Post/Author/DateTime	Post
whitefox 12-16-03, 11:49 AM	I was just wondering if anyone else out there still plays 2nd edition. I do, but it is becomeing increasingly difficult to find things dealing with 2nd. Also, if any of you know of any good sites that have 2nd edition resources please let me know. Thanks
Derren S. 12-16-03, 11:51 AM	Try the Out of Print board further down. There should be "many" 2Ed player.
Winternova 12-16-03, 11:55 AM	I was still 2ed up until i got into d20m, and after about a month of that, i forgot how 2ed worked, so i just gave in. That, and we had a guy in our group who had been playing with a 3ed group, and everytime we did anything he was all "In 3ed, we'd do this!" and "Saving throws are better in 3ed!" and i was so sick of that.
Northen_Spur 12-16-03, 12:19 PM	I still play(well DM) 2ed Mostly (I've had no choice but to adapt a little to the 3ed), but when I play 3ed I have a list of house rules that cuts down on what I don't like. But I have a group who is used to 2ed and togetter we have almost the entire collection. 2ed still has alot of life and contrary to what most people on this board think we had fun then and we still have fun now with 2ed. My major gripe about 3ed insn't the new mechanics, it mostly the game has been more easly opened to Powergamers and Max/min and now even more for munchkins. Sometimes 3ed fells like I am playing Diablo 2 with more options. Then I kinda hate the new (every creature is alowed and has a Template) fake example: Pc1: Uhmm... I wan't to be a Dwarf Pc2: Elf Pc3: Elf too Pc4: Human Pc5: Gnome Pc6: I wanna be a half-centaur , Half-Drow , with the wear-bear template, and later I'll make myself into a lich Dm: You know we start at Lv4... your CR is too high Pc6: that's alight I have the lv progrestion charts here... and then having Pc6 being angry cause( I would roleplay) people run away from him, town militias refusing to let him in and other negative effects.
Kalidor 12-16-03, 12:45 PM	3.0 is dead as far as I'm concerned.
Derren S. 12-16-03, 01:06 PM	Originally posted by Northen_Spur Pc6: I wanna be a half-centaur , Half-Drow , with the wear-bear template, and later I'll make myself into a lich In 2Ed, this was also called Elf using the Complete Elves (Or something like that) ;) But lets not start a XEd is better discussion.
whitefox 12-16-03, 01:09 PM	Originally posted by Northen_Spur I still play(well DM) 2ed Mostly (I've had no choice but to adapt a little to the 3ed), but when I play 3ed I have a list of house rules that cuts down on what I don't like. But I have a group who is used to 2ed and togetter we have almost the entire collection. 2ed still has alot of life and contrary to what most people on this board think we had fun then and we still have fun now with 2ed. My major gripe about 3ed insn't the new mechanics, it mostly the game has been more easly opened to Powergamers and Max/min and now even more for munchkins. Sometimes 3ed fells like I am playing Diablo 2 with more options. Then I kinda hate the new (every creature is alowed and has a Template) fake example: Pc1: Uhmm... I wan't to be a Dwarf Pc2: Elf Pc3: Elf too Pc4: Human Pc5: Gnome Pc6: I wanna be a half-centaur , Half-Drow , with the wear-bear template, and later I'll make myself into a lich Dm: You know we start at Lv4... your CR is too high Pc6: that's alight I have the lv progrestion charts here... and then having Pc6 being angry cause( I would roleplay) people run away from him, town militias refusing to let him in and other negative effects. That is why me and my group still play 2nd. We have read the 3.0 and 3.5 stuff and all felt it made the characters too powerful and took all the challenge of building your character up out.
Bacon and Eggs 12-16-03, 01:14 PM	If I found folks that played 2nd edition, I'd would have no problem playing it. So it's not quite dead in this neck of the woods yet. ... That and that is the bulk of my books. ... and I have mostly every rule and variant memorized ... and I like to do goofy rebellious things like use older editions when nobody else it
Scarlet Knight 12-16-03, 01:17 PM	2nd Edition... is it dead? As nail in door.
Lord_Soto 12-16-03, 04:07 PM	Not only do I still play 2E, but I just started a new group of players and taught them exclusively second edition. Adding to the pool of 2E players every chance I get.
Ack'noth Necrom 12-16-03, 04:13 PM	Q: Is 2E dead? A: Not no but :censored: NO! I still run a 2E online game and i will always think that 2E is superior to 3.X. I write my new adventures in 3.0 and 2E format, that way if i ever publish them they can be used in either edition. The only reason i play 3.X in my regular game is because all of my players want it that way and ive excepted that as a group decision. 2E is a system that has everything that i want in a RPG while 3.X is severly lacking (in both common sense as well as realism when compared with how things acctually were) in a lot of its material and that is why i still play 2E over 3.X. 2E rules and always will IMO
Escef 12-16-03, 06:00 PM	Somewhere in south-eastern MA there is a 2e group, they post 'recruitment flyers' at a book shop in Bridgewater. Never met any of them. My group converted to 3e in Sept 2000, and we've been waiting for a fresh campaign to spring up before going into 3.5.
Farland 12-16-03, 08:53 PM	2nd Edition wore a wire when we last had coffee in order to get evidence on me for an FBI sting. It's not a game; it's not a friend. It's dead to me.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 12-16-03, 09:26 PM	I like 3e, but I have and always will love 2e. It was a great system you could house rule it much easier than 3e. Hell, You could revamp entire chunks of it without a hitch. It made for more creative roleplaying by not being bogged down by rules, the combat was much better to run that the Miniature focused 3e and made for more cinematic styles in fights.... Yeah 3e may be my wife but 2e was the fling I'll always remember.....(and occasionally go see)
Taran Alvein 12-16-03, 09:30 PM	Originally posted by Kalidor 3.0 is dead as far as I'm concerned. I'd hardly say it's dead. 3.5 just came out a couple months ago, and quite frankly, I know a few players who don't like it as much as 3.0. I myself am a 3.0 player, and whenever I run or play, we all use the 3.0 rules. I don't like it because 3.0 just came out, I just bought all the books, then suddenly, about 3 months after that, 3.5 comes out, and I don't feel like spending $90 on three new books that I REALLY don't need. My friend doesn't like it because he says it's a really bad step backwards, towards 2.5, or 2.0, or whichever of those two he said it was like. I wouldn't know anything about that, so I guess I'll take his word for it...
Searchin' 12-16-03, 11:09 PM	Bring back Gygax I say! First edition was all good! It had what other systems lack: Depth and character! (excluding 400+ prestige classess of course.)
Glock-9mm 12-17-03, 12:13 AM	When 3.0 came out I dropped 2nd Ed like a hot potato, But 3.0 had a few bugs I didnt like so when 3.5 came out I got the core 3 books and gave all my 3.0 core books away. 3.5 is ok, But at theend of the day its about Roleplaying and hanging out with mates... So meh. There is one thing 2nd Ed still has over 3.5, Monster Ecologies, But maybe thats just me who cares about that :)
Escef 12-17-03, 01:51 AM	Originally posted by Taran Alvein I don't like it because 3.0 just came out, I just bought all the books, then suddenly, about 3 months after that, 3.5 comes out, and I don't feel like spending $90 on three new books that I REALLY don't need. While the 3.0 and 3.5 releases were closer together than any comparable 1e or 2e set of releases (Unearthed Arcana and the Options series), If you think they came out 3 months apart you have to do some homework. 2003-2000=3. 3 years apart, not 3 months. If you don't want to shell out money for 3.5 you don't have to. Download the 3.5 SRD (system reference document), which you'll find somewhere in the D&D section of WotC's site. And buying the books will NOT cost you $90. Check eBay, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. Many chain bookstores have discount cards for their frequent buyers clubs. Heck, the bookshop I buy my D&D stuff from gives large discounts. (Gotta love your local small buisnessman.) I could go out tomorrow to the bookshop and get the 3 core books individually for around $65 total. (I haven't looked at the 3.5 boxed set, so I don't know how much it goes for.) Now, if your happy with your game as is, there is still no reason to switch over, other than at least trying it out.
thalious 12-17-03, 01:55 AM	I still have my 2E books, but I highly doubt I or anyone in my group will go back to playing 2E.
the_heart 12-17-03, 06:14 AM	Originally posted by thalious I still have my 2E books, but I highly doubt I or anyone in my group will go back to playing 2E. this pretty much sums up the way my group feel, 3E flows so much easier allowing you to get on with the game. i would be reluctant to go back to using 2E(but if it were a choice between that and not playing at all.....) however i am aware that 2E still has a large fanbase.
Kalidor 12-17-03, 12:02 PM	Originally posted by Escef While the 3.0 and 3.5 releases were closer together than any comparable 1e or 2e set of releases (Unearthed Arcana and the Options series), If you think they came out 3 months apart you have to do some homework. 2003-2000=3. 3 years apart, not 3 months. If you don't want to shell out money for 3.5 you don't have to. Download the 3.5 SRD (system reference document), which you'll find somewhere in the D&D section of WotC's site. And buying the books will NOT cost you $90. Check eBay, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. Many chain bookstores have discount cards for their frequent buyers clubs. Heck, the bookshop I buy my D&D stuff from gives large discounts. (Gotta love your local small buisnessman.) I could go out tomorrow to the bookshop and get the 3 core books individually for around $65 total. (I haven't looked at the 3.5 boxed set, so I don't know how much it goes for.) Now, if your happy with your game as is, there is still no reason to switch over, other than at least trying it out. Actually, he said he just bought the books three months before 3.5 came out. I was looking at my 2E monster manual the other day and I couldn't even fathom how I played that garbage. I know those pesky rules get in the way of roleplaying for some people, but for me, they make the game a lot tighter, the fights more balanced, the monsters more standard across the board and all classes as playable as the next. And since roleplaying doesn't require the same rules as the game mechanics, it really doesn't matter. I bought the 3.0 PHB the DAY it came out and was running the sample adventures that night with friends. We'd been playing 2E since 92 (some of us earlier than that) and realized that once you learn the way the rules work, its far more robust and customizable than 2E ever was. But that's just mine and my group's opinion.
fistanthius 12-17-03, 12:40 PM	I saw a flier up in our local game store looking for 2e players so they are still around. I was going to start my campaign in 2e, but thought I'd give 3.5 a try since it just came out and looked nice. Its easier to teach people how to play (no messy thac0 and +/- AC). I do miss the habitat/society and ecologies entry on monsters though. It helped me role play the monster a bit better and made for interesting reading. Which reminds me, does anyone know where to find info on the dark 8? The most info I can find on them is just a list of their names. PS. It cost me ~$70 to get the 3 3.5 books. I bough 1 at regular price, and 2 on the web (new) at $19 + $2.50 for shipping. And since I wasted $50 on Star Wars galaxies and then another $50 on FFXI, which I never play, it wasn't to bad of a buy.
Roxlimn 12-17-03, 04:16 PM	I believe that everything that was wrong (as I felt it) in 2e was corrected or bettered in 3e, so 3e for me is 2e. Upgraded and overhauled, that is. Frankly, the rules were overdue for revision as far back as 1996. Most of the complaints I get from potential players for 3e is that it's more complicated, and I'll admit that the learning curve is a bit steeper, however, as a DM, I never let my players handle more rules than they're comfortable with. If they don't like it, I run the rules behind the scenes and they never get a chance to get bogged down by it. For some groups, tactical combat is not really a nice way to go. Fine. I do the tactics myself and simply relate the consequences of their actions. Instead of player 3 saying "I charge 30' into the orc line and use Power Attack", he might say "I charge into the orc line, putting a little more force into the swing", and I freely (with permission) interpret that into "tactical terms", without the player ever having to see the battle grid. As a DM, I find 3e a joy to work with. Contrary to what others might say, I find powergamers easier to control in 3e than in 2e. While in 2e, I had to put my foot down without any real recourse in the rules (aside from the fact that the rules regularly contradicted themselves), in 3e, the DMG very clearly states that the DM is the only arbiter in the game. Thus, anything I say goes with no fuss whatsoever. I'll admit it's a power trip, but the thing I like about it is that I don't have to spend so much time with the powergamer trying to explain why their super-elf bladesinger isn't allowed in my campaign.
Searchin' 12-17-03, 04:46 PM	Originally posted by Roxlimn ...without any real recourse in the rules (aside from the fact that the rules regularly contradicted themselves), in 3e, the DMG very clearly states that the DM is the only arbiter in the game... This is no new thing... the DM as far as I was ever concerned (as a player and a DM) was always the final arbiter of any facet of the game. Any DM who let their players dictate is a muppet.
devinmdp 12-17-03, 05:56 PM	I for one far prefer 3.0 and now 3.5 to 2 ed. 2 ed broke down at higher levels (example...you save on anything but a 1 against any spell, you hit even AC -10 on a really low number). 2 ed did not scale well at high levels. In addition, the whole "humans can only be 1 class" really bothered me...has since the 3 book D&D first edition. Spell effects were not properly balanced, tested, explained, or interacted with each other. There was not enough differentiation between PCs of the same class. A 10th level fighter was a 10th level fighter was a 10th level fighter. There was also not enough candy for going up a level in many classes. Thieves were simply broken and an absolutely useless class (Knock spell and Find Traps spell basically made thieves redundant. Backstab was too difficult to use). Combat took too long to run in 2.5 (i.e. with Player's Options) and was too simplistic in 2.0 (roll to hit....roll damage....wait til next round....exciting!). IMO 3.X is an absolute pleasure to run! Devin
The White Sorcerer 12-17-03, 05:59 PM	Originally posted by Northen_Spur Then I kinda hate the new (every creature is alowed and has a Template) Only the thing the DM allows are allowed. If the DM allows everything, then everything is allowed. Me? I only allow my players to play humans.
Glock-9mm 12-17-03, 08:15 PM	Originally posted by Searchin' This is no new thing... the DM as far as I was ever concerned (as a player and a DM) was always the final arbiter of any facet of the game. Any DM who let their players dictate is a muppet. Searchin', Are you a convention goer by chance?
Joseph Wolfgar 12-17-03, 09:24 PM	When I was introduced into D&D, 3rd edition was new for about 6 months or so, and my DM was going to play 2nd edition for as long as he could. So, I learned 2nd, but bought the 3rd edition books, as well as the 2nd edition core rule books, simultaniously learning both. My first party Dm'd was 2nd edition, but now we are switching over this year to be fully third edition by next summer. There's no way im going to 3.5, and damn wotc for making the books when i wasn't ready. argh.
Searchin' 12-17-03, 09:35 PM	Originally posted by Glock-9mm Searchin', Are you a convention goer by chance? Eeewww yuck.:nonono: No but I have a good network of D&Drs up here in Auckland. It's like a convention... A NERD CONVENTION!!!!!!! :invasion:
Plunderer_of_the_planes 12-17-03, 10:15 PM	Me I always liked the rules light fly by the seat of your pants style 2e had. 3e is too rules heavy at times. and one thing 2e had over it was you could change as much as possible if you wnated. Don't like humans only on Pladins...gone, don't like level caps on non-humans ...gone.. Hell, you could remake the game many ways and still have a fuin time. Not like 3e's you change one thing you change the whole system aspect. As I said before, I like 3e but 2e still has my heart.
Kalidor 12-17-03, 11:08 PM	I dunno man. Seems the only support coming from people for 2E are people who don't like the structured mechanics of 3E. You don't HAVE to play Calvin D&D with 3.x because the rules are very clear and laid out for you. With 2E, you HAD to make everything up as you went along because if a rule was even documented at all, it was almost impossible to find -- and chances are, if you did find a rule, it only applied to things and situations written specifically for it, and you could probably find 3 or 4 instances of the same rule with DIFFERENT outcomes. I don't define that as 'better', I call it chaos.
Glock-9mm 12-18-03, 12:34 AM	Originally posted by Searchin' Eeewww yuck.:nonono: No but I have a good network of D&Drs up here in Auckland. It's like a convention... A NERD CONVENTION!!!!!!! :invasion: Heh heh, If you know anyone who may be keen to "network" with Wellington/National players pass on the link http://www.kapcon.rpg.net.nz/kapconXIII/index.html (its one of the local conventions coming up) and http://central.rpg.net.nz/ for the Wellington RPG message board.
Escef 12-18-03, 07:54 AM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Hell, you could remake the game many ways and still have a fuin time. Not like 3e's you change one thing you change the whole system aspect. Really? So, if in my campaign I reinstated racial class/level limits and forbade multiclassing for humans.... Look, Ma, 2e with better rules! :D
Skrayper77 12-18-03, 09:24 AM	Originally posted by whitefox That is why me and my group still play 2nd. We have read the 3.0 and 3.5 stuff and all felt it made the characters too powerful and took all the challenge of building your character up out. You've got to be kidding me, 2nd ed characters weaker than 3rd edition? Maybe at Epic, but even then. Two titles spring to mind: Unearthed Arcana (this book was horrendously broken, both barbarian and monk were too powerful) Skills and powers (This book was friggin' nuts) Those two books are why I don't miss 2nd ed. Plus with only 3 core books, it's a lot easier for a DM to say, "That's not canon."
Skrayper77 12-18-03, 09:32 AM	My new group of players, I will never, EVER, subject to the absolute horror (or power gamer's wish come true) of 2nd ed.
Escef 12-18-03, 10:21 AM	Originally posted by Skrayper77 Unearthed Arcana (this book was horrendously broken, both barbarian and monk were too powerful) Skills and powers (This book was friggin' nuts) You realize that Unearthed Arcana was a 1e book, not 2e? Other than that, the multiple subraces and cavaleir class were all cheese. I had a nickname for Skills and Powers. Satan's Players' Handbook.
Searchin' 12-18-03, 01:38 PM	Originally posted by Glock-9mm Heh heh, If you know anyone who may be keen to "network" with Wellington/National players pass on the link http://www.kapcon.rpg.net.nz/kapconXIII/index.html (its one of the local conventions coming up) and http://central.rpg.net.nz/ for the Wellington RPG message board. DONE!:angel:
devinmdp 12-18-03, 03:14 PM	"Originally posted by whitefox That is why me and my group still play 2nd. We have read the 3.0 and 3.5 stuff and all felt it made the characters too powerful and took all the challenge of building your character up out." Are you kidding? While the relative power of PCs have gone up, the power of the monsters they are facing has increased even more. I ran a 2 ed party of 12-15 level heroes against the Unique Linnorm dragon Corpse Tearer (from one of the 2 ed MC supplements) and they took him down with nary a sweat. That same group in 3rd ed would have been ground into mince meat by the same monster. Tanar'ri have gone up tremendously....in 1st ed you could laugh at a Vrock (I had a party of 1st level take out a Vrock from Eldritch Wizardry). In 2nd they were somewhat tougher....but a mid level party could still take them out. Now...they kick butt. Almost every monster has increased in power. Owlbears....they used to be mid level jokes in 2nd ed. Now, mid levels run from them or think twice about fighting them. Ogres....same thing. With their ability to have reach and AoOs, they are truly a threat even to 6th level tank-types whereas in 2nd ed a 6th level fighter or paladin could take one on with fair impunity. Orcs are far tougher in 3rd ed. A 1st level run of the mill orc in 2nd ed needed a 14 to hit a guy in chainmail and did 1D8. In 3 ed that same run of the mill orc now needs an 11 to hit the guy in chainmail and does 2D4+4 with his falchion. That's a huge step up in power. In fact, the simple addition of critical hits favours the monsters tremendously, simply because the PCs are expected to kill many monsters, so the addition of crits tends to raise the chance of PC death above that in 2nd ed. Devin
Kalidor 12-18-03, 03:20 PM	And further more, not only are monsters more powerful, have better tactics available to them (due to the new fighting rules regarding reach, AoO and melee actions that aren't 'hit') but you can fight the same kinds of monsters at any time. In 2E, when you were too powerful to fight orcs, you were done with orcs -- forever. In 3E you can give ANY monster class levels and make them more formidable and have a system to do it consistantly. A Mindflayer who is also a 6th level sorcerer is a force to be reckoned with for any high level party.
Reverse Gravity 12-18-03, 03:51 PM	2nd Edition... is it dead? I hope so. I shudder at the sheer ego required to keep this corpse of a system still alive and to continue to subject others to it. Afterall in 2nd ed the DM really was god, rules being so poor a DM HAD to rule on a regular basis, but in 3rd ed the lowliest of players can understand the rules, leaving our poor DMs with no more power over the players....awwww. So sad.
thalious 12-18-03, 04:08 PM	Originally posted by Reverse Gravity in 3rd ed the lowliest of players can understand the rules, leaving our poor DMs with no more power over the players....awwww. So sad. <evil jabba laughter fills the thread> I'd like to see you prove this. Thus far I have seen plenty of players become absolutely lost and dependent on the DM for guidance when confronted with rules issues. As for DMs having no more power over players...... who cares. Without a DM there is no D&D, the same goes for players. Each needs the other.
Mock26 12-18-03, 07:04 PM	First off, I would like to state for the record that I still play 2nd edition AD&D. I bought the third edition PHB and DMG and I read them. I even played a few times as DM and as a player. I can't pinpoint exactly what I didn't like about 3.0, but I didn't like it enough to switch. Overall, it just didn't feel right. My one biggest complaint is that it seemed set up to give characters levels at a very excelerated rate. For me, it was just too fast. I also disliked how all of the classes have the same advancement rate for XP. The 2nd edition version worked well for me. I also didn't like the feats, as they seem to create low-level uber characters. Low levels, to me, are more fun because a 10' pit can kill you at first level, as can a kobold! Bear in mind that there are some things that I really liked about 3.0. First and foremost was that THAC0 and AC were finally done correctly! In fact, the entire skills check system is very well done. There is no more calculating this or that. You roll your die, add in any plusses and subtract any minusses, and if your roll is higher than your Difficulty Score (DS is the correct term, right?), you did it! Very simple. The prestige classes are really neat, and the AC/HP lists for mundane items (rope, door, barrel, etc.) are very helpful. I started playing back in 1982, at the age of 12, back when it was Basic D&D. Over the years I have had numerous charts and tables that make it very easy for me to look up rules and stats and such. These charts have been constantly refined and rewritten, and after I made the decision to stick with 2.0, I simply poured through the 3.0 books and added to my charts a lot of things that I liked (the AC/HP of items, some of the new weapons, etc.). This may sound like a huge tome of House Rules, but they aren't. My house rules are few (I allow humans to multi-class and I have NEVER played with level limits based on race - these are just two of a handful) and are subject to change if the group expresses an interest in changing them. This is what works for me and my group. Some members of my group play 3.0 elsewhere, and they still play 2.0 with me, so I must be doing something right. Lastly, I would like to state that I have never said that 2.0 is better than 3.0 or 3.5 or 1.0 or Basic. Each system has good points and bad points. I have taken that which I like and adapted it my system, which some could term 2.5. Don't bash other versions. There is NO way to decide if one system is in fact better than the other. One system may be better for You, but not for everyone. Take care, everyone, and have a great day.... ciao, john. :b:
Plunderer_of_the_planes 12-18-03, 08:03 PM	Originally posted by Escef Really? So, if in my campaign I reinstated racial class/level limits and forbade multiclassing for humans.... Look, Ma, 2e with better rules! :D Actually, it could be done. But Escef please don't get my brain working on how...I already am tweaking combat again and I don't need anymore on my brain......:D
ElFenrir 12-18-03, 08:18 PM	I used to play 2e, but my favs are 3.5e(just new and sleek, for me) and good ol 1e. Yes, 1e. One thing that 1e had that 2e didn't(in the main grouping of books like the DMG, MMs, etc), was a much darker tone. And 1e did a much better job with the planes, the Nine Hells, Abyss, etc, with all of the demons, daemons(remember them? they went the way of the dinosaur it seems in all later editions. Poor Anthraxus. Never to disease again. ;)), among other goodies. I loved the old 1e Manual of the Planes and such. The game just had a....grittier feel in those days? (maybe it's just the line art...or trying to get thru Gary Gygax's charts of die roll averages. :D) at any rate, 2e was good for when it was around, as it's what many of us played, if you think it's hard finding 2e now, try finding 1e players. Nearly impossible!! I just sort of got tired of 2e. I like the sheer flexibility of 3/3.5e, myself. But, I mean, I would consider playing a 2e game, if a friend were running it or something, for old time's sake. I am not anti-2e, I am just not into it as much.
devinmdp 12-18-03, 09:03 PM	"I bought the third edition PHB and DMG and I read them. I even played a few times as DM and as a player. I can't pinpoint exactly what I didn't like about 3.0, but I didn't like it enough to switch. Overall, it just didn't feel right. My one biggest complaint is that it seemed set up to give characters levels at a very excelerated rate. For me, it was just too fast. I also disliked how all of the classes have the same advancement rate for XP. The 2nd edition version worked well for me. I also didn't like the feats, as they seem to create low-level uber characters. Low levels, to me, are more fun because a 10' pit can kill you at first level, as can a kobold!" I agree XP rise is too fast in 3rd ed. 3nd edition has always been about retiring or semi-retiring your PC at "name level". In fact, in the earliest incarnations of D&D (circa 1975-76) it was actually mentioned in the rules that PCs who reach name levels should stop adventuring and build strongholds and retire. This is one reason why class hit points in previous editions of D&D stopped increasing at a linear rate. 3rd edition has always been considered a system with a lot of levels. The simple fact that XP is now linear illustrates this. In 2nd ed, once you reached a certain point, level advancement slowed to a crawl. Monster XP just didn't advance one at the same rate as earlier levels, despite fighting much tougher monsters. In 3rd edition, you are expected to plow through levels at the same rate (this actually doesn't happen...progression does indeed slow somewhat, but nowhere near as it did in 2nd ed and earlier). In 3rd edition, play up to 20th level is considered standard and the system can be said to have been reasonably designed for play through about 40 levels. However, in order to utilize the upper ends of the system, the game has to make such levels attainable in a reasonable period of time. Sane 2nd ed campaigns have had PCs survive the entire campaign for 7-9 years and be around 14th level. At that rate, you will never get to "30th level" before you croak and die IRL or lose interest in the game. So, yes, for that reason levelling in 3rd ed is a quick fix for the player designed to come at a rate enough to allow reasonable expansion into higher levels (which allows WOTC to seel high level product!). Being an old schooler, I personally still like the idea that 12th level is a lot. I've had to adjust my thinking somewhat, because in 2nd ed you had the vast majority of population being zero level, and so even a 1st level PC was head and shoulders above the rest of the world. In 3rd ed, everyone is 1st level. Everyone has feats. Everyone has skills. You can have a 10th level expert in 3rd edition. This forces a sort of level inflation. 7th level in 3rd edition means less in terms of relative power to the rest of the campaign world than it did in previous editions. Nonetheless, I have house ruled (per the option presented in the DMG) that all 3rd ed XP earned is halved. Thus, it takes 26.6666 CR encounters to advance a level in my world as opposed to the 13.3333 threshhold in the DMG. I find, playing a somewhat combat intensive campaign for 6 hours every other week, my PCs advance at a rate of 3.5 levels per year. That's a good rate as far as I am concerned, as it allows a 5 year campaign to run up to the higher levels of non-epic play. So, if one of your objections to 3rd edition is that PCs advance too quickly...I agree...but that shouldn't be a reason not to play it, as you can (with the authority of the DMG, if that matter) cut XP grants to suit your tastes. Devin
Roxlimn 12-19-03, 02:42 AM	Great post, Devin. One of the best things about 3e is that it's modular. You can take out and install stuff or leave out stuff and it won't suffer quite as much as other systems. The entire skills system can be left out for example. It will have consequences, and you'll have to retool some classes to compensate, but the areas that need retooling and fairly obvious, and everything's more or less neatly cut. You can run as much 1e or 2e flavor as you like with 3e. The thing with 3e (and 3r) is that the rules are explicitly and eminently customizable. Don't like multiclass humans? Great. No multiclassing for humans. Don't like uneven multiclasses? Great. No uneven multiclassing for your campaign. You can even institute level limits and class restrictions for demihumans. 3e is 2e with everything made better and expanded. You can use what you like and discard the rest. Mock26: Low levels, to me, are more fun because a 10' pit can kill you at first level, as can a kobold! Aside from limiting XP gain, the points devin made about how each level is actually valued less relative to opponents, challenges and the general environment should make you sit up and take notice. Even high level heroes can be slain by a 17th level sorcerer kobold. Or even an 18th level kobold barbarian. About the coolest NPC I've ever run, in fact, is a 14th multiclassed half-red dragon kobold. He looks like a kobold made more powerful (as if he were the real kobold), and he kicks major butt. Bear in mind that there are some things that I really liked about 3.0. First and foremost was that THAC0 and AC were finally done correctly! In fact, the entire skills check system is very well done. There is no more calculating this or that. You roll your die, add in any plusses and subtract any minusses, and if your roll is higher than your Difficulty Score (DS is the correct term, right?), It's called Difficulty Class, but the system works whatever you call it. I highly suggest adapting the system to work with your 2e campaign. Like I said, 3e rules are very modular. Without taking the classes, you can take the skill system and implement the concept in 2e. This unifies the percentage abilities of classes like the bard, the ranger, and the rogue, and solidifies the non-weapon proficiency system (which is inadquate and long out of whack). Adapting the skill system works because it has absolutely nothing to do with THAC0, hp, damage, spell effects, class power, or anything at all except the rolls which was previously settled through guesswork by the DM. I'll even suggest giving the Ranger the Track class ability (rather than Feat) with the exact same effects. You can adapt prestige classes to work with the 2e class system. Instead of kits, you can lay out prestige classes for certain classes. Since the XP charts are separate, these prestige classes will necessarily have to be class dependent. Give them the powers they normally give according to advancement, and eyeball the results, adjusting as needed. Generally, you can use the class calculation charts to help you do this. Since you're using 3e rules, the argument can be made that you're actually playing 3e. No one plays 3e exactly by the book anyways, and lots of people play them with wholly nonPHB classes. So what's the difference if you use 2e style classes and class advancement? Not really a lot, IMO. I really like 2e style flavor and pizzaz. I try to keep it when I play and DM. But the rule system is really bad. I keep out of 3e Psionics for the same reason.
elven high mage 12-19-03, 12:52 PM	I have only ever played 3rd edition but I saw a second edition book in a shop and I brought it because people keep saying that it is good and i would lke to beable to look at the changes they made with 3rd edition. I read it and i loved the art and the whole atmosphere. it is not as rule based at 3rd edition. i have downloaded some of the old books of of this site and i love the way that it tells you what monsters eat and when they are awake and things like that. There are things that i love in 3rd edition like templates and prestige classes (templates are fine as long as you dont go out of control with them). Overall I think I will stick with 3rd edition but I love the feel of 2nd edition
devinmdp 12-19-03, 02:06 PM	Originally posted by elven high mage I have only ever played 3rd edition but I saw a second edition book in a shop and I brought it because people keep saying that it is good and i would lke to beable to look at the changes they made with 3rd edition. I read it and i loved the art and the whole atmosphere. it is not as rule based at 3rd edition. i have downloaded some of the old books of of this site and i love the way that it tells you what monsters eat and when they are awake and things like that. There are things that i love in 3rd edition like templates and prestige classes (templates are fine as long as you dont go out of control with them). Overall I think I will stick with 3rd edition but I love the feel of 2nd edition One of the great weaknesses of 3 ed is that the monster manual is far more stuffed with statistics and far less stuffed with interesting info about the creatures and their habitats and habits. This is not entirely unexpected, as it takes a lot more room to present the stats for most 3 ed monsters, but I do indeed find myself wishing I knew more about the how and why of each critter. For this reason alone I would recommend that 3 ed players purchase 2 ed monster manuals and monstrous compendiums, just for the non-stat info on the monsters. I'd love to see WOTC come out with a separate monster manual with NO statistics that ONLY has the descriptive stuff. How long does a Green Hag live for example? I need to know that for a scenario I am writing. They could call it The Bestiary or The Creature Biologies. Devin
Plunderer_of_the_planes 12-19-03, 04:24 PM	I have noticed tha same thing. I have an extensive collection of the 2e MC's and even a 1e MM as well. The 3e MM is good but has no flavor. Like most of us who have noticed this as well I have went back to my 2e stuff to pull the habitat/society info to use in game. Honestly, I think the better Idea would be to put the habitat stuff in as a free download that could be easily printed. I wouldn't want to buy another book for the habitat info....I could see it now "orconomicon" or "hagonomicon"....shudder....
jasper 12-19-03, 05:00 PM	CBS just reported 2nd edition was found dead in the kitchen next to bloody candlestick. The regular suspects have been rounded up.
Kalidor 12-19-03, 05:46 PM	If they don't already, it would make a nice web enhancement feature to detail the habits of the monsters. I thought I saw something like that before, I couldn't find it just now.
khyron1144 12-19-03, 05:51 PM	In terms of new product coming out: Yes, very. Totally. Not just mostly dead, but all dead. In terms of players still active: Not completely, but mostly.
khyron1144 12-19-03, 06:41 PM	Originally posted by Skrayper77 Unearthed Arcana (this book was horrendously broken, both barbarian and monk were too powerful) Skills and powers (This book was friggin' nuts) Those two books are why I don't miss 2nd ed. Plus with only 3 core books, it's a lot easier for a DM to say, "That's not canon." UA is a 1e book that I don't have, so I can't comment on your opinion of it, other than to say, although 2e was much better in backwards compatibility than 3e, you can't judge 2e by 1e. As for Skills & Powers: What's so broken about allowing an elf to trade his bonus with bows and secret door detection ability for the ability to identify items as a bard? Or allowing the elf to choose whether he wants his racial bonus with Bows, Daggers, Javelins, or Swords? Or to let a non-specialist wizard give up two schools of spells in order to bump his hit die up to a d6? Or to let a wizard short himself on racial abilities, class abilities, and non-weapon proficeincies for proficency in Long Sword at first level? None of that screams game-breaking to me. In fact it's something that even 3e encourages.
Nanosecond 12-19-03, 06:57 PM	Originally posted by whitefox I was just wondering if anyone else out there still plays 2nd edition. I do, but it is becomeing increasingly difficult to find things dealing with 2nd. Also, if any of you know of any good sites that have 2nd edition resources please let me know. Thanks Just go to adnd.com You'll find lots of stuff for 2nd Ed. I personally prefer 2nd Ed after trying out 3.0 (and decided not to touch 3.5).
devinmdp 12-19-03, 08:13 PM	"As for Skills & Powers: What's so broken about allowing an elf to trade his bonus with bows and secret door detection ability for the ability to identify items as a bard? Or allowing the elf to choose whether he wants his racial bonus with Bows, Daggers, Javelins, or Swords? Or to let a non-specialist wizard give up two schools of spells in order to bump his hit die up to a d6? Or to let a wizard short himself on racial abilities, class abilities, and non-weapon proficeincies for proficency in Long Sword at first level?" When the guy who used it came into my non-S&P scenario with a souped up dart thrower who threw something like 6 darts a round and did an average of45 damage as a 3rd level fighter...I knew for certain S&P was broken and banned it from my sight. Devin
khyron1144 12-19-03, 08:48 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp "As for Skills & Powers: What's so broken about allowing an elf to trade his bonus with bows and secret door detection ability for the ability to identify items as a bard? Or allowing the elf to choose whether he wants his racial bonus with Bows, Daggers, Javelins, or Swords? Or to let a non-specialist wizard give up two schools of spells in order to bump his hit die up to a d6? Or to let a wizard short himself on racial abilities, class abilities, and non-weapon proficeincies for proficency in Long Sword at first level?" When the guy who used it came into my non-S&P scenario with a souped up dart thrower who threw something like 6 darts a round and did an average of45 damage as a 3rd level fighter...I knew for certain S&P was broken and banned it from my sight. Devin Please give me an itmeized list of how this was done. It sounds illegal to my ears, but my aproach would normally be to house-rule against the combo, rather than against S&P in its entirety. I think my examples above, show that it can be used in a balanced way.
devinmdp 12-19-03, 08:55 PM	Originally posted by khyron1144 Please give me an itmeized list of how this was done. It sounds illegal to my ears, but my aproach would normally be to house-rule against the combo, rather than against S&P in its entirety. I think my examples above, show that it can be used in a balanced way. I can't. But obviously at the time he showed me. It involved basically taking every bonus possible to dart throwing, ramping up strength, and going from there. It was crazy and it su*cked and I banned the book. Devin
Plunderer_of_the_planes 12-20-03, 01:13 AM	AS far as skills and powers goes it was optional hence the players option title. It's kinda like 3e's savage species book it's usable but, only after you syphon the crap out of it. (wich by the way, takes 90% of the book away) The point is Unearthed Arcana, Skills and Powers and Savage Species (yes, I am aware I am using books from differing eds for examples) were not needed to play the game. Broken? Who knows I didn't like S&P anyway. Besides the bad stuff that keeps being mentioned what about the good that come from 2e? Like Planescape, Ravenloft, or some of the other cooler settings. Or the fact that it presented a rules system that could be tweaked easily and allowed for DM and player customization better that the current ed does?
Blarg 12-20-03, 01:32 AM	1st day 3rd edition came out, I took my 2nd Edition books to the backyard and had a field day with my left over 4th of July fireworks, nuff said.
Escef 12-20-03, 08:17 AM	For those who want to know, Unearthed Arcana was a 1e book. It contained three new classes, the Barbarian, Cavalier, and Theif-Acrobat (Theif-Acrobat was strange because you had to be a level 5 Theif and decide to level into the new class instead of continuing to level as Theif, so all T-As were at least 6th level). It had stats for the various elf, dwarf, and gnome subraces. There were a handful of new peices of equipment. And a large number of new spells for Clerics, Druids, Magis-Users, and Illusionists (Illusionist was a seperate class in 1e, there were no other specialist wizards). There was also the Heirophant Druid, a Druid who had advanced beyond... 16th(?) level. (Druids in 1e had a worldly order, the height of which was around 16th level.) Monks were core PHB in 1e, and were one of the worst classes in the book, if not the worst. And if you value your sanity, don't even ask about the 1e Bard!!!
Rabe 12-20-03, 06:38 PM	As old-school D&D DM I take 1st Edition every time over 2nd....that ruleset had far too many useless ornamentations, and did break down at higher levels (especially magic lost any threat). We have gone through all transmutations of the rules and play 3.5 now, which everyone seems to enjoy. Rabe
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 12-21-03, 12:27 PM	In our group we still play and run 1st and 2nd editions. To us they will never die. :behold:
Roxlimn 12-28-03, 09:16 AM	khyron1144: As for Skills & Powers: What's so broken about allowing an elf to trade his bonus with bows and secret door detection ability for the ability to identify items as a bard? Or allowing the elf to choose whether he wants his racial bonus with Bows, Daggers, Javelins, or Swords? Or to let a non-specialist wizard give up two schools of spells in order to bump his hit die up to a d6? Or to let a wizard short himself on racial abilities, class abilities, and non-weapon proficeincies for proficency in Long Sword at first level? None of that screams game-breaking to me. In fact it's something that even 3e encourages. Those are the interesting non-game breaking ways to use S&P. Of course, there are many ways to abuse the system as well. Take, for example, not a wizard but a Fighter/Wizard. He's not going to wear armor because you can't wear armor and cast spells. According to S&P, however, it's perfectly legal to trade in your Fighter armor wearing abilities for something like 40 points. Worse, you can make a Fighter/Cleric, trade in your armor wearing capability as a Fighter for 40 points, yet still be able to wear armor anyway, since Clerics can do so! You can even trade in both your Fighter ability to wear heavy armor and your Cleric ability to wear heavy armor for some serious benefits. This is not only legal but defensible since the rules are clear that you keep all your class computations separate when doing multiclasses and that your strengths and weaknesses interact in a particular outlined fashion. Ick.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 12-28-03, 12:05 PM	And that was why my group strayed away from those rules. Hell, at the time even the DM's Option: High level Campagns looked bad too. Funny now that everyone embraced ELH the former book doesn't look that bad....
stephenKingMinion 12-28-03, 02:54 PM	I found some seriously beat-up copies of all the 2E manuals at a used book store! It had like 6 copies of each! It was excellent, because it also had like 30 other roleplaying stuff I had never heard of! It was amazing. It was this used book store in Tacoma, and no I wont tell you which one. :D