Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mock26 02-19-06, 03:59 AM	OK, since someone recently posted yet another "Your system of D&D sucks" thread, I thought I'd peform a small experiment. I want to know what aspects of 2nd and 3rd edition that you like at don't like. Please do this in a rational and respectful manner and give some specific examples. Let's see if we can actually have a serious discussion on this topic without turning into a bunch of small children screaming, "My system is better than your system!" For the record, I play 2nd Edition. To start, I'll discuss AC and hitting. The old THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0) system was easy. To determine what AC you hit you simply subtracted your die roll from your THAC0. For example, if you are a 6th level fighter your THAC0 was 15 and you rolled a 5 you hit AC 10 (15-5=10). If you rolled a 16 you hit AC -1 (15-16=-1). To determine what you need to hit a specific AC you simply subracted the AC from the THAC0. To hit AC 10: 15-10=5. To hit AC -2: 15-(-1)=16. Determining your THAC0 was easy for fighters (21-Level) and for other classes you read it off a chart. Everyone I know wrote their THAC0 on their character sheet. The current 3.x system is very simple. To determine what AC you hit you simply add your base attack bonuse to your die roll. So, a 6th level fighter rolls a 12, adds 6, and he hits AC 18. (12+6=18). To determine what you need to hit a specifc AC you subtract your base attack bonus from the AC. So, if a 6th level figher wants to hit AC 18, he knows he needs to roll a 12 (18-6=12). For some classes all you need to know is your level and you know your base attack bonuse. For others you have to look it up and write it down on your character sheet. Both of these examples are going on the assumption of no additional bonuses from Str. or magic or whatever. If you look at both of these examples you see that both systems are VERY simple. The only difference is that the THAC0 system had you sometimes dealing with negative integers. My second example is the use of shields in combat and how they relate to your AC. In 2nd Edition your shield gave you an AC bonus to your front side and shield arm side only. In 3rd Edition it appiles to any and all targets, regardless of your facing. I don't like the 3.x ruling on this topic because it doesn't make any sense to me. In 2nd edition we simply looked at our miniature and its relation to the enemy told is if you got the shield bonus. This was very quick and very simple. The 3.x system is very simple in that it applies to your AC regardless of where you opponent is. (Please bear in mind that this is how it was explained to me by a representative of WoTC at GenCon so I could be wrong. Forgive me if I am.) If you look at it realistically, a shield did NOT provide universal coverage. Look at historical examples of castle construction and you can see this. For example, look at Akershus Castle in Oslo. Attackers coming from the south, one of the only attack approaches to the castle gate, were forced to move with their right side to the castle wall. Since most people carried their shield on their left hand the attackers were vulnerable to missile weapons from the castle wall. If the attackers opted to switch shield and sword arms then they were at a severe disadvantage to anyone coming out to attack them. Look at a lot of castle designs and you see something interesting with spiral staircases. A lot of these spiraled upwards in a clockwise rotation. This meant that anyone attacking up the stairs was forced to the left side of the steps and this hindered their sword strokes because of the closeness of the center column of the stairwell. Defenders could set their shields against the left-hand central column and swing their swords freely. Now, talk to anyone who has fought in medieval re-enactment groups (such as the SCA) and they will tell you that your shield is of limited use against multiple opponents. This does not mean the shield is useless or of little value, just that it gave limited protection. I know that I've talked about realism in a fantasy game, but I still need aspects of the game to be based in reality. Because of this I do not like this aspect of the 3.x combat system. Those are two examples of why I prefer 2nd Edition over 3rd Edition. What are your reasons and examples? Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
DanjaNinja 02-19-06, 04:38 AM	On AC: You're right in that both systems are simple. Both only require a small amount of trivial arithmetic. I like the 3.x way better, though; it's just more intuitive for me to roll a d20, add a modifier, and compare it to a static value. I think part of it is that, with THAC0, in order to determine what you even need to roll, you need to be aware of statistics from both the defender (AC) and the attacker (THAC0). It's a more involved process for both the player and the DM (admittedly not by much), though after a while it does almost become automatic. With 3.x, a player can add all his relevant bonuses to a roll, and report that to the DM. End of process for him. The DM then compares that total to the defender's AC. End of process for him. See? It's even easier to describe. :P As for shields: I like the 3.x treatment because I spend less time worrying about trivial details. For me, it's more fun to figure out what my character is doing rather than what direction his shield is facing. But again, there's a fairly minor difference in both ways. 3.x seems more streamlined overall to me, for what it's worth. Now for my own gripe: Nonweapon proficiencies in 2e. I don't think they would have bothered me so much if they weren't so... well, poorly thought-out. I mean, some were as narrow as juggling, and some were as broad as blacksmithing, and the rules seemed to suggest that you couldn't even attempt to use a non-weapon proficiency if you didn't have it. The 3.x skill system is a vast improvement. For one, you can actually improve in a skill. For another, untrained people can usually attempt an action, even if they're not likely to succeed. And, well, that's about it. I guess I like it better because it went from something almost completely useless to something actually substantial.
Asciiman 02-19-06, 04:47 AM	To start, I'll discuss AC and hitting. The old THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0) system was easy. To determine what AC you hit you simply subtracted your die roll from your THAC0. For example, if you are a 6th level fighter your THAC0 was 15 and you rolled a 5 you hit AC 10 (15-5=10). If you rolled a 16 you hit AC -1 (15-16=-1). To determine what you need to hit a specific AC you simply subracted the AC from the THAC0. To hit AC 10: 15-10=5. To hit AC -2: 15-(-1)=16. Determining your THAC0 was easy for fighters (21-Level) and for other classes you read it off a chart. Everyone I know wrote their THAC0 on their character sheet. You are simplfying this way too much. Adding two numbers is much easier then using intergers. There is a reason adding is taught in grade 1 and intergers in grade 7(or there abouts). They aren't even close. It is for this reason that all over the 2nd edition books and screens there were charts for all sorts of saves, THAC0 and other progressions. Everything now follows a pattern, and that is very simple to understand. As for the shields from 2nd edition, keep in mind that this is a game that was designed to not need miniatures, or for that matter even maps. And yet everyone had to keep in figuring out their facing. This was a complete and utter mess. My gripe about 2nd edition: if I could only pick one, and not because it is the worst/most important, would be the saves. I hated how there were five categories with wierd divisions. And how wizards were better at dodging fireballs then rogues. Screwed up I tell you.
Mock26 02-19-06, 04:55 AM	Now for my own gripe: Nonweapon proficiencies in 2e. I don't think they would have bothered me so much if they weren't so... well, poorly thought-out. I mean, some were as narrow as juggling, and some were as broad as blacksmithing, and the rules seemed to suggest that you couldn't even attempt to use a non-weapon proficiency if you didn't have it. The 3.x skill system is a vast improvement. For one, you can actually improve in a skill. For another, untrained people can usually attempt an action, even if they're not likely to succeed. And, well, that's about it. I guess I like it better because it went from something almost completely useless to something actually substantial. I do agree that in some aspects the non-weapon proficiencies were too narrow or too broad, but, I think they only appear that way more than they actually are. In 3.x blacksmithing is replaced by craft with a subspecialization in blacksmithing. They are one and the same. Juggling is nothing more than perform. Juggling may have been a very narrow skill set, but it could very easily be used as a model for your own creation of a similar proficiency. I actually once wrote up a non-weapon proficiency for Goldsmithing that was based on blacksmithing and artistic ability. As for you comment about improving, I have to slightly disagree. You could improve your non-weapon proficiencies by devoting more slots to that non-weapon proficiency. The only problem was that it was too easy to max out. For example, if you selected Rope Use, which was based off of Dexterity with no modifiers, and you had an 18 dexterity, by devoting two non-weapon proficiency slots to Rope Use you were maxed out at 19, because a natural 20 is an automatic failure. Some DM's, myself included, apply penalties for certain situations, but most players never bump a score above 19. I actually used the 3.x system of skills as a basis for one of my house rules. I doubled the number of non-weapon profiency slots and granted one for every level, in addition to the progression tables listed in the PHB. I also use the 3.x table of unskilled checks, though I had a very similar system in place before 3.0 came out. I personally don't think the non-weapon proficiency system was broken. I do think that it was very sparse and that it was a great basis for a House Rule system. That being said, my House Rule system was almost nearly identicle to the 3.0 system when it came out. However, I would have much preferred a better system in place for the 2nd Edition release than one that required a lot of tweaking to make it realistic. So, I agree with you that the 3.x system is better, even if it is for different reasons. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Mock26 02-19-06, 05:05 AM	You are simplfying this way too much. Adding two numbers is much easier then using intergers. There is a reason adding is taught in grade 1 and intergers in grade 7(or there abouts). They aren't even close. It is for this reason that all over the 2nd edition books and screens there were charts for all sorts of saves, THAC0 and other progressions. Everything now follows a pattern, and that is very simple to understand. As for the shields from 2nd edition, keep in mind that this is a game that was designed to not need miniatures, or for that matter even maps. And yet everyone had to keep in figuring out their facing. This was a complete and utter mess. My gripe about 2nd edition: if I could only pick one, and not because it is the worst/most important, would be the saves. I hated how there were five categories with wierd divisions. And how wizards were better at dodging fireballs then rogues. Screwed up I tell you. I don't think I've over simplified the to hit system. Maybe the term integer was out of place, but the system is that simple. In 3.x you DO need a chart to tell you what your Base Attack Bonus is. There is a chart for every single class that shows you what your Base Attack Bonus is. Fighters are simple because it is their level, and in 2nd it was 21 minus your level, which is almost as simple. For all other classes you have to check a table, in both systems. Yes, they do follow a set pattern so you know that for every x number of levels your Base Attack Bonus is Y, but that same is true of the THAC0 sytem. The only difference is the level at which a Base Attack Bonus or the THAC0 improves. As for all the charts and such, you do make a point. But, I think that 3.x is over simplified. Yes, the XP progression charts are simple and universal, but I like the idea that some classes advance faster or slower than others. I felt that it balanced out because in the 2nd Edition system fighters advanced quicker, but as they went up in levels, mages started to become more powerful than fighters. By have a slower XP progression table at lower levels, mages didn't become more powerful than fighters too quickly. Again, that is how I saw it. I can understand your point about their being lots and lots of charts. Fortunately, you only really needed a couple of progression tables for your individual character, and even then most seemed to be for DM use more than player use. As for your comment about the saves, you have to remember that in 2nd edition a save vs. fireball was not one of dexterity, but one based on inate magical ability. A mage has more inate magical ability than a thief, and because of this they would be more resiliant towards a fireball. While the reflex save makes sense, it only makes partial sense. If you were on the fringe of a fireball, then you I would argue that you could dodge out of the way. If, however, you were at "ground zero" on a fireball, a 40' diameter sphere, there isn't much getting out of the way of that. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
celtredleg 02-19-06, 10:50 AM	I dont dislike 2nd ed compared to 3.xx, I disliked 2nd ed compared to ADD. I hated what they did to Magic missles, fireballs and a bunch of other things I cant even remember now. When 3.5 came out I found it very fuynny that a lot of people where very upset about a lot of spells being changed. One of my favorites was a comment that you did not see fireball nerfed, when in fact it had been nerfed many years ago.
Warslayngawds 02-19-06, 11:39 AM	<open cans of worms> Ok, honestly up until 3.X came out I didn't have a single gripe about the system at all. My biggest reason for preffering 3 over 2 is short and not so simple. 3.0 and current(3.5) are very easy for me the DM to create home-brewed creatures, feats, skills, skill uses, and modifiers within the desinging and playing of the game. 2e was decent but each dice rolling system was a little different, sometimes High stats were good, sometimes you wanted low ones. Actual dice rolls worked much the same, on attack rolls you wanted high numbers, on proficiency checks low ones. House rules are fine, but most of the ones in second edition existed(especially the commonly used ones) because the system itself either didn't do it right or at all. I hated having to sit down after a game and over the next week, wracking my brain over a new monster I needed, or how some action would affect dice rolls during combat. Point 2, is a little more straight-forward: the Character Classes. A lot of this comes down to the player behind the sheet, but the system should support good players(unfortunatly this also supports bad players, but there's really not a good way to get rid of them). In 2e it always felt like I was a Human Fighter, an Elven Ranger, a Dwarven Cleric, etc. 3e, seems to support creative character building( and in turn hopefully, roleplay). You're not stuck being a Human Fighter. Wizards are no longer one shot wonders at 1st level, bards don't suck completely anymore, and Paladins have a good reason to need a high charisma, as opposed to arbitrarily having to have it. Point 3, 2e overall seemed kind of white washed, and censored for public veiwing. The core books (PHB, DMG, MMI) of 3e are very 4 color. The pc's are good(or neutral) the monsters are bad, so on and so forth. That's ok. And before I go any further I'm not talking about sexual content or blood and guts. One of the things I love about gaming is the ability of the DM to confront the characters with moral dilemas that cause them to think and make them concerned about the outcome, again a lot of this is the responsibility of the DM. However any mention of the word Demon or Devil was expunged from any of the 2e books, and many of the staple demons and devils from 1e didn't even get statting at all. If my memory serves me correctly the only one that made the Monstrous Compendium was the Pit Feind, course I could be missing some. These moral dilemas and grand adventures that made me love the game so much, often required just the right bad guy to make it fit, and said tyrant needed the right minions. Unfortunatly Orc Warlords were hard to engineer in 2e( going back to points 1 and 2). 3e offers that in the further accesories. I know that 2e had other books that offered new options, but on the whole they were very lackluster. The DM supplements Manual of the Planes and Deities and Demigods make the concepts of Good and Evil a little more blurred, and Book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness deal with these issues directly. I like having access to that type of information, it gives me the ability to make my bad guys really nasty, and my heroes shine a bit more without having to spend weeks coming up with how it works in game. In the end I like 3e more because I can do other things than work, sleep, game and game design. The game just seems to be more enjoyable when the rules make sense within themselves. Reality and physics just seemed to lose their importance to me while I'm gaming. As long as the consistency was still there. DISCLAIMER: All of the above expressed veiws are personal opinions and should be regarded as such. I find no fault with any of my fellows that still prefer 2e to any of the more recent editions. If you like it and are having fun, keep doing so, cause there isn't a thing wrong with it.
dungeonmasterblog 02-19-06, 12:05 PM	I held on to version 2E all the way through until version 3.5 came out. The reason I finally switched over is plain and simple. 3E is supported, 2E isn't. I like a couple of new products every month coming out to choose from instead of hoping I can win an auction on ebay to fill a hold I have in 2E. And since making switch, while both have their pros and cons, my players enjoy it just as much. Dungeon Master http://www.dungeonsdragonsblog.com
Evangelos 02-19-06, 12:18 PM	You do NOT need a chart in 3.X to see what your base attack is. You either get 1 point, .75 point, or .5 point of base attack per level depending on your class. All I need to know what levels of what classes a character has and I can figure out their base attack without a chart. For example: Ftr2/Rog2/Wiz2 2 + 1.5 + 1 = 4.5 BAB, rounded down to 4. I did that in a few seconds without looking at any of my books. As to shields, I think they work fine in 3.x. Why? Well, "realistically," shields should give way more than +1 or +2 bonus to AC. Give me even a small/light shield and i'll be able to use it to defend myself extremely well, assuming i'm being attacked from one direction. The way I see it, they simply spread out the bonus all around. Universal XP requirements was a good idea. In 3.X, one level of any class (save commoners and such) is theoretically equivalent to any other class. Wizards are no longer uber-weak at low levels and uber-strong at high levels compared to fighters. Yes, the power difference does remain to a degree, but the extremes got a lot smaller. When you save against a fireball, it's not a matter of jumping totally out of the way. It's twisting and positioning yourself so that you avoid the brunt of the attack. It may not always make sense 100% of the time, but the idea that even a 20th level fighter could fight an enormous dragon and not get squashed is equally ridiculous. 3.X is far more streamlined than 2.0 ever was. While most groups have houserules, you don't need to sit there and come up with your own skill system for your game; you can just make small tweaks. As mentioned several times before, it's a lot easier to create your own material, too.
Mock26 02-19-06, 03:44 PM	You do NOT need a chart in 3.X to see what your base attack is. You either get 1 point, .75 point, or .5 point of base attack per level depending on your class. All I need to know what levels of what classes a character has and I can figure out their base attack without a chart. For example: Ftr2/Rog2/Wiz2 2 + 1.5 + 1 = 4.5 BAB, rounded down to 4. I did that in a few seconds without looking at any of my books. Realistically, you didn't need a chart for knowing the THAC0 in 2nd Edition. A fighter's THAC0 improved by one every level (21 minus level = THAC0). A 9th level fighter had a THAC0 of 12. I just did that in a second. A clerics THAC0 increased 2 for every three levels. So, a 13th level cleric had a THAC0 of 12. Simply calculate the number of times 3 goes into 13 evenly, multiply by 2, subtract from 20. Very simple. A wizard' is the same as priests except that it improves by 1 for every three levels. A 19th level wizard will have a THAC0 of 14. I calculated that in my head in about 3 seconds. A thief's is also easy. His THAC0 increases 1 for every two levels. A 19th level thief has a THAC0 of 11. I have never denied the fact that calculating what you need to hit in 3.x is easier than 2nd Edition. However, the THAC0 system was easy to begin with. So long as you were familiar with the concept of negative numbers and could subtract negative numbers, it was easy. Knowing what your THAC0 was based on your class and level is slightly more difficult than calculating it in 3.x, but again, not by much. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Ravenseye 02-19-06, 04:10 PM	I think the 2e and 3e systems for hitting were pretty simple, but 3e seems more intuitive to me. Essentially the systems are exactly the same but the 3e system does it without negative numbers. If your THACO was 15 and you rolled a 5 you hit AC 10. It's like having a +5 Base Attack Bonus and rolling a 5 and hitting an AC of 10. But when you have a THACO of 8 and roll a 14 you have to go into negative integers to figure out you can hit an AC of -6. It's exactly the same though to have a attack bonus of +12 and rolling a 14 and hitting a 26. Exactly the same, but just a little bit easier, imho. As far as calculating to hit or thaco...nobody did that, or does that, or looks in the book. You ahve it written down. My THACO is 10. I'm +10 with my longsword....Same... Now what I like better is that the variables involved are a bit more fluid with 3e. Strength or Dexterity modifiers, size, etc...it's a bit better imho, and overall the newer system is easier for first time players to grasp. Otherwise I like how 3e gives you far more customizable characters. One of my players is a Shifter Cleric 5 / Barbarian 1 / Weretouched Master 2. Even if you're a Fighter 8, you can use skill points and feats to be a very different fighter 8 than the next cat. In 2e really anything one fighter could do, another could do, there were a few proficiency differences but nothing drastic. Now you can really have unique characters, and when you throw in prestige classes everyone has a very unique character that suits themselves more than fitting into the mold of a 2e character. While I think there is nothing wrong with still playing 2e if you are comfortable with it, I truly feel 3.5e is the best D&D system I've played in from Basic on up simply because of it's simplicity, as well as it's ability to really have unique characters.
RK)13 02-19-06, 04:52 PM	I played and DMd for second ed and 3.x. The newer system isn't better or worse, as it all depends on personal preference. I think peopl have been using the wrong nomenclature for the difference between second and third though. The to hit system in third ed is not necesarily easier or harder to firgure out, it is just more intuitive. In 2nd ed, a person with a bonus to their attack roll (given as a +x) was actually subtracted from your THAC0 (to get the number you need to roll to hit), whereas in 3.x you use the plus sign in the way it's meant. I played 2nd ed from 92 until the release of 3rd ed, and I was still having to put way too much thought into wether or not I hit. The intuitive nature of the d20 system allows for a much shorter learning curve. I did, in some ways, like the stat requirements for classes in 2nd ed. It felt really good rolling up a paladin or a druid or a ranger, a feeling of luck akin to hitting on a slot machine in vegas. I didn't like the difference in rolling systems. You want to roll high for attacks, saves, etc., but low for stat checks and proficiency checks. I didn't likethat they didn't offer most of the character stats for each creature (what was an Orc's con?). Those are just persoanl preferences, however. My only real rant about 2nd ed as a game (don't get me started on TSR policies and such) is that it seemed that it went out of its way to complicate things. From different XP scales for classes, to different dmg die needing to be rolled wether the creature you hit was large or small, to multiclassing vs. dual classing, to racial maximums and minimums, to certain races being able to have certain class combinations while others weren't, etc, etc. There was too much "no, you can't do that" in the RAW. Elven Paladins? No. Dwarven Wizards? Not a chance. Halfling Druids? You wish. Too many house rules were required to open the options for players, whereas, in 3.x, I feel houserules are more something extra for the game as opposed to a requirement.
shadowfox628 02-19-06, 06:46 PM	3.0 was really the system I was first introduced to (2003). I can't say much about 2.0 (except an OotS joke: monster's don't have Will saves), but I found 3.0 to be amazingly simple, and converting to 3.5 was a little odd, but I've gotten used to it. Really, I could care less. Favor V.2, or 3.X, just don't try to impose your ideas on me.