though skin like a crocodile, or a sonar like bats? Even in real life different species are different. If a player wants infravision, then he better takes a half-elf. Humans have the bonus that they learn the fastest and can become whatever they want and can dual class. So they do have racial bonuses. Ask why anyone would ever want to play a magic user at low levels and why anybody would want to play a fighter after level 7. Ask why anyone would want to play a magic user period since everything past level 7 has spell resistance. I can’t agree with this one. Magic users are much better at higher levels then they are at low levels. While fighters are best at lower levels. St level mage can shoot 1 magic missile for 1d4+1 damage and the mage has 4 hitpoints, while the fighter starts at 10 hitpoints. The spell resistance at higher level? Where did you read something like that? Dragons have spell resistance and drow. I don’t know much more that have it. Finally ask why a player may never scribe a scroll, create a potion, create a +1 sword, or ever create thesewonderful items that some guy in town can do yet somehow you cant. Creation of magical items is explained in 2nd edition d&d. Player needs to ask the DM: how can I make a +1 sword and the DM can invent whatever he want to like: forge a silver sword and use that weapon to kill a creature that can only be struck by magical weapons or silver weapons. (like a werewolf). It’s all about imagination
Falln 12-19-06, 05:54 AM	Falln: I'm not quite sure why you're claiming that 2nd Edition is more customizable. By definition every game system under the sun is customizable and the players/DM/whatever can always change the rules. What exactly keeps the DM from doing all the stuff you mention in a 3rd edition game? 3rd edition uses lots of rules. I don't like players who have a lot of manuals next to them and slow the game to ask: why this, why that, ... If a game has a rule for everything, then the DM can still chose if he follows that rule or not. In 2nd edition lots of rules are missing or rather hard to find. When I compare the 2 groups I've played in, I like the 2nd edition the most. The only manual that's lying on the table is the players manual for the spell list. When I DM I like to keep the story going whithout having to think about: does this rule exist? ...
Mock26 12-19-06, 05:57 AM	1 word: Thaco. Please read my above post that talks about THAC0. Determining it is very similar to determining your Base Attack Bonus. Using it is simply the subraction of two numbers. While adding is easier than subracting, it isn't significantly easier. The only way it couldn't be easier is if someone wasn't smart enough to deal with negative numbers. If that isnt enough to convince him to shift, Start asking him how to do anything in combat besides attack. Ask him how to trip, ask him how to sunder, and him how a thief is supposed to get any sort of damage after round 1. There are rules for tripping. Weapon breaking was covered in, I believe, the Fighter's Handbook. A thief can damage his opponent if he hits him, he just isn't able to backstab an opponent in combat because it was designed to be sneaky type of attack, and in the middle of a melee it would be very hard to sneak up behind someone. A person fightins is constantly bobbing and weaving and is paying attention to all that is going on around him. It would be very hard for someone to sneak up behind him and strike a well placed blow in an area that will hurt him the most. In combat the thief simply doesn't do as much damage as a fighter in combat, and he isn't meant to. That is the primary duty of the fighter. The thief simply doesn't get the backstab bonus during combat. If he has a decent weapon he can still cause decent damage through combat. Ask him what a cleric can do besides heal. Ask him how a cleric is supposed to have any spells besides healing. Clerics are based on religious orde knights and where armor and often wield the same weapons as fighters. The only real difference in combat is the bonus from strength, and often the difference is only a couple or a few points. Ask how a thief has the same chance to sneak past an 11th level ranger as the village idiot in plate doing jumping jacks. Ask how come a thief is unable to try again when opening a lock. Ask how come someone cant search an area more than once and the only thing allowing anybody to have a more than 1 in 6 chance of finding anything is to be another race. The thief and the village idiot do NOT have the same chance. What ever gave you that idea? As for the only searching once, I never played that way. Certain non-weapon proficiences (which are the exact same thing as skills) improved those chances. Ask him why anybody would be human if they are the only ones who dont get a single racial bonus and cant see in the dark. Why would anyone want to play any race? It often has just as much to do with the personal behind the character as it does the racial benefits. Ask why anyone would ever want to play a magic user at low levels and why anybody would want to play a fighter after level 7. Ask why anyone would want to play a magic user period since everything past level 7 has spell resistance. Granted, mages were quite weak at low levels, and fighters lost a lot of power when compared to wizards at higher levels, but that didn't mean it was impossible to play a wizard at low levels nor that fighters above 7 were useless. If that was true the two classes would have been extinct. Where in the heck did you get the idea that everything past level 7 has spell resistance? Finally ask why a player may never scribe a scroll, create a potion, create a +1 sword, or ever create thesewonderful items that some guy in town can do yet somehow you cant. Um, I had a lot of mages who crafted their own magic items. The core rules, both the player's handbook and the DMG, cover both aspects quite adequately. In 3.x you simply take a feat. In 2nd you took one or more non-weapon proficiencies (and generally they weren't needed but added bonuses to your chance of success) and then cast the appropriate spells. As I said, it is in the rules. The only major differecne was you had to be of a certain level to cast the Enchant Item spell. The only guys in town who could create these needed the same requirements as the players. No offense, but by your wild accusations it seems to me that you either never played 2nd Edition D&D or only played it a short amount of time and never fully learned the system. If you had then you would have seen the same thing that I posted in my responses to your accusations. You really should be more familiar with a rules system before you start bashing away at it without knowing fully of what you speak. It is obvious from how long it was around and at how successful it was that 2nd edition was not a bad system nor was it cumbersome or unwieldy or difficult or whatever. It was a successful system that worked quite well. Yes, I will admit that in a lot of ways 3.x is better. But, a lot of what makes up 3.x is only around because of 2nd Edition. There are a lot of aspects that are quite similar if not exactly the same. The one is the child of the other. I also think that given the number of people who didn't make the switch to 3.x proves that 2nd edition is a good system. It isn't better or worse than 3.x. It is merely different. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Archmage Atrus 12-19-06, 09:04 AM	People who play 2nd edition will defend it because it's, basically, more fluff, less crunch. All of their arguments, distilled from their love of adjectives, come down to "We don't need mechanics to do what we want!" And, honestly, they don't. I, however, love the fact that when I make a gladiator character, I actually get bonuses - that are not at the whim of whatever DM I happen to be playing under - for doing gladiatory things. Or that with the right class/feat combination, I can pretty much make a mechanically viable character that fits almost any archetype out there. That's what 3e/3.5 gives you: A solid mechanical system, that's easy to learn, but difficult to master. 2nd edition has none of that. If your guy cares more about fluff than hard numbers, maybe he's better off with 2nd edition. But if your guy doesn't mind hard numbers, then the "d20 system" is honestly a vast improvement over any mechanics that 2nd edition ever came up with. And, by gum, nobody likes THAC0.
dayrat 12-19-06, 09:14 AM	I have a friend who currently likes to dm under 2nd edition rules. Right now im trying to convince him that 3rd edition (though more detailed) is easier to dm. All the information for skill checks and feat rules is there so it leaves alot on the fly rule making easier. Anyone else help me point out how being a dm is better under 3rd edition. I think your friend probably prefers 2E because the details are easier to manage. I have DMd under both, and they each have their advantages. But I do recall having a much easier time with rule calls and combat under 2E. 3E on the other hand is much more comprehensive. It really depends on what you are after.
jeffepp 12-19-06, 09:16 AM	I have to say that this is one of the silliest arguments that we can do. The simple answer to this is "Play what you like, as you like, because it's a game! Not that this is a new argument. TSR had to release two, thats two, different versions of DnD in the late seventies to deal with the infighting between players over how complex or not the rules should be. "Basic" DnD was put out in '77/'78, and Advanced DnD (1 ed) was released in '79, each with diverging rules and focus. That right, people have been getting into fist fights over what edition to play before there was eve a "first edition". And while there has been little (some but not much) arguing in this thread about 3.0 vs. 3.5, I have seen some knock-down-drag-out fights on the boards about which one is truly perfect and which is totally flawed. The fact is, there is no "perfect" version of DnD. There never will be. Each of us gets to choose which version we like best, and are free to play that version, and ad what ever house rules we like to said version we like. I, my self, have seven different "editions" of DnD at my disposal (three "basic" and four "advanced" [six if you count the 1st ed UA and the 2nd ed Players Option]), and given the choice, would play 3.5. But, if given the opportunity to play another, I would not hesitate to do so. If you feel you must "encourage" someone to give up an older edition for a newer one, do not do so on the grounds that the older one "sucks". Each was fun, and can still be fun. Keep an open mind to other editions than what you normally play. If you like an older one best, don't think of a newer one as an abomination. And if you like a newer one, don't think of the older ones as archaic. And most importantly, no matter what edition you are playing, HAVE FUN WITH IT. Otherwise, whats the point.
dayrat 12-19-06, 09:26 AM	I have to say that this is one of the silliest arguments that we can do. The simple answer to this is "Play what you like, as you like, because it's a game! Not that this is a new argument. TSR had to release two, thats two, different versions of DnD in the late seventies to deal with the infighting between players over how complex or not the rules should be. "Basic" DnD was put out in '77/'78, and Advanced DnD (1 ed) was released in '79, each with diverging rules and focus. That right, people have been getting into fist fights over what edition to play before there was eve a "first edition". And while there has been little (some but not much) arguing in this thread about 3.0 vs. 3.5, I have seen some knock-down-drag-out fights on the boards about which one is truly perfect and which is totally flawed. The fact is, there is no "perfect" version of DnD. There never will be. Each of us gets to choose which version we like best, and are free to play that version, and ad what ever house rules we like to said version we like. I, my self, have seven different "editions" of DnD at my disposal (three "basic" and four "advanced" [six if you count the 1st ed UA and the 2nd ed Players Option]), and given the choice, would play 3.5. But, if given the opportunity to play another, I would not hesitate to do so. If you feel you must "encourage" someone to give up an older edition for a newer one, do not do so on the grounds that the older one "sucks". Each was fun, and can still be fun. Keep an open mind to other editions than what you normally play. If you like an older one best, don't think of a newer one as an abomination. And if you like a newer one, don't think of the older ones as archaic. And most importantly, no matter what edition you are playing, HAVE FUN WITH IT. Otherwise, whats the point. I agree. This is a very subjective thing. Having played D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2E, and D&D 3.0&3.5, I think they all have their merits. I can see why someone might prefer 3.5 and i can see why someone might prefer AD&D. Alot of this is generational. If you grew up playing AD&D, you have fond memories of the style of play that those rules generated. If you grew up playing 3.5 you you are probably accustomed to the comprehensive rules system. I think they are both great. I also think other systems out there are great as well. 3E is not the only RPG. One of the joys of roleplaying games is the endless variety of systems out there.
elondir 12-19-06, 09:30 AM	I think Atrus is pretty much right, it's fluff vs crunch. Personally, I'm finding I'm making many more house rules for 3.5 than in any previous edition. The biggest gripe I have with 3.5 (and I have many) is the way they emphasize minis.
High Octane 12-19-06, 09:51 AM	The thief and the village idiot do NOT have the same chance. What ever gave you that idea? As for the only searching once, I never played that way. Certain non-weapon proficiences (which are the exact same thing as skills) improved those chances. I meant the RANGER and the village idiot have the same chance to HEAR the thief. No offense, but by your wild accusations it seems to me that you either never played 2nd Edition D&D or only played it a short amount of time and never fully learned the system. If you had then you would have seen the same thing that I posted in my responses to your accusations. To be honest, no I havent played 2nd edition at all. Ive played 1st edition. And Ive played it for 4 years.
Mock26 12-19-06, 01:26 PM	I have to say that this is one of the silliest arguments that we can do. The simple answer to this is "Play what you like, as you like, because it's a game! Agreed. I even said something very similar in my first post way up near the start of this thread. I try not to get into arguments about which version is better, but I have a hard time when someone with seemingly no or very little experience with 2nd Edition starts bashing it for no other reason than bashing it proves that their version of D&D is better. Fortunately, I think that most of the posters in this thread have NOT denegrated the thread by dragging it down into a shouting match. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
High Octane 12-19-06, 02:04 PM	The thing I dislike about 1st edition (which I think carries over to second) is the lack of ability to create a different type of character (mechanically) from the same class. There was some, but it was limited. Proficiencies changed the skills, but the class abilities were always the same. Moreover, I hated the finality of choosing a class. You were a fighter, you were a fighter forever. You couldnt decide later to add thief abilities without houseruling. Plus multi/dualclassing was substantially overpowered. Since you had to double your exp for every level anyway, you could basically have a level 5 thief/level 5 magic user for about the same experience of a level 6 magic user.
Scipion Emilien 12-19-06, 03:01 PM	High Octane, you forgot that a thief could climb a wall or a tree when the strong fighter could not. (stupid class exclusive percentile skill). As for the non-weapon proeficiency, I always feel the system to be clunky and to much at the DM fiat adjustement. I rapidly understand why all of my friends were making non-human. They were mechanilly superior and with the slow level advancement of 2e, you had the time to be dead five times before your human bonus of not being limit into class level enter in game. As for your others gripes with 2e edition system, I perfectly agree. I was 14 years old and already find those loopholes into the logic of the game.
High Octane 12-19-06, 03:46 PM	High Octane, you forgot that a thief could climb a wall or a tree when the strong fighter could not. (stupid class exclusive percentile skill). TO be technical we found 1st edition rules concerning rope climbing at least. But whats funnier to me is the level 1 thief with 18 strength and 18 dexterity had the same chance to climb as the one with 3 dexterity and 3 strength. I do remember specifically asking my DM long before I went into 3.5 if I got a bonus for my character climbing a rope since he had 17 dex and 17 strength. He did not according to the rules. The DM houseruled it that he did I think. That is one advantage of the old editions, there is so much room for DM license since they dont give rules for anything. So if your DM is a control freak he might favor it.
Scipion Emilien 12-19-06, 03:51 PM	That is one advantage of the old editions, there is so much room for DM license since they dont give rules for anything. So if your DM is a control freak he might favor it. Which is particurlarly anoying if the DM like the one I had is so much a control freak that he didn't want to house rule anything and do all strictly by the book. But of course in any edition a good DM make in my opinion a bigger difference than the ruleset.
Cainin 12-19-06, 04:09 PM	The part I never liked about 2nd Ed was just how black and white things were. While there were sometimes explainations as to "why", it was often answer by something summed up to "because the rules said so". I always found this somewhat funny since the concept of 2nd Ed was that it was based on common sense, while the d20 system is based on mechanics. For example, the 2nd Ed "Wall of Iron" spell. Tipping it over gives a 50/50 chance that it fell to one side or another. If it fell on you, you died. No save. No spell resistance. No check against HP. Just dead. It made no difference if you were a 20th lvl Fighter with a deity lvl CN 25, or just a kobold. Dead just the same. An old friend of mine, who played 2nd Ed before I was even born, tell of his classic story. He and his fellow player (wizard and thief) were mid lvl PC's who accidentally wandered into a complex that was home to four liches. (Why this made sense to the DM, I'll never know.) Seeing as how they were as good as dead anyhow, the wizard cast wall of iron next to two of the liches. (Again, I questioned why liches use the buddy system.) The thief ran up an tried to tip the wall. Either he auto died, which was basically guaranteed due to the encounter in the first place, or he auto killed two opposition. In the end, fortune favored the bold. Using a similar tactic, the players successively killed the other two liches in the following rounds. For a system based on logic, I always questioned the sanity of this kind of rule. No check. No damage. Just death with no questions asked other than a flip of a coin. Things like that just rub me the wrong way. In the d20 system, there is at least some level of justification for things. You died because you failed a saving throw vs a death effect. You died because the damage exceed your HP. You died because you were pinned and eventually failed enough CN checks to avoid sufficating to death. At least there is some kind of mechanical rational to the PC deaths now. (And while I always loved 2nd Ed Psionics, they were so unbelievably unbalanced that they shouldn't even be used in these types of discussions.)
High Octane 12-19-06, 04:13 PM	Which is particurlarly anoying if the DM like the one I had is so much a control freak that he didn't want to house rule anything and do all strictly by the book. But of course in any edition a good DM make in my opinion a bigger difference than the ruleset. D&D is 53% the DM, 39% the players, 14% the system, 3% perspiration, 1% inspiration and 2% butterscotch ripple.
Mock26 12-19-06, 04:16 PM	A character could, at any time switch to a new class. It was called dual-classing. While it was more limiting than multi-classing in 3.x, it did allow for a player to switch his charcter's career path. And, for the record, the Options Rulebooks that came out towards the tail end of 2nd Edition's life allowed for more class optimization. While it was cumbersome at times that was more than likely due to the fact that it was new. A lot of what was written in the Options Rulebooks was carried over and used when the multi-classing options for 3.x were rewritten. Since you have freely admitted to having never played 2nd edition, maybe you should stop making 2nd shift examples or making 1st edition examples and then assume that it carries over to 2nd edition. No offense, but it appears that all you're doing is trying to bash 2nd edition as a means of proving that 3.x is better.
tierieanas 12-19-06, 04:26 PM	A character could, at any time switch to a new class. It was called dual-classing. While it was more limiting than multi-classing in 3.x, it did allow for a player to switch his charcter's career path. And, for the record, the Options Rulebooks that came out towards the tail end of 2nd Edition's life allowed for more class optimization. While it was cumbersome at times that was more than likely due to the fact that it was new. A lot of what was written in the Options Rulebooks was carried over and used when the multi-classing options for 3.x were rewritten. Actually, only humans could dual-class. The other races could multi-class, but only at the beginning of their career, and only certain combos for certain races. If I remember correctly, dual-classing humans couldn't use any of their class abilities from the class they left until the new class level equaled their previous class level. So a 5th level thief that decided to dual-class to mage wasn't able to sneak until he reached 5th level mage. Of course, it's been 6 years since I've played in a serious 2nd edition game, so I may not be remembering correctly. :)
Mock26 12-19-06, 04:52 PM	In the d20 system, there is at least some level of justification for things. You died because you failed a saving throw vs a death effect. You died because the damage exceed your HP. You died because you were pinned and eventually failed enough CN checks to avoid sufficating to death. At least there is some kind of mechanical rational to the PC deaths now. Your example of the Wall of Iron is, in my opinion, one of only a few isolated cases. Most of the time you knew that ever action had a reaction. Sure, there were some exmples contrary to this, but in my opinion not that many. When you failed your saving throw and the fireball fried you to a cinder, well, you knew it was because you failed your saving throw and the damage exceeded your HP.
High Octane 12-19-06, 04:56 PM	Oh and I personally like the 3 saving throw types instead of what, 8?
Mock26 12-19-06, 05:08 PM	Oh and I personally like the 3 saving throw types instead of what, 8? 5. There are only 5 saving throws. Please try to find out some facts before simply guessing.
High Octane 12-19-06, 05:21 PM	5. There are only 5 saving throws. Please try to find out some facts before simply guessing. Lets see, Poison, Parylization, Death, Petrification, Polymorph, Rods/staffs/wands, breath weapon, Spells. Thats 8. I realize PPD and PP generally had the same rate of advancement for all classes but they were separate saves since halflings got racial bonuses to a few equal to their Con score/2.5 and dwarves got a similar bonus to poison saves alone. At least in 1st edition. And it is possible I WAS exaggerating for effect or in fact guessing since if you noticed I added a question mark at the end.
Mock26 12-19-06, 05:34 PM	Lets see, Poison, Parylization, Death, Petrification, Polymorph, Rods/staffs/wands, breath weapon, Spells. Thats 8. I realize PPD and PP generally had the same rate of advancement for all classes but they were separate saves since halflings got racial bonuses to a few equal to their Con score/2.5 and dwarves got a similar bonus to poison saves alone. At least in 1st edition. And it is possible I WAS exaggerating for effect or in fact guessing since if you noticed I added a question mark at the end. I guess it all depends on how you look it. I've always seen Paralyzation, Poison, and Death as being 1 saving throw because they are group together and have the exact same progression table. The same also applies to Petrifcation and Polymorph. Rods/Staves/Wands is considered one type of saving throw, so why not Petrification/Polymorph? Why not Paralyzation/Poison/Death?
High Octane 12-19-06, 05:58 PM	I guess it all depends on how you look it. I've always seen Paralyzation, Poison, and Death as being 1 saving throw because they are group together and have the exact same progression table. The same also applies to Petrifcation and Polymorph. Rods/Staves/Wands is considered one type of saving throw, so why not Petrification/Polymorph? Why not Paralyzation/Poison/Death? Because there is no situation where a saving throw for a character would be different for rods than it would be for wands that I am in any way aware of. However, Poison for dwarves is different than death is for dwarves. Still, I think Fort/Ref/Will makes more sense.
RK)13 12-19-06, 06:52 PM	I started playing in 2nd ed, started DMing about a month after I started playing. Played that from 93 to 2001 (I think) That being said, I have found that both systems work better if the rules are used as more of a guideline than the bible of holy truth. I guess 2nd ed taught me my personal rule 0... "don't let the rules get in the way of a good time". Mechanically, I definitely like 3.x better. I like the d20 system... one die, mostly addition, quick answers to questions. Allows mw to concentrate on my job more. But, of course, I inform all the players of my rule 0, and I enforce it. Keeps arguments down and the game flowing. I find by following that simple rule, I get the best of both worlds. I am able to have the freedom of 2nd ed, while using the mechanically better system.
Sildatorak 12-19-06, 06:57 PM	A [human] character [with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite] could, at any time switch to a new class.The bold and bracketted text has been added as clarification. Since the default stat gen was 3d6 six times and rearranged to taste, it was a bit tough to even get a character that was capable of dual-classing. 3e does allow much more flexibility regarding class. If the DM said: do a dexterity check to see if you fall, the you simply rolled a D20. No-one asked the DM: are you sure it's a dexterity check? i have 3 feats that can help me, what type of ground am I stading on? From which side is the wind coming? ...Those are not my experiences. I've found that in 2e there is even more arguing because so much rests on the DM's call. If you can change the DM's mind you can change the world. In 3e the DM can point to the balance skill and say, "Yes, these are the modifiers. You need DC 20 on this balance check. Quit whining and roll the die." That aside, the quality of the game is greatly dependent on the quality of the DM and players. If you have a crappy DM it is going to suck no matter what edition you play. If you have a remarkable DM it will be good no matter what edition you play. If you want to change someone's mind about what edition they DM, you have to get them to play the other version. If you don't play it first, you will be less comfortable with the system and you will most likely do a sub-par job of DMing.
Mock26 12-19-06, 07:16 PM	Bold is just a bit of a clarification. Since the default stat gen was 3d6 six times and rearranged to taste, it was a bit tough to even get a character that was capable of dual-classing. 3e does allow much more flexibility regarding class. Those are not my experiences. I've found that in 2e there is even more arguing because so much rests on the DM's call. If you can change the DM's mind you can change the world. In 3e the DM can point to the balance skill and say, "Yes, these are the modifiers. You need DC 20 on this balance check. Quit whining and roll the die." That aside, the quality of the game is greatly dependent on the quality of the DM and players. If you have a crappy DM it is going to suck no matter what edition you play. If you have a remarkable DM it will be good no matter what edition you play. If you want to change someone's mind about what edition they DM, you have to get them to play the other version. If you don't play it first, you will be less comfortable with the system and you will most likely do a sub-par job of DMing. Um, I did not say that. Please edit your post to show that I did not say that. Thank you. Additionally, the PHB/DMG said that 4d6 and dropping the lowest was an alternative method for rolling stats. In fact, if I remember correctly, there were several more methods for generating states. So, it wasn't that hard to be able to switch classes. I do agree that 3.x allows for more flexibility with the ability to improve stats, but I'm just not fond of that system as, to me and me alone, it smacks of munchkin-ism. I'm not bashing it, just stating why I don't really like it. In my opinion the lack of easy access to improving stats in 2nd edition was one founded somewhat in reality, and the 3.x system is one based more on a fantasy setting. I just don't care for the idea of mages improving their intelligence to super human levels just because they've earned XP. It doesn't make sense to me. At least in 2nd edition I found the idea of finding a magical tome a plausible means by which an intelligence point could be gained. Again, I'm not bashing 3.x. I'm merely pointing out some differences that I see. I understand and accept that 3.x has a lot more flexibility than 2nd Edition. But, I also feel that 2nd edition had it's own flexibility, one based not on prewritten skills, feats, prestige clases, etc., but one based on one's own imagination. In my opinion neither one is inherently better than the other. I'm all about playing D&D. About the only time I would enter into an argument about this topic is when some people (and I am NOT accusing you of this Sildatorak) feel that the only way to defend 3.x is to bash 2nd Edition, when people are incapable of having a rational discussion about the pros and cons of both systems, and when they often do so without having any real experience in one of the systems. There are people who defend 2nd edition by bashing 3.x and that is just as deplorable. Again, D&D is NOT about which system is better. It is about playing D&D. If you don't like 2nd edition or 3.x, then that is your right. If you want to discuss why, please do everyone a favor and do it like a mature, intelligent person. Shouting from the hilltops "Your version of D&D sucks!" over and over and over is childish and immature. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
High Octane 12-19-06, 07:25 PM	Um, I did not say that. Please edit your post to show that I did not say that. Thank you. He said the bold was ADDED. Edit: Just to avoid a double post. I would say the main difference between the gamestyles is the amount of dependence on the DM for houseruling. In 2nd edition the rules were less clear about most things. You gained a non-weapon proficiency in say, weaponsmithing. What does that mean? Well the DM still has to decide how long it takes to make a sword, what quality it would end up being, the cost of the raw materials, etc. Say you have a non-weapon proficiency in first aid, what does THAT mean? The DM decides if you can stablize someone or if you double their natural regeneration rate or whether that would require another proficiency. Basically, you had more dependence on the DM to understand your characters capabilities. Some people may like that. I dont.
dayrat 12-19-06, 07:30 PM	Bold is just a bit of a clarification. Since the default stat gen was 3d6 six times and rearranged to taste, it was a bit tough to even get a character that was capable of dual-classing. 3e does allow much more flexibility regarding class. Those are not my experiences. I've found that in 2e there is even more arguing because so much rests on the DM's call. If you can change the DM's mind you can change the world. In 3e the DM can point to the balance skill and say, "Yes, these are the modifiers. You need DC 20 on this balance check. Quit whining and roll the die." That aside, the quality of the game is greatly dependent on the quality of the DM and players. If you have a crappy DM it is going to suck no matter what edition you play. If you have a remarkable DM it will be good no matter what edition you play. If you want to change someone's mind about what edition they DM, you have to get them to play the other version. If you don't play it first, you will be less comfortable with the system and you will most likely do a sub-par job of DMing. Yes but people were free to use any of the ability score rolling methods listed in the book. I know in first edition their were I-IV and number I was roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. Though I actually prefered straight 3d6. It made exceptionally characters more rare, back before every character was a paragon of heroism.
Mock26 12-19-06, 07:34 PM	He said the bold was ADDED. Did I ask him to remove the bolding? No. I did not. I said that what was written there was not written by me, so I asked him to fix that. Please reread what I said and you will see that I never said anything about the bold text. For the record, the following words A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class. were never written by me in any of my posts in this thread. I did not ask him to remove the bold. I asked him to rectify the fact that he has mistakenly attributed to me a specific quote that I never said.
SevSaint 12-19-06, 07:55 PM	Thanks guys for all the imput you guys have propossed equal comparrisons to why you like what. This is not a topic about what is better, but more of, what is opinionately easier. I have played under the 2nd as well as dmed under it. My friends and i use to skip many days of schools playing and taking turns dming. One day (after 10 years of not doing anything in DnD) i was reintroduced into DnD. This guy had some 40 books of vast amounts of information and could out character build anyone. He never cheated buy was the hardest character to kill. After i played along side him for a few sessions i was asked to dm. The dm at the time never realy got a chance to play and everyone knew i had a good imagination. As i stated to dm i was lost in 3rd edtion. What was a skill check? When do i make characters roll? Fort-a-what? I thought a sorcerer was a wizard! At first i was very difficult, but at the same time very rewarding. The party was very creative. Loxodons rangers jumping off the walls, using shields as a sled for the icey bridge. After i stated to learn the basic rules it became so easy for me to dm under 3rd edition. If i had creative players doing what these guys done under 2nd edition i would have been lost and any explination to any rule i would propose for a giant loxodon elephant being able to jump off the wall and then attack would have been incomplete. So my conclusion is this; Once you learn the basics of 3rd edtion in my opinion you will have an easier time dming in 3rd.
High Octane 12-19-06, 07:59 PM	"A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class." Lets Take away the bold shall we? "A character could, at any time switch to a new class." Did you say that?
Archmage Atrus 12-19-06, 07:59 PM	Once you learn the basics of 3rd edtion in my opinion you will have an easier time dming in 3rd. This is a truism, although it can be more aptly generalized to "Once you learn the basics of a system, you will have an easier time running that system." The problem with 2E was that it had no single system to do things. Yes, there were ability checks, but they didn't account for variables (presumably under 2E a guy could walk across a tightrope, balance on thin, precarious ice, or skid across dental floss as easily as he could stand on one foot.) Any variables would have to be DM inserted and ad hoced - which isn't really a system. And ability checks worked totally different from attack rolls, which worked totally different from system failure checks, which worked totally different from magic resistance... etc., etc., etc.
High Octane 12-19-06, 08:10 PM	This is a truism, although it can be more aptly generalized to "Once you learn the basics of a system, you will have an easier time running that system." The problem with 2E was that it had no single system to do things. Yes, there were ability checks, but they didn't account for variables (presumably under 2E a guy could walk across a tightrope, balance on thin, precarious ice, or skid across dental floss as easily as he could stand on one foot.) Any variables would have to be DM inserted and ad hoced - which isn't really a system. And ability checks worked totally different from attack rolls, which worked totally different from system failure checks, which worked totally different from magic resistance... etc., etc., etc. This is exactly what I was trying to say. I dont like inconsistency, at least as far as the system is pretty much based on the mood or even whim of the DM. I guess it makes me feel less in control of my character.
Sadrx 12-19-06, 08:15 PM	2nd was completely customizable, but 3e is everything I would have customized it to.
Mock26 12-19-06, 08:36 PM	"A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class." Lets Take away the bold shall we? "A character could, at any time switch to a new class." Did you say that? Yes, I did say, "A character could, at any time switch to a new class." However, I did not say, "A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class." It is a deliberate misquote. Here is a screen capture of what was posted: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Mock26/misquote1.jpg See, he has me saying "A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class," which is something I DID NOT SAY. I understand that he edited my post to make a point, but it still has me saying something that I did not say.
Sildatorak 12-19-06, 08:43 PM	The bold and bracketted text has been added as clarification. Now there can be no confusion as to the source of the bold bracketted text. I understand that he edited my post to make a point, but it still has me saying something that I did not say. Which is a standard method for dealing with inaccurate statements on these boards, provided that it is made clear that something has been added or changed.
High Octane 12-19-06, 09:01 PM	Yes, I did say, "A character could, at any time switch to a new class." However, I did not say, "A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class." It is a deliberate misquote. With the changes BOLDED and text explaining that the bold was ADDED to the original post. He did so to counter your point in a satiric manner, much like the added lines that Jon Stewart says on the Daily Show.
Mock26 12-19-06, 09:02 PM	Now there can be no confusion as to the source of the bold bracketted text. Which is a standard method for dealing with inaccurate statements on these boards, provided that it is made clear that something has been added or changed. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not upset or mad or anything about the misquote. As I said, I understand why it was done. I just don't like it all that much.
starfire311 12-20-06, 12:53 AM	Yes, I did say, "A character could, at any time switch to a new class." However, I did not say, "A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class." It is a deliberate misquote. Here is a screen capture of what was posted: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Mock26/misquote1.jpg See, he has me saying "A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class," which is something I DID NOT SAY. I understand that he edited my post to make a point, but it still has me saying something that I did not say. So you made a false statement and presented it as fact "A character could, at any time switch to a new class" this is false, because not just any character could do that, so he edited it to be correct. "A human character with a 15 in the first class's prime requisite and a 17 in the second class's prime requisite could, at any time switch to a new class," So you are upset about him correcting your lie, great. Things I like about 3.x Unified XP table BAB SKills that increase with level Feats Non-vancian casters No prime requisites Easy magic item creation rules More options in combat Iteritve attacks Improved saving throw systems Improved multiclassing system Prestige class system Monster races Monster stat blocks Increased threat range and crit multipliers(very cool concept) Confirming crits Attacks of Oppurtunity Concentration Skill Fighting defensivly/Total defense Cover rules Concealment rules Spell resistance vs Magic resistance Challenge rating system vs flat xp rewards. There are probably more that I am not thinking of. Yes I played 2n ed extensivly and I had fun too, I also played a ton of White wolf, and shadowrun and Rifts, all those were comperable systems in quality, then 3E came out and I will never go back, it is so far ahead of all of those system I can't image going back to that way of thinking, it is like pulling out my old atari 2600 when I got a nice new X-Box, sure I loved my 2600 but it just aint the same anymore.
Sildatorak 12-20-06, 01:15 PM	I just don't like it all that much.I'll try to keep your preference in mind if I quote you in the future. To the people jumping on Mock26's case: lay off. He has a preference for how his words are referred to, no big whoop.
Mock26 12-20-06, 01:37 PM	Yeah, back off people! I made a mistake. Big deal! In case you missed it I told Sildatorak that I wasn't mad at him or anything. I have absolutely no problem with people telling me that I was wrong. How else would I know that I was wrong? The simple fact of the matter is that I feel that the method that Sildatorak used could be confusing to some people, and it makes it look like I said something that I didn't actually way. There are people on these forums who don't read entire posts. They will start to read, read something that piques their interest or anger, and will instantly post a reply. So, as I said, I'm not mad at Sildatorak or anything. And, he apparently doens't have a problem with me. Why do you? Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
WhtKnt 12-20-06, 02:20 PM	To which I would reply, Proficiencies! Non-weapon proficiencies are exactly the same thing as skills. Some are different but they serve the exact same purpose, just under different names. No, they are not. The level of skill with a proficiency was often ridiculously high, by virtue that they were based on the ability score they were tied to. Just because someone happens to have an 18 Dexterity does not mean they know how to ride a horse like a professional. By the same token, my Dexterity may be only average, but I have ridden more than a few times and have never fallen, even at full gallop. Another case: am I to accept that I have the same chance of succeeding at a 5-foot long jump as I have at jumping a 40-foot chasm? And even if that were the case, what are the chances of landing on my feet? If I miss the check, can I still catch the ledge? The NWP system addressed none of these questions, whereas the 3.5 systen does.
Grand Theft Otto 12-20-06, 02:38 PM	I think Atrus is pretty much right, it's fluff vs crunch. Personally, I'm finding I'm making many more house rules for 3.5 than in any previous edition. The biggest gripe I have with 3.5 (and I have many) is the way they emphasize minis. Only AoO's emphasize minis. Theres no more or less emphasis than previous versions, which you'll note had movement rates in inches (due to the assumption that you used a measuring tape to... move minis). D&D grew out of a wargame, minis have pretty much always been assumed. I personally think 1st and 2nd editions are poorly designed, and thought so when I played them. The rules were haphazardly thrown together, often in a way that was counterintuitive. It really does feel that half the stuff was pulled out of a drunk DM's ass one night. Wanna disarm someone? I can see the thought process now. DM: "Umm, ok, roll. Whoever rolls lowest without rolling under their required to-hit wins." Player: "Isnt a 20 normally a great attack?" DM: "Not in this case! Internal consistency is for losers! Your character now dies for questioning my divine might!" Having taught people who have never played a RPG how to play D&D in all editions, I can say 3rd edition is the easiest to explain. There is no mechanic in 2nd edition which I prefer. Fluff is something you add to your world, and thus iss present in equal amounts in both editions. I really cant see a reason to stick with 2nd edition unless you're too lazy to learn something new (and better). The absence of rules is not a particularly good feature IMO, as you'd be making up a house rule on the spot anyways, and in 3rd edition, you STILL have the option of pulling some stupid judgment out of your ass.
Grand Theft Otto 12-20-06, 02:38 PM	I think Atrus is pretty much right, it's fluff vs crunch. Personally, I'm finding I'm making many more house rules for 3.5 than in any previous edition. The biggest gripe I have with 3.5 (and I have many) is the way they emphasize minis. Only AoO's emphasize minis. Theres no more or less emphasis than previous versions, which you'll note had movement rates in inches (due to the assumption that you used a measuring tape to... move minis). D&D grew out of a wargame, minis have pretty much always been assumed. I personally think 1st and 2nd editions are poorly designed, and thought so when I played them. The rules were haphazardly thrown together, often in a way that was counterintuitive. It really does feel that half the stuff was pulled out of a drunk DM's ass one night. Wanna disarm someone? I can see the thought process now. DM: "Umm, ok, roll. Whoever rolls lowest without rolling under their required to-hit wins." Player: "Isnt a 20 normally a great attack?" DM: "Not in this case! Internal consistency is for losers! Your character now dies for questioning my divine might!" Having taught people who have never played a RPG how to play D&D in all editions, I can say 3rd edition is the easiest to explain. There is no mechanic in 2nd edition which I prefer. Fluff is something you add to your world, and thus iss present in equal amounts in both editions. I really cant see a reason to stick with 2nd edition unless you're too lazy to learn something new (and better). The absence of rules is not a particularly good feature IMO, as you'd be making up a house rule on the spot anyways, and in 3rd edition, you STILL have the option of pulling some stupid judgment out of your ass.
Grand Theft Otto 12-20-06, 02:43 PM	That is one advantage of the old editions, there is so much room for DM license since they dont give rules for anything. So if your DM is a control freak he might favor it. Your DM has the same ability to house rule under the new system. Theres a t least a guideline in place if theres a suggested rule however. The absence of a feature is not a feature in and of itself.
Kursk 12-20-06, 02:58 PM	I have a friend who currently likes to dm under 2nd edition rules. Right now im trying to convince him that 3rd edition (though more detailed) is easier to dm. All the information for skill checks and feat rules is there so it leaves alot on the fly rule making easier. Anyone else help me point out how being a dm is better under 3rd edition. I could DM 1st or 2nd Ed with my eyes closed. 3.x Ed has MANY more rules that are far more detailed than prior editions. The mechanics are way more complex than earlier editions. I do like the D20 system better but it is more work for the DM.
Mock26 12-20-06, 02:59 PM	No, they are not. The level of skill with a proficiency was often ridiculously high, by virtue that they were based on the ability score they were tied to. Just because someone happens to have an 18 Dexterity does not mean they know how to ride a horse like a professional. By the same token, my Dexterity may be only average, but I have ridden more than a few times and have never fallen, even at full gallop. Another case: am I to accept that I have the same chance of succeeding at a 5-foot long jump as I have at jumping a 40-foot chasm? And even if that were the case, what are the chances of landing on my feet? If I miss the check, can I still catch the ledge? The NWP system addressed none of these questions, whereas the 3.5 systen does. I said, "Non-weapon proficiencies are exactly the same thing as skills. Some are different but they serve the exact same purpose, just under different names." Please notice that I did not say that they worked exactly the same way. Please read the entire post and you will see what I was talking about. The non-weapon proficieny "Riding, Land Based" is a physical skill (using the dictionary definition of the word not the 3.x word) that can be learned by a character and improved upon by the character (by putting more slots into the non-weapon proficiency). The riding skill (as in the 3.x game) is a physical skill that can be learned by a character and improved upon by the character (by putting more skill points into the skill). I freely admit that the skill system is better than the non-weapon proficiency system, but this does not mean that the non-weapon proficiency system was broken. Sure, some of it might not have made sense to some people, but the system worked. One of the major differences between non-weapon proficiencies and skills is the fact that in second addition the DM had to assign a "penalty" to compensate for difficult situations and in 3.x the DM uses or assigns a DC number. And that isn't much of a difference. Here's an example. A character wants to jump his horse over a high fence. In 2nd edition the player has one slot in riding and to represent that riding is more about experience it is based off of wisdom with a +3 modifier. So, if his wisdom is 12 he would need a 15 for a basic non-weapon profiency check. The DM can, and should, make it more difficult because it is a high fence, so he tacks on a -3 modifier making the roll a 12 or lower. (In my mind an expert riding would probably have 5-10 proficiency slots in riding making the roll needed significanlty lower.) That's a 60% chance to make it. In 3.x a character with one skill point would need to get higher than a specific or arbitrary DC. I would classify this as tough so would assign a DC of 15. If this rider had a 15 dex. he would get a +1 (?) modifier. I'm a bit rusty, but if I remember correctly he would get +1 for having one skill point in riding, right? That means that with his +1 dex bonus he would need to roll a 13 to succeed. That's a 40% chance to make it. If he was an expert with 5-10 skill points he would need to roll signficantly lower. I freely admit that working the numbers in reverse for 2nd edition was awkward and because of this a person with a higher attribute score would have an easier time of it than someone in 3.x. But, a 20% different for two people of about the same skill level isn't that bad of a difference. It's not as realistic as I would like, but it is fairly reasonable. I never said the 2nd edition way was perfect. Again, I never said that the two systems worked the same way. I was merely pointing out that they cover the same aspect of the game, which is physical skills. They just work differently.
High Octane 12-20-06, 03:12 PM	I could DM 1st or 2Nd Ed with my eyes closed. 3.x Ed has MANY more rules that are far more detailed than prior editions. The mechanics are way more complex than earlier editions. I do like the D20 system better but it is more work for the DM. Actually I think that 3.x is simpler. They have more rules yes, but a good half of them never come up. You can DM 1st and 2nd edition with your eyes closed because you will basically have the right to make up anything thats not explained on the fly. The new system is both simpler AND more complex for a DM. Its simpler because they dont have to make up the rules, but more complex since they have to look them up.
Kursk 12-20-06, 03:22 PM	The new system is both simpler AND more complex for a DM. Its simpler because they dont have to make up the rules, but more complex since they have to look them up. Agree. I never had a problem with "on the fly" decisions. I knew all the rules as they were limited. That is why it was simpler for me. Someone who can't rule quickly and well would have more trouble with 1st or 2nd.
Longarms 12-20-06, 03:27 PM	I have also DM 2nd and 3rd edition and I agree that most of the rule systems in 3rd are more internally consistent, more intuitive and generally better. One area where I think 2nd edition really had a leg up on third edition is monsters. When I read third edition monsters, I can tell that whoever made them had their imagination oppressed by the CR system. Worse, the oppressive CR system doesn't add any value to the game. When I am DMing, I can tell what kind of encounter I need to challenge the PCs far better than the silly table. Here is an example of what happens when you use those silly tables: DM: (thinking) Okay I have four first level PCs. To give them a moderate challenge I need exactly FOUR goblins, which are each 1/4 CR. 4*(1/4 CR) = 1, which is the party level. Perfect, this is going to be awesome! DM: "Suddenly, four goblins jump out of the bushes, everyone roll initiative!!!" (rolls ensue) Wizard player: I cast sleep! DM: Rolling for the goblins, three fall asleep, one is still awake. Fighter player: I charge at the one standing goblin. DM: Okay, he's dead. Let me check the treasure and exp tables... That same encounter would have been much more challenging if the party had already consumed their spells. But the goblins still have a 1 total CR either way. So the DM still has to use his judgment and the CRs don't really help.
High Octane 12-20-06, 03:31 PM	Agree. I never had a problem with "on the fly" decisions. I knew all the rules as they were limited. That is why it was simpler for me. Someone who can't rule quickly and well would have more trouble with 1st or 2nd. I think players will have a lot more to say about it though. They arent too keen on having their probability of success completely dependent on the whim of the DM
High Octane 12-20-06, 03:36 PM	I have also DM 2nd and 3rd edition and I agree that most of the rule systems in 3rd are more internally consistent, more intuitive and generally better. One area where I think 2nd edition really had a leg up on third edition is monsters. When I read third edition monsters, I can tell that whoever made them had their imagination oppressed by the CR system. Worse, the oppressive CR system doesn't add any value to the game. When I am DMing, I can tell what kind of encounter I need to challenge the PCs far better than the silly table. Here is an example of what happens when you use those silly tables: DM: (thinking) Okay I have four first level PCs. To give them a moderate challenge I need exactly FOUR goblins, which are each 1/4 CR. 4*(1/4 CR) = 1, which is the party level. Perfect, this is going to be awesome! DM: "Suddenly, four goblins jump out of the bushes, everyone roll initiative!!!" (rolls ensue) Wizard player: I cast sleep! DM: Rolling for the goblins, three fall asleep, one is still awake. Fighter player: I charge at the one standing goblin. DM: Okay, he's dead. Let me check the treasure and exp tables... That same encounter would have been much more challenging if the party had already consumed their spells. But the goblins still have a 1 total CR either way. So the DM still has to use his judgment and the CRs don't really help. After 2 fights, the wizard is out of spells (assuming both WERE sleep) and he is reduced to acid spash and light crossbow. Fights 3 and 4, the cleric will have probably used his spells, the fighter will be signifigantly hurt probably, the rogue will also be beat up a bit and the whole group will probably be exhausted of spells but still alive enough to sleep. I guarantee you, fight #5 would end in character death. Thats one thing that I dont think they emphasize enough in 3.5. The fights should be easy, but many.
Longarms 12-20-06, 03:41 PM	"Thats one thing that I dont think they emphasize enough in 3.5. The fights should be easy, but many." Well, then another minus against third edition. I think a game is better served by fewer, more intense fights. Make the combat memorable, and then have some good role-playing in between. Easy fights are go-through-the-motions boring. The scenerio you describe has more place in a dungeon crawl, and if the CR system is built around dungeon crawls, then I can see why it has fallen short for the gaming style of my group. Also, your example illustrates the thesis of my post. Your first fight is a walk-through, and your last fight gets the party killed. So why do they both have the same calculated CR??? I realize that the CR system allows you to "adjust" calculated CRs based on other factors, which gets us back to the same place, the DM must use his own judgment. The system would have just been wasted ink except that the authors of the monsters were apparently forced to conform to it, which makes the 3ed version of the monsters less interesting, I think.
Kursk 12-20-06, 03:44 PM	I think players will have a lot more to say about it though. They arent too keen on having their probability of success completely dependent on the whim of the DM Wasn't a problem for over a decade. Maybe you had DM's that sucked. Who knows.
Longarms 12-20-06, 04:00 PM	"They arent too keen on having their probability of success completely dependent on the whim of the DM" This is a common misconception about rules light systems. Whether players feel like their success was determined based on the DM's whim, depends not on what system you are using, but whether your DM is good. I think thats what Kursk was saying. I assure you that I could craft a strict "rules heavy" 3.5 session where you felt that your character's success was controlled strictly by my whim. Hmm, on a whim i'll have you fight a tarrasque at level 1! A DM doesn't need to make rulings on the fly to make players feel railroaded. At the same time, we could play a 2.0 "rules light" game where you felt like your character's success was out of my control. Even if I make up rulings on the fly, if those rulings have a basis in objectivity, you will feel in control of your character's success.
High Octane 12-20-06, 04:26 PM	"Thats one thing that I dont think they emphasize enough in 3.5. The fights should be easy, but many." Well, then another minus against third edition. I think a game is better served by fewer, more intense fights. Make the combat memorable, and then have some good role-playing in between. Easy fights are go-through-the-motions boring. The scenerio you describe has more place in a dungeon crawl, and if the CR system is built around dungeon crawls, then I can see why it has fallen short for the gaming style of my group.I think it encourages players to instead consider greatly their resources. And plus, a DM should also throw varying levels of bad guys at the players. It makes the players thing. And the BBEG should have a HUGE advantage over the players in CR. +4 or so works. The thing is, if EVERY fight is "Use all your resources or you will die" they will become boring, same as if every fight is easy. But if the players dont know what to expect, they have to ration their resources, give everything a good thought, and maybe NOT eopen every fight with their highest level spells. Also if every fight drains your resources, you will spend the rest of the session recharging your resources. Days at an inn healing up, buying more potions, rememorizing spells, getting your friend who inevitably WILL die resurrected. You want to talk boring, boring is spending most of your sessions licking your wounds since every battle is an epic one where half your party is dead and all your resources are exhausted. There SHOULD be epic fights, ones where the players are spending every scrap they have until they are using their final blow to destroy the bad guy. But not on some random encounter out in the woods!
Mock26 12-20-06, 04:29 PM	"They arent too keen on having their probability of success completely dependent on the whim of the DM" As long as the DM is consistent then it is not at his whim. For example, in the 2nd edition non-weapon proficiency system I assign a -3 penalty for difficult tasks. If I deem it difficult, it has that penalty. In 3.x a difficult task has a DC of 15. Granted, there are lists of various actions so that you can readily look up what the DC is, but if it isn't on the list or you can't find it, the DM still has to determine the difficulty rating of the action. In both cases you could argue that this probability of success is dependent on the whim of the DM. I would again argue that if the DM is consistent in his rulings things are not left up to his whim. That being said, the 3.x version is easier because it has predetermined difficulty ratings for lots of tasks. I think it is better, but that doesn't mean that the 2nd edition version was broken along these lines. In my opinion it was good. Better than good is better but it doesn't make the good any worse than it actually was.
Archmage Atrus 12-20-06, 04:31 PM	I assure you that I could craft a strict "rules heavy" 3.5 session where you felt that your character's success was controlled strictly by my whim. Hmm, on a whim i'll have you fight a tarrasque at level 1! A DM doesn't need to make rulings on the fly to make players feel railroaded. The problem, as I see it, is that 2nd edition had no clear way of telling you: WARNING! A Tarrasque is NOT a good fight for a 1st level Fighter! This was mostly because, as a "rules light" system, anything resembling mechanical balance was pretty much tossed out the window, making it impossible - or, at least, time consuming and inadvisable - to warn of such matters. Whereas 3E has a basic mathematical progression to its madness, and it can be more or less measured by CR. Thus, while, yeah, you can be a total dick and throw a Tarrasque at a group of 1st level PCs, the system tells you that it's a dick move and you shouldn't be DMing. At the same time, we could play a 2.0 "rules light" game where you felt like your character's success was out of my control. Even if I make up rulings on the fly, if those rulings have a basis in objectivity, you will feel in control of your character's success. This is a fallacious argument. It applies to any system that has any kinds of rules - rules light, rules, rules intense - so it doesn't really serve your cause any. It's also harder for there to be any form of objectivity in a "rules light" system, because too much depends on the DM's objectivity. And anyone who has bothered doing any sort of study on objectivity learns really quickly that "personal objectivity" is a false concept - something we try to strive for, but ultimately will fail to achieve. True objectivity can only be achieved by the use of a cold, mechanical, logical system - something that a rules light campaign, by definition, lacks.
Falln 12-20-06, 04:40 PM	2nd edition d&d: Tarrasque Climate/Terrain: Any land Frequency: Unique Organization: Solitary Activity Cycle: See below Diet: Omnivore Intelligence: Animal (1) Treasure: See below Alignment: Nil No. Appearing: 1 Armor Class: -3 Movement: 9, Rush 15 Hit Dice: 300 hp (approx. 70 HD) THAC0: -5 No. of Attacks: 6 Damage/Attack: 1-12/1-12/2-24/5-50/1-10/1-10 Special Attacks: Sharpness bite, terror Special Defenses: See below Magic Resistance: Nil Size: G (50' long) Morale: Champion (15) XP Value: 107,000 Even the worst DM in the world would see this creature kills a lvl 1 party. A party with 4 lvl 1 characters would be a party with 4 lvl 5-6 characters IF they would win this fight. No-one needs a CR system to tell a DM when a fight is a matchup, a walkover or a massacre. What's the most important thing while playing d&d? having fun and telling a good story. Rules are a guideline for the story. A DM knows what can and what can't be done. If the Dm is fair then player won't start to complain. the only problem in my opinion with 3rd edition is the fact that there are simply too much rules and players have the chance to overrule everything the DM does.
Mock26 12-20-06, 04:42 PM	The problem, as I see it, is that 2nd edition had no clear way of telling you: WARNING! A Tarrasque is NOT a good fight for a 1st level Fighter! True, but anyone with at least a couple of IQ points would know that 1st level characters have only a single hit die for hitpoints, that the maximum any 1st level character could have was 14, and that on average, without any bonuses, they had a 1 in 20 chance to hit AC 0. It also only took a couple of IQ points to look the stats for the Tarrasque, look at it's Hit Dice and AC, do a quick calculation of the average hit points of the beast, and know that a 1st level group would have less than no chance to win. While the 2nd edition system didn't have the easy CR and EL ratings systems of 3.x, it was easy to realize what would and would not be an easy, moderate, or hard challenge for the group. Any good DM could figure it out. I will say that it is a bit of a challenge when DMing a completely new group at upper levels because you don't have months and/or years of experience with the same people, but it still wasn't all that difficult. And, if I remember correctly, I think that there was a basic system in the DMG that gave guidelines on what HD were appropriate for what levels. For example, kobolds were a good challenge for first level characters and orcs were good for 2nd and 3rd level characters.
Longarms 12-20-06, 04:44 PM	@Arch: I think what you are saying is that a rule heavy system generally produces more objective gaming than a rules light system. I can agree with that statement. What I don't agree with, is the notion that is impossible (or even difficult in any way) to create the perception of objectivity in a rules light system. I have witnessed many 2e sessions where the DM ruled on the fly, and it was perceived as objective by the players. A good DM can project objectivity to his players independently of what system he is using. There may be studies that show that the DM was not "actually" being objective (whatever that means), but the players sure felt like the he was! If a player in a rules light system feels like he is being controlled by the whim of a DM, he probably has a bad DM. And bad DMs are present in 3.5, so despite all the perfect little rules, a 3.5 player can still feel that he is being controlled by the DM. He might be able to overrule the DM a little more often, but that isn't going to suddenly make the game fun.
Archmage Atrus 12-20-06, 04:47 PM	What I don't agree with, is the notion that is impossible (or even difficult) to create perceived objectivity in a rules light system. I have witnessed many 2e sessions where the DM ruled on the fly, and it was perceived as objective by the players. A good DM can project objectivity to his players independently of what system he is using. I'm not saying you can't create perceived objectivity. I'm not even saying you can't approximate true, personal objectivity. I'm just saying, sort of philosophically, if you will, that you just can't get it. Note that, whether or not you're objective has nothing to do with whether or not your game is fun. At least, I have no hard evidence of this. All I can say is that there's a strong corollary between the challenge and "funness" of a game and the detachment of the "task resolution" from the game. (The task resolution in this case being the determinator of the solution - in a rules/rules intense system it is the system, in a rules light system it woulod be the games master.)
Longarms 12-20-06, 04:54 PM	"Note that, whether or not you're objective has nothing to do with whether or not your game is fun." Ohh thats interesting. I thought you were saying rules heavy systems were more objective and therefore better systems. Now I am not sure what you are saying? "ll I can say is that there's a strong corollary between the challenge and "funness" of a game and the detachment of the "task resolution" from the game." Sounds like you would agree that 2.0 and 3.5 are both good gaming platforms. Equal amounts of "funness" can be had by either as long as the DM detaches player from task resolution, which doesn't seem to link to the amount of rules in the system. If so, then we are on the same page.
Falln 12-20-06, 04:55 PM	And, if I remember correctly, I think that there was a basic system in the DMG that gave guidelines on what HD were appropriate for what levels. For example, kobolds were a good challenge for first level characters and orcs were good for 2nd and 3rd level characters. I think you mean the rule that says: A story award can be at most the amount of experience monsters are worth. And this can be at most 10% of the experience needed to level up. Example: a fighter needs 2000 exp to level up, so a Dm can add 100 exp worth of monsters in one adventure. OR you can mean that a DM can calculate how much exp his fighter is worth and compare that to the monsters he need to kill in one fight.
Falln 12-20-06, 04:58 PM	@ Archmage Atrus: I don't know if you also play magic, but if you do then you're probably a "Spike". Someone who wants to know all the rules and use them to get as good as he can possible get. I consider myself more like a "Timmy" someone who likes to be with his friends, not wondering about how much rules we can abuse to have a good time ;)
Archmage Atrus 12-20-06, 04:59 PM	Sounds like you would agree that 2.0 and 3.5 are both good gaming platforms. Equal amounts of "funness" can be had by either. If so, then we are on the same page. Oh, totally. A game is a game is a game. I was just pointing out your arguments above weren't really helping out your position. :)
Archmage Atrus 12-20-06, 05:03 PM	@ Falln: I don't actually play Magic (I did for a while, mostly with a buddy of mine from college, but quit it when he left.) I'll take exception, only because you seem to be drawing a distinction between "Learning the mechanics of a system" and "Having fun with your friends", which are, in fact, not mutually exclusive at all. However, given a choice between a rulebook that gives me 300 pages of fluff and 10 pages of crunch and one that gives me 300 pages of crunch and 10 of fluff, I'd much rather buy the second one, because I can write all teh fluff I want given good crunch. That's just the way I feel. That being said, 2nd edition had the best fluff out there. Nothing compares to Planescape, Dark Sun or Ravenloft out there, man. Nothing.
Falln 12-20-06, 05:06 PM	I love Ravenloft ;-) ps: When I start a new d&d group we'll probably start with 3rd edition. The group we are playing in now doesn't care about the rules that much, like I said befor the story is the most important.
High Octane 12-20-06, 05:13 PM	Even the worst DM in the world would see this creature kills a lvl 1 party. A party with 4 lvl 1 characters would be a party with 4 lvl 5-6 characters IF they would win this fight. No-one needs a CR system to tell a DM when a fight is a matchup, a walkover or a massacre. The CR system is OPTIONAL. 1st edition HAD a CR system! Based on the amount of exp the creature gave! "Heres some directions to get across town." "GOOD drivers dont NEED directions to get across town." "Well not every driver has been THROUGH town, they could end up taking a wrong turn." "Come on, every driver should be able to tell which turn is the right one! If someone doesnt know every street and every turn, they shouldnt be driving. Now with those directions, drivers wont be able to find other routes!" "Well, if they know the town well enough they can make their own routes." "NUH UH! Because the directions say so!" "The route is just a suggestion, you dont have to use it if you dont want..." "Now everyone will HAVE to use that route since you came up with it and are giving it out!" "Its a suggestion..." "Might as well be a RAILROAD!" "You are in a car, you can STILL go anywhere you want its just a damn suggestion!" The challenge of a creature is actually pretty hard to really gauge. Look at the pixie. A 1/2 hit die creature. However it can be pretty dangerous when you take into account all its abilities. How is a new DM supposed to know? A bugbear is harsh for a level 1 crew, kind of hard for a level 2, fairly easy for a level 3, easy for a level 4 and a breeze for a level 5 party. The difference between an easy and a hard encounter in D&D can be as little as 2-3 levels. How hard is it to gauge what level a mind flayer is a good challenge for?
Feeb 12-20-06, 05:16 PM	"Non-weapon proficiencies are exactly the same thing as skills. Some are different but they serve the exact same purpose, just under different names." Please notice that I did not say that they worked exactly the same way. Please read the entire post and you will see what I was talking about. Mock26, while it is clear that you are quite aware of the mechanical differences between skill systems in 2e and 3.x, I would posit that these systems did in fact serve different purposes, based on the mechanics of each system. For example, consider the number of slots available to anyone player (versus the number of skill points available in 3.x) and the cost of some skills compared to others (ex: Mining, Engineering) in slots versus points and the lack of scaling involved in the application of skills in 2e vs the level of scaling in 3.x. Thus, it seems to me that skills in 3.x work in more of an additive way than in 2e, where skills seem work more as constraints for a character, rather tools to develop the character. Further, I really prize the "take 10" and "take 20" mechanics in 3.x. In any event, this is all just opinion. Cheers
starfire311 12-20-06, 05:23 PM	@ Archmage Atrus: I don't know if you also play magic, but if you do then you're probably a "Spike". Someone who wants to know all the rules and use them to get as good as he can possible get. I consider myself more like a "Timmy" someone who likes to be with his friends, not wondering about how much rules we can abuse to have a good time ;) I considor myself 50% spike, 40% johnny, 10% timmy... I also think that analogues for DnD could be very helpful anyway, as stated in my previous post, I prefer 3.X and I really can't understand why anyone tht has given it a fair shake would not prefer it to 2nd Ed
Longarms 12-20-06, 05:26 PM	"I was just pointing out your arguments above weren't really helping out your position" @Arch My arguments were helping my position, just not with someone as yourself who sees no correlation between "funness" and objectivity in a DM. Plus you and I agree on the same overall point so I needed no help in my position with someone such as yourself. However, my arguments were not directed to you, you just started responding to them. If you will scroll up you will see that my arguments were direct towards people such as High Octane who think that gaming based on a DM's whim is unfun. I read that to mean that High Octane and others think that there IS a correlation between "funness" and objectiveness. These people think rules light systems are unfun because they are ruled by the whim of the DM. To a person who thinks that there is a correlation between "funness" and objectivity, my arguments are certainly helpful. Once I can convince such a person that rules light systems can be objective, such a person will realize that rules light systems can be just as fun as rules heavy systems.
Falln 12-20-06, 05:30 PM	The CR system is OPTIONAL. 1st edition HAD a CR system! Based on the amount of exp the creature gave! "Heres some directions to get across town." "GOOD drivers dont NEED directions to get across town." "Well not every driver has been THROUGH town, they could end up taking a wrong turn." "Come on, every driver should be able to tell which turn is the right one! If someone doesnt know every street and every turn, they shouldnt be driving. Now with those directions, drivers wont be able to find other routes!" "Well, if they know the town well enough they can make their own routes." "NUH UH! Because the directions say so!" "The route is just a suggestion, you dont have to use it if you dont want..." "Now everyone will HAVE to use that route since you came up with it and are giving it out!" "Its a suggestion..." "Might as well be a RAILROAD!" "You are in a car, you can STILL go anywhere you want its just a damn suggestion!" The challenge of a creature is actually pretty hard to really gauge. Look at the pixie. A 1/2 hit die creature. However it can be pretty dangerous when you take into account all its abilities. How is a new DM supposed to know? A bugbear is harsh for a level 1 crew, kind of hard for a level 2, fairly easy for a level 3, easy for a level 4 and a breeze for a level 5 party. The difference between an easy and a hard encounter in D&D can be as little as 2-3 levels. How hard is it to gauge what level a mind flayer is a good challenge for? I know you never played 2nd Ed, that's the reason what you're typing doesn't make sense at all: A pixie is indeed 1/2 HD but it's worth 270 exp. It shows up in packs of 2d6 or an average of 7. One pixy encounter for a party with 4 players would be worth 1890 exp in total. If this is the only fight in an entire adventure (without resting etc) then your 4 players should have at least 18900 experience in total OR a level 3-4 party. A bugbear is a 3 HD creature with a value of 120 exp. Average number of apearance is 5. A level 2 would have a chance IF they worked together and combined their skills. A mind Flayer is worth 9000 exp. (see 2nd Ed MM) If you readthe 2nd Ed DM-guide you'll also find in Table 31 and 32 the variables to use if you create/adjust creatures. While in 3rd ed the experience you gain from killing stuff drops when you gain levels, in 2nd edition you simply needed more experience each time you leveled up.
starfire311 12-20-06, 05:32 PM	2nd edition d&d: Tarrasque Climate/Terrain: Any land Frequency: Unique Organization: Solitary Activity Cycle: See below Diet: Omnivore Intelligence: Animal (1) Treasure: See below Alignment: Nil No. Appearing: 1 Armor Class: -3 Movement: 9, Rush 15 Hit Dice: 300 hp (approx. 70 HD) THAC0: -5 No. of Attacks: 6 Damage/Attack: 1-12/1-12/2-24/5-50/1-10/1-10 Special Attacks: Sharpness bite, terror Special Defenses: See below Magic Resistance: Nil Size: G (50' long) Morale: Champion (15) XP Value: 107,000 Even the worst DM in the world would see this creature kills a lvl 1 party. A party with 4 lvl 1 characters would be a party with 4 lvl 5-6 characters IF they would win this fight. No-one needs a CR system to tell a DM when a fight is a matchup, a walkover or a massacre. What's the most important thing while playing d&d? having fun and telling a good story. Rules are a guideline for the story. A DM knows what can and what can't be done. If the Dm is fair then player won't start to complain. the only problem in my opinion with 3rd edition is the fact that there are simply too much rules and players have the chance to overrule everything the DM does. so in 2nd ed this would be what, a good challenge for say 11th level characters because they wouldnt go up a level when killing it and or would it be 19th level characters since they need the same amount of XP to level as 11th level characters do, and looking know at my 2nd ed PHB a party of fighter 8, cleric 8, wizard 9, Rogue 11 would be a good match since they all could have same XP and not level up from killing it.
starfire311 12-20-06, 05:33 PM	While in 3rd ed the experience you gain from killing stuff drops when you gain levels, in 2nd edition you simply needed more experience each time you leveled up. This caps at about 10th level though, so killing something for 1,000 xp at 10th level earns you the exact same 1,000 xp, and the exact same percentage of leveling up as it does at 19th level.
Falln 12-20-06, 05:47 PM	This caps at about 10th level though, so killing something for 1,000 xp at 10th level earns you the exact same 1,000 xp, and the exact same percentage of leveling up as it does at 19th level. From 2nd ed DM-Guide When awarding individual experience points, be sure the use warrants the award. Make it clear to players that awards only will be given for the significant use of an ability or spell. "Significant use" is defined by a combination of several different factors. First, there must be an obvious reason to use the ability. A thief who simply climbs every wall he sees, hoping to gain the experience award, does not meet this standard. Second, there must be significant danger. No character should get experience for using his powers on a helpless victim. A fighter does not gain experience for clubbing a shackled orc. A mage does not gain experience for casting a house-cleaning cantrip. A thief does gain experience for opening the lock on a merchant's counting house, since it might be trapped or magical alarms might be triggered. Third, experience points should not be awarded when a player is being abusive to others in the group or attempting to use his abilities at the expense of others. Player characters should cooperate to succeed. The level 15 fighter won't get any exp if there isn't any danger at all. I keep saying 3rd edition is good for those who like lots of rules, but a good DM can more easy DM with the 2nd edition rules. While 2nd edition encourages the use of houserules, 3rd edition is like a whole book of houserules ready to be used by everyone.
Kursk 12-20-06, 06:03 PM	From 2nd ed DM-Guide When awarding individual experience points, be sure the use warrants the award. Make it clear to players that awards only will be given for the significant use of an ability or spell. "Significant use" is defined by a combination of several different factors. First, there must be an obvious reason to use the ability. A thief who simply climbs every wall he sees, hoping to gain the experience award, does not meet this standard. Second, there must be significant danger. No character should get experience for using his powers on a helpless victim. From the years playing I can say that it took more common sense to have a good game in 1st or 2nd. In 3.x common sense is anything but as they are SO many rules people start acting like a robot, "well rule # 1805-c sub section ii) says X". Even when it would be stupid to apply it to the situation. I've had to break many new players of this mentality.
High Octane 12-20-06, 06:09 PM	I know you never played 2nd Ed, that's the reason what you're typing doesn't make sense at all: A pixie is indeed 1/2 HD but it's worth 270 exp. It shows up in packs of 2d6 or an average of 7. One pixy encounter for a party with 4 players would be worth 1890 exp in total. If this is the only fight in an entire adventure (without resting etc) then your 4 players should have at least 18900 experience in total OR a level 3-4 party. A bugbear is a 3 HD creature with a value of 120 exp. Average number of apearance is 5. A level 2 would have a chance IF they worked together and combined their skills. A mind Flayer is worth 9000 exp. (see 2nd Ed MM) If you readthe 2nd Ed DM-guide you'll also find in Table 31 and 32 the variables to use if you create/adjust creatures. While in 3rd ed the experience you gain from killing stuff drops when you gain levels, in 2nd edition you simply needed more experience each time you leveled up. Okay.... I was talking about the 3rd edition CR level. And Ive said before I havent played 2nd edition. Ive played 1st. You were just blasting away at the CR rating when in fact I was saying it was a good tool to use for setting appropriate challenge when you are unfamiliar with the game. I was using examples of how a challenge is hard gauge using 3.x examples. You countered by saying you can calculate an encounter level by measuring experience. How is that better than having the CRs already calculated?
Falln 12-20-06, 06:18 PM	The experience of creatures is allready calculated in the MM. The only thing I did was: if one pixie is 270 exp then 7 pixies are 1890 exp worth. And then compare this to the party exp :-) Now if you wanted a pixie with level drain (like a vampire) then there was a table in the DM guide which said how much more/less that creature would be worth. I only wanted to say: you don't need the CR-system, in my opinion this system is made for DM's who have a hard time to find out what they can put against the party. It's a tool, but nothing more than that.
High Octane 12-20-06, 06:20 PM	I only wanted to say: you don't need the CR-system, in my opinion this system is made for DM's who have a hard time to find out what they can put against the party. It's a tool, but nothing more than that. Well I have to agree then. Its a tool, a tool I find useful, and not in any way restrictive.
dayrat 12-20-06, 06:29 PM	Wow this is such a geeky argument. Like debating who would win in a fight, superman or the Hulk? How very, very sad we are.
Longarms 12-20-06, 08:06 PM	Well, duh, superman. Mike in jest
Mock26 12-20-06, 08:46 PM	Mock26, while it is clear that you are quite aware of the mechanical differences between skill systems in 2e and 3.x, I would posit that these systems did in fact serve different purposes, based on the mechanics of each system. For example, consider the number of slots available to anyone player (versus the number of skill points available in 3.x) and the cost of some skills compared to others (ex: Mining, Engineering) in slots versus points and the lack of scaling involved in the application of skills in 2e vs the level of scaling in 3.x. Thus, it seems to me that skills in 3.x work in more of an additive way than in 2e, where skills seem work more as constraints for a character, rather tools to develop the character. Further, I really prize the "take 10" and "take 20" mechanics in 3.x. In any event, this is all just opinion. Cheers Feeb, I see it as merely the gaming evolving. For example, the 1st Edition system had Secondary Skills and every player basically got to choose two of them. I'm not totally sure, but I don't think that there was even a system on how to use the Secondary Skills. The non-weapon proficiencies were first introduced as option rules in the Dungeoneers Survival Guide and the Wilderness Survival Guide. They became official with the 2nd Edition System, and even then the DM was authorized to stick with the Secondary Skill system if he wanted to. With the non-weapon proficiency system you got more than you did with Secondary Skills, with each character getting a base of 3 or 4 outright. This system also came with a new set of rules on how to use them. With third edition the non-weapon proficiencies were retitled skills and the rules were completely rewritten and a player got more of these than they did in the 2nd edition non-weapon proficiency system. So, I see it all as a natural progression. Personally, I still play 2nd edition, but I modified the non-weapon proficiencies to make them more like the 3.x skills system. I doubled the number that a character initially started with and I grant one at every level and an additional one when they would have earned one through level progression. I find that it does not unbalance the game at all and it allows the players to give even greater depth to their characters.
SevSaint 12-20-06, 11:52 PM	gaming based on a DM's whim is unfun Every game no mater what is based upon the dm's whim. And you can get both fun and unfun games. So funness is not based upon whim its based upon creativety both by players and dm's. If anything the 3rd edition rules inspire players to be creative in combat since there are lists of rules pertaining to combat techniques. Sunder, trip, grapple, etc..