Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mock26 12-20-05, 11:10 PM	Which system do you prefer? Why? Please make this a serious discussion. Comments like "2nd sucks! 3rd Rulz!" do not fall within the realm of an intelligent discussion? I'm curious as to why you prefer the system you play over others. Thanks! Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
NeoRaven01 12-21-05, 12:17 AM	I have only played in 3.5 and 2nd but I prefer 2nd. It is much simpler in combat and it is more roleplaying centered, atleast in the games I have played in. Thats my little two cents.
Deekin 12-21-05, 01:30 AM	3.5, Becouse the system is so much more simple and intutive, and is easy to teach. And with a few patches, works fine. I have found that the amount of roleplay is dependent on the group you play with, not the system.
Wings_of_a_Fox 12-21-05, 01:42 AM	I'm torn between 3.5 and Second Edition. Both are good for their own reasons. I started back in second edition, so I might be a little biased, but Second Edition had alot of things going for it. As stated before, it was roleplaying based. I'm not saying that you couldn't role play in 3.5, because that is far from the truth. However, there wasn't as much focus on "Builds", character design were really simple. Min/Maxing was probably at a minimal, so players really needed to be focused on roleplaying to make their character stand out. I also feel that there was less exploits in the system. But that could be nostalgia messing with my head. But Second Edition really appealed to the roleplaying aspect, which brought me to Dungeons and Dragons. However, I like 3.5 for other reasons. Mainly, the options. I really love the concept of Feats and Skills, rather than "Weapon and Non-Weapon Proficencies". There are hundreds of classes, and it's reletively simple to make one cater to your own interest. It had tons of character development going for it, and that also appeals to me as well. Also, it's reletively simple to get into, and has a lot of functionality with Stats, Skills, and other things. Combat may have been simple in 2nd Ed., but I much prefer 3.5's Grid based section. I don't really care much for 3.0 when it first came out, because it could of been the old man's "Back in my day, stuff was better", but I couldn't get into 3.0 at all, which I'm glad I didn't, considering the revision came soon afterwards, I'm also glad that I didn't spend nearly as much money on 3.0 as I have done on 3.5 or 2nd Edition. I've never played a 1st Edition on Basic game, so I can't judge, but from stories I heard from DM's older than I, 2nd Edition was tons less confusing.
tsuyoshikentsu 12-21-05, 02:59 AM	Now maybe I'm just an optimizer, but I have to say 3.5 all the way. Why? Simply because, to quote someone off the CharOp boards slightly out of context, "you can do anything given enough splatbooks." Seriously. 3.5 has everything from your basic swordslinger to halflings riding dragons to nigh-invincible kobolds -- and that's just the optimized stuff! If you delve deep into roleplaying, not even rolling a die all session, there are STILL options for you. It's hard to beat a system that diverse. Of course, what makes it IMPOSSIBLE to beat is how simple and intuitive it is. 2E was nice, but for Lord's sake, you wanted a NEGATIVE AC! Does that even make SENSE? THAC0 was also near-impossible for me to grasp as well... it took me forever to learn that system, while it took me about a day to learn 3.0, and about 5 minutes to learn 3.5 from there. Which brings me to my next point: why 3.5 over 3.0? Because, frankly, 3.0 was very, very buggy. Go look up haste + Whirlwind Attack + Great Cleave or damage reduction, and see if you can disagree.
Evangelos 12-21-05, 03:24 AM	I've only seriously played 3.0/3.5, but I have had a little bit of experience with Second Edition, and I wasn't impressed. The basics seemed to be more complicated than they really needed to be, whereas in 3rd edition I picked things up pretty quickly. After a couple of hours of reading, I had the basics down (of course, I wasn't very good at creating good characters, but I knew how to roll Listen checks and determine whether or not an attack connected). If you don't want tons of complexity, they you can always run a game with the core books only. Personally, I hate most prestige classes and I only allow a few feats from outside the core books. I have created some of my own material for each class (less for some, more for others), but a player in my game will often have core-only feats, weapons, and spells. At the end of my first campaign, I had a 20th level Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, and Druid. The Wizard was 18th level. How unusual is that these days?
bomaz 12-21-05, 03:27 AM	I have only played 3.0 and 3.5 of those 2 I prefer 3.5 since it is so much simpler. However There is one thing that I believe was better in 3.0 Damage reduktion. I dont like the concept of alignmnets and metals to decide if you go throught damage reduktion since that could make tha uber artifakt excalibur or similar have troubles with an Iron golem just because it wasn't adamantide. Now writing out graple in creature stats, the fixing of several spells and similar I love
tsuyoshikentsu 12-21-05, 03:56 AM	So you contend that magical items made of wood should be able to hurt lycanthropes, but not a silver dagger? And seriously, Excalibur would have trouble with an iron golem. It had trouble with people's armor occasionally. The DR system in 3.5 just makes more sense mytholoogically.
wolfram_stout 12-21-05, 08:22 AM	I dug out my Basic rulebook this past weekend. How can I not chose it with such great features as: 1: The official name of the fighter class is: Fighting Man. Yes your dwarf can progress as a thief or a Fighting Man. 2: Elves always progress as Wizard/Fighting Man. No explanation on how to do this with xp (split even?, go up in both?, DM's call). 3: Only 3 levels. You can knock out an entire campaign in a good weekend. But seriously. While I have never recaptured the feeling of playing 2nd edition as a high school/college student. I will never go back from 3/3.5 edition, it is just too smooth and has to many core options to get the character I want to play. Wolfram
digoraccoon 12-21-05, 08:23 AM	I've played 2e and 3.5, both have their interesting quirks. I'd prefer 3.5 only because it's a little easier to work with mechanically. THAC0 math just wasn't my thing and I always had charts of the numbers everywhere to assist me. Then again 2e did have the advantage of more readily working without battlemaps so you could play it in more places like car rides. Portable I should say.
kintire 12-21-05, 08:33 AM	I've played 3.5 since it came out, and I've never used a battlemap. Both 2e and 3.5 can produce great games, no doubt of that. 2e, however, had to be seriously altered before it became really playable. Skills and Powers did that, but you really had to trust your group; it was terribly abusable. 3.5 is a more solid, consistent system, much better balanced and much more flexible. The character optimisation boards are NOT typical of 3.5 play! I can handle both, but 3.5 wins it.
True Cavalier 12-21-05, 08:44 AM	I've only played a little 2nd edition (too little compared to 3 or 3.5) but I liked it a lot. Maybe because it was my first approach to D&D. 3.5 is simpler, I didn't enjoy it at first (too simple to what I was used to XD) but now I've come to appreciate it. On the other hand, it's more diverse in character creation, which is a blessing and a curse (min/maxing, too much munchkinism, etc). Now we generally play 3.5 but we roll initiative in every round, have house rules for multiclassing and race/class restrictions (god, halfling paladins :) !) and I don't want to see Point Buying from a thousand miles away :rolleyes: .
Lord Dastir 12-21-05, 09:01 AM	Having played every single version of D&D from the original Blue Box in 1979 on up to 3.5, I have to say 3.5 is hands down the best of the best. I don't want to repeat everything that has already been said, so I won't. Let's just leave it that I agree with all the reasons stated previously as to why "3.5 Rulz!!" ;)
Milandros 12-21-05, 09:09 AM	Having played pretty much all of them, I find 3.5 works best. The d20 system is really quite elgant, and 3.5 fixes an awful lot of 3.0 bugs. I have the advantage that most of the people I play with I have been playing with since 2e - it means that we've taken the old-style roleplaying approach but now have the vastly better 3.5 mechanics to do it with. Best of both worlds.
Millennium 12-21-05, 09:10 AM	I prefer 3.5, as far as the PHB and most of the DMG is concerned, because the system is much more streamlined and simplified than what came before. Even with the addition of mechanics such as feats and the moving of skills into the core rules, 3.5's actual mechanics usually center around simple mathematical progressions and a few specific types of rolls. 2e's systems seemed to involve many different types of rolls, and often the progressions don't seem to follow any kind of mathematics: you needed to break out tables to decipher the results of almost any given roll. I do wish that 3.5 had included an optional system for doing combat without tactical grids and miniatures. 2e had the opposite issue: standard combat didn't use grids or minis, and although an optional grid-based system existed it wasn't in the core. I prefer to save tactical combat for large or significant encounters, as have many of the groups I've played in. Truth be told, though, I suppose this isn't that much of a loss. All of this said, however, I do have one big problem with 3.0 and 3.5: the way that prestige classes were introduced. Ever since their introduction, many players have gotten this delusion that unless every possible character concept has its own class -complete with custom class features- the concept isn't playable. This is not an inherent flaw in the concept of prestige classes, but it is an unfortunate side effect of the way they were introduced into the DMG. The assassin is the worst offender, because it's too generic: people have this idea that all assassins are in this class, and any who aren't are either too weak to be playable or aren't "really" assassins.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 09:21 AM	I liked the 1st ed "paradigm" that the "point" was to construct a role from what you get and go from there, vs. the 3.x concept of constructing what you get from the predecided role.
CzarGarrett 12-21-05, 09:24 AM	Mechaniacally, 3/3.5 seems to be the better choice. Roleplay wise, 2E was better.
grandaustino 12-21-05, 09:33 AM	I think 3.5 is vastly superior in several respects. 2E tended to support cookie cutter characters where every member of the same class had almost exactly the same abilities. With feats and prestige classes in 3.5 characters are much more customizable. The 2E combat system was too cumbersome with the THACOs and stuff, in 3.5 its just does your role plus bonuses beat his AC. The experience system in 2E was really wierd, with no reason not to multiclass characters. Your Fighter mage would be a 7th level fighter and a 7th level mage while your straight fighter would only be level 10 with the same xp. This lead to the famous invincible elf fighter/mage/thief of doom. One thing I find curuious is the assertion that 2E supported role playing better, which I have heard in several different forums. I was wondering why people feel this is the case?? :confused:
babysamurai 12-21-05, 09:37 AM	Roleplay wise, 2E was better. Of course, there aren't any actual mechanics for Role-Playing. Role-playing shouldn't be affected by what system you're using. I started with 1st edition, and have better role-playing sessions in my current 3.5 campaign then in all my 18 years of playing...I guess it comes down to who you're gaming with. For the record; 3.5 is definitely the most coherent system.
imperialjunkie 12-21-05, 09:38 AM	I can only compare 1st edition (which I played as a kid) table top with 3.5. I only played 2nd editon in video games, which I recognize is not a true characterization of the rule set. I really enjoy 3.5 for a couple of reasons. First, I completely enjoy the multiclass rules. They make for a realistic 'life change' where a character can pick up a new career later in life. And the templates add to this as well. It makes for a lot more optimization. Of course this can be used for min/maxers, but I like the optimization that can happen with roleplaying and backstory. It is not difficult in 3.5 to create a character that honestly represents what I have imagined in my mind. Second, I like the d20 system a lot. It makes sense, because it applies the simple mechanic (d20+modifiers v. DC) to everything. This simplicity has helped me teach the game to new players very easily. I first hold up a d20 and say, "The rules are all about THIS..." Then they can wrap the minutiae of the rules around that simple mechanic. Third, I like the complexity yet simplicity of skills. Obviously understanding the process of setting DCs for respective skills can be daunting-- that's the job of the DM. But I LOVE how the skills break down almost everything a PC might do into a mechanic. Some might say that it takes away from roleplaying, but I disagree. Again, skills allow me to make a character's stats match the persona that I have already developed for the character. It allows for a unity between roleplaying and stats that is very satisfying to me as a roleplayer. So I am a fan of 3.5. I'd probably stick with it when newer editions come out in the next decade unless I can be convinced a new edition would be better.
Flushpuppie 12-21-05, 09:39 AM	Well I started with 3.0 in 2000, and I bought the 3.5 core about 2 months ago. But immediately I preferred 3.5 because of the way more balanced spells, the rules that are more clear, the changes made on the ranger and way more... I was just tired of having my pc's cast bull's strength, endurance, cat's grace, owl's wisdom and fox cunning every morning and being buffed all day long. yuck
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 09:43 AM	Of course, there aren't any actual mechanics for Role-Playing. Role-playing shouldn't be affected by what system you're using. I started with 1st edition, and have better role-playing sessions in my current 3.5 campaign then in all my 18 years of playing...I guess it comes down to who you're gaming with. For the record; 3.5 is definitely the most coherent system. I somewhat disagree...players have finite time and ability, the more of each that's spent on rules and optimization, the less that's spent on RPing the character. Many people (including in this thread) talk about 3.0/3.5 "allowing" them to make different characters...the trick in 1st ed was to make the characters different on your own, with RP characteristics. Allow me to suggest there MAY be an age-related factor in your group today under 3.5 and then under 1st. BUT, I would agree with the larger premise than you CAN roleplay well (or poorly) in any system...but some systems may encourage it more than others.
Sereno 12-21-05, 09:53 AM	Having also played every version from the blue boxed set up to and including v3.5, I find that 3.5 IS the best. It's got the best blend of options and elegance; skills, feats, spells, and combat all seem to make more sense. I tend to find that the 3.5 rules encourage better role-playing (at least creating more vivid combats) because there are more and better options that make sense. Instead of the DM having to make arbitrary rulings for making combat more interesting you now have actual rules for sundering, tripping, disarming, etc....
kintire 12-21-05, 10:32 AM	I somewhat disagree...players have finite time and ability, the more of each that's spent on rules and optimization, the less that's spent on RPing the character very true. And the simple, streamlined d20 system is much better for that than the cobbled together early game... not to mention the greater variety in characters possible. I liked the 1st ed "paradigm" that the "point" was to construct a role from what you get and go from there, vs. the 3.x concept of constructing what you get from the predecided role. I, on the other hand, loathed the 1e "thou shalt play what the dice decide" paradigm as compared to the "you get to play what's fun for you".
Bob Loblaw 12-21-05, 10:41 AM	I've been playing since '79 and I have to say that 3.5 is the best version I've used. I really like the fact that some of the really stupid rules were removed: Demihuman level limts Dual classing Using XP as a class balancing factor 1 gp=1 xp (1st edition) NPC only classes At high levels a 3 or higher always succeeded on a saving throw Sometimes you need to roll high, sometimes you need to roll low The To Hit Charts with the floating 20 from 1st edition Specialty clerics (they were not balanced at all) There are more, but these are the ones that come to mind immediately. As for the system not encouraging roleplaying, I have to disagree. Roleplaying has nothing to do with the mechanics of the system. It has everything to do with the people who are using it. While there may be more numbers to crunch so that you can make the type of character you want, how you play that character when you are done is what roleplaying is all about. I can spend days or weeks building my character (depends on the level of play). Once done, I have a personality and background that guides my character's choices into the future. The character's personality helps me select the appropriate feats, skills, classes, and equipment. I think that the computer age of RPGs has had a negative impact on actually roleplaying since there is no reason to have a personality for your character.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 10:47 AM	very true. And the simple, streamlined d20 system is much better for that than the cobbled together early game... not to mention the greater variety in characters possible. I, on the other hand, loathed the 1e "thou shalt play what the dice decide" paradigm as compared to the "you get to play what's fun for you". I think you miss the point. A greater variety of rules for characters menas MORE rules dependence. Imagine a system with no ability scores or classes or class features...the ONLY thing that distinguishes character A from character B is roleplaying. The more character differentiation is encouraged through rules and mechanics, the LESS it is encouraged through roleplay. On the latter, tastes vary. I personally think you're missing out, but YMMV.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 10:52 AM	I've been playing since '79 and I have to say that 3.5 is the best version I've used. I really like the fact that some of the really stupid rules were removed: Demihuman level limts Dual classing Using XP as a class balancing factor 1 gp=1 xp (1st edition) NPC only classes At high levels a 3 or higher always succeeded on a saving throw Sometimes you need to roll high, sometimes you need to roll low The To Hit Charts with the floating 20 from 1st edition Specialty clerics (they were not balanced at all) They are stupid just because you say they are? Most are no more or less "valid" as rules than the replacements, and/or reflect the game as it was at the time. Forcing consistency often means reducing the effectiveness of something..."the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw." Agree the AC mechanic evolved in a way that was unnecessary.
babysamurai 12-21-05, 10:53 AM	Imagine a system with no ability scores or classes or class features...the ONLY thing that distinguishes character A from character B is roleplaying. Yes, this is called Theatre.
syntaxerror37 12-21-05, 10:57 AM	I've played 1st, 3,0, and 3.5. The battle grid wasn't that important, We've only used a grid once in our 3.x days, but that could be with the fact we learned in the earlier edditions. THAC0 was a pain, and increadably hard to for me to grasp. The d20 system can be grasped by anyone who has mastered addition and subtraction. The combat system alone can give 3.x and advantage over the previous edditions. Having played a Theif, I can say that the d20 skillsystem with my Rogue was a bit easier, both on me the player and the dm. I truly like the idea of prestige classes. I will often pick one that fits my charater concept. I do understand why people have a problem with PrCs, such as level dipping into mutiple ones , building a charater in a way solely to get into a certian class, or using them as a RP crutch. But I feel with a resposible player and a good DM they add to the game. Over all, I Like 3.5 over 3.0, for many of the reasons already stated. Edit* I don't see how 1st and 2nd encuraged RP moreso than 3.x. Really, that is totaly on the player(s), not the system, but that goes for any and all gaming systems. Just my .02. P.S. I like how all classes gain the benifits of high constitution, not just fighters.
grandaustino 12-21-05, 11:02 AM	Yes, if you are looking for a pure LARP, 3.5 D&D would not be the way to go. I think that if you are looking for a game to play with a healthy mix of roleplaying and action, which most people are, 3.5 is great. The rules sited by Bob were objectivly stupid. I think those who think otherwise are in a severe minority. :)
grandaustino 12-21-05, 11:06 AM	Of course allowing for a greater flexibility in character development naturally opens the system up for abuse, and can make a bit more work for the DM in terms of policing character builds. But all in all I think it is worth it.
babysamurai 12-21-05, 11:08 AM	I'd rather use 1st edition, or even Basic, than 2nd edition. Even though I've had most of my experience with 2nd edition, it never had the feel of basic/1st edition. That's why I think 3rd edition is the best; because it has the tightest rule-set, and managed to capture some of the feel of 1st edition.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 11:14 AM	The rules sited by Bob were objectivly stupid. I think those who think otherwise are in a severe minority. :) LOL As if there is such a thing. ;)
q'afuu 12-21-05, 11:29 AM	They are stupid just because you say they are? Most of those are stupid not because he says they are, but because they are. ;) I'll explain: AD&D has a great many rules and mechanics that have no basis in logic or common sense - their sole purpose is to make the game work as a game. 3E still has that same problem, but to a much lesser extent. For many class abilities (or generally speaking, many of the things that are restricted by class) it doesn't make sense that they are limited that way. AD&D has much more of those than 3E does. Just about every ability a Thief gets in AD&D is something a non-Thief should be able to do as well, for instance - hence, turning them into class abilities only serves to differentiate a separate Thief class, not to allow character building that reflects realistic characters. AD&D characters feel more like game constructs to me than living, breathing personalities. Racial class/level limits are the same: there is no logical explanation why only humans can be paladins, or why a halfling can't become a better Thief after a certain point. Equalling gold to xp is another entirely artificial mechanic. To put it in a nutshell: AD&D makes suspension of disbelief harder than 3E. 3E still has some issues in that regard, but less so.
clarkvalentine 12-21-05, 11:29 AM	The rules sited by Bob were objectivly stupid. I think those who think otherwise are in a severe minority. :) I think they're arbitrary - not objectively stupid. In other words I think they're subjectively stupid. ;) I like 3.5. 2nd seemed to require eight thousand house rules to get it to work in any sort of consistent manner. 3.0 was a step into the right neighborhood, and 3.5 got us to the right street. Good enough for me. And I've never had any difficulty roleplaying in 3.5. I don't really grok the notion that 2nd was better for roleplaying. I have a small suspicion some people saying that are confusing the fun they had playing 2nd ed with their friends on rainy Saturdays back in high school for roleplaying, but that's only a suspicion, and it's certainly not true for everyone saying so.
grandaustino 12-21-05, 11:31 AM	Straw poll : So does anyone here think that putting arbitrary level caps on non humans made sense? I think we can all agree that the rules would be concidered stupid by a vast majority of people. I see your point though, I guess every judgement is subjective in nature. If we step back and take an objective look at the rules in question you would have a hard tim justifying them.
kintire 12-21-05, 11:33 AM	I think you miss the point. A greater variety of rules for characters menas MORE rules dependence. Imagine a system with no ability scores or classes or class features...the ONLY thing that distinguishes character A from character B is roleplaying. Freeform roleplaying is a different animal. And I'm not at all convinced you are correct; variety of rules can certainly be taken too far, but the more character concepts you allow the more different concepts can be roleplayed and the richer the game becomes The more character differentiation is encouraged through rules and mechanics, the LESS it is encouraged through roleplay. :confused: uh... no... why on earth should this be true? The rules enable the character to be played, the player enables it to be roleplayed. Why should more flexible rules reduce roleplaying? On the latter, tastes vary true, but in my experience, people roleplay much better with a character they have produced and are comfortable with. Not everyone enjoys playing all types of character. Why railroad someone into a role they enjoy less?
Bob Loblaw 12-21-05, 11:34 AM	They are stupid just because you say they are? Most are no more or less "valid" as rules than the replacements, and/or reflect the game as it was at the time. Forcing consistency often means reducing the effectiveness of something..."the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw." Agree the AC mechanic evolved in a way that was unnecessary. Actually, I didn't originally say that they were stupid (I did in this post, but I wasn't the first to think or say it). The very high majority of gamers I have gamed with have felt the exact same way. The designers must have felt it as well otherwise the rules would not have changed. *Can anyone can show me how Dual Classing wasn't stupid? *How did balancing the classes with XP actually balance them? I found that they weren't really all that balanced since modules were based on character levels, but they never mentioned which classes were the base, so there could be some serious issues with the difficulty of the adventure. *Demihuman level limits rarely had any impact since most games didn't actually last that long. Plus it assumed low level demihumans were more powerful than humans, so to balance this only humans could advance to upper levels (except as rogues where everyone could). *The 1gp = 1 XP actually caused too many characters to advance too rapidly since no one really knew what that average character should have at any given level. *NPC only classes were meant to be more powerful than PC classes, but quite often were interesting enough to allow as PCs (The Beastmaster comes to mind). *Saving throws maxing out with a 3+ being successful at all times really made playing high level spellcasters challenging at best, since you could almost be garaunteed that your target would pass his save. *The roll high/roll low problem was mainly an issue with new players or those that weren't able to memorize as well as others. Also, forcing consistency does mean that something was reduced in effectiveness, but it also means that something else's effectiveness was improved. I do have to say that 3.5 wouldn't be nearly as good without the previous editions. We had to see what worked and what didn't. We needed to see things like all rogues being equal in 1st edition, then there being some flexibilty in 2nd edition, then nearly complete flexibility in 3rd edition.
starfire311 12-21-05, 11:35 AM	Straw poll : So does anyone here think that putting arbitrary level caps on non humans made sense? Absolutly, if humans can't multi-class then non-humans needed a disadvantage... and the level caps had to be it. Oh wait, no both those rules made little to no sense.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 12:38 PM	Most of those are stupid not because he says they are, but because they are. ;) I'll explain: AD&D has a great many rules and mechanics that have no basis in logic or common sense - their sole purpose is to make the game work as a game. 3E still has that same problem, but to a much lesser extent. For many class abilities (or generally speaking, many of the things that are restricted by class) it doesn't make sense that they are limited that way. AD&D has much more of those than 3E does. Just about every ability a Thief gets in AD&D is something a non-Thief should be able to do as well, for instance - hence, turning them into class abilities only serves to differentiate a separate Thief class, not to allow character building that reflects realistic characters. AD&D characters feel more like game constructs to me than living, breathing personalities. Racial class/level limits are the same: there is no logical explanation why only humans can be paladins, or why a halfling can't become a better Thief after a certain point. Equalling gold to xp is another entirely artificial mechanic. To put it in a nutshell: AD&D makes suspension of disbelief harder than 3E. 3E still has some issues in that regard, but less so. LOL. There is no "logical" explanation why only humans can gain certain magical powers? How about, "only one entity hands out such powers, and chooses to hand them out only to humans." LOL also that gp=xp being an "artificial mechanic" is somehow noteworthy or distinguishes it from "killing an orc when you're 2nd level w/ 3 friends who are ALSO second level results in X xp" being a "natural mechanic." If you can believe in magic spells causing meteor swarms if a made-up race called dwarves can do it, but not if they can't, then that's an awfully fine distinction you're drawing, IMO. Some of the upper-level feats, which are NOT magical, are at least as belief-defying as demihuman level limits. Which were inferential in any case...why aren't elves controlling the whole planet, since class levels are the key to power and they live for 10 times longer? 1st edition rules engineered a humanocentric outcome. 3e just pretends we have the basis for a humanocentric outcome, without ever actually considering or addressing it.
RogerWilco 12-21-05, 12:45 PM	I have the advantage that most of the people I play with I have been playing with since 2e - it means that we've taken the old-style roleplaying approach but now have the vastly better 3.5 mechanics to do it with. Best of both worlds. That's exactly what I had to say.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 12:52 PM	Actually, I didn't originally say that they were stupid (I did in this post, but I wasn't the first to think or say it). The very high majority of gamers I have gamed with have felt the exact same way. The designers must have felt it as well otherwise the rules would not have changed. *Can anyone can show me how Dual Classing wasn't stupid? *How did balancing the classes with XP actually balance them? I found that they weren't really all that balanced since modules were based on character levels, but they never mentioned which classes were the base, so there could be some serious issues with the difficulty of the adventure. *Demihuman level limits rarely had any impact since most games didn't actually last that long. Plus it assumed low level demihumans were more powerful than humans, so to balance this only humans could advance to upper levels (except as rogues where everyone could). *The 1gp = 1 XP actually caused too many characters to advance too rapidly since no one really knew what that average character should have at any given level. *NPC only classes were meant to be more powerful than PC classes, but quite often were interesting enough to allow as PCs (The Beastmaster comes to mind). *Saving throws maxing out with a 3+ being successful at all times really made playing high level spellcasters challenging at best, since you could almost be garaunteed that your target would pass his save. *The roll high/roll low problem was mainly an issue with new players or those that weren't able to memorize as well as others. Also, forcing consistency does mean that something was reduced in effectiveness, but it also means that something else's effectiveness was improved. What's my standard for gauging the subjective label "stupid?" NPC classes in AD&D being an issue distinct from commoner or adept how? "Beastmaster" wasn't in a core product, Your point on demihumans is spot on...it didn't actually take anything away from players, but it DID enforce the desired demographic effect. A SMART rule from that standpoint...supports the desired outcome with limited or no harm. Wish we could get Congress to be so "stupid." How did the XP tables balance classes? Classes gained abilities disproportionately...picking up a new spell level is a quantum leap in power gain, compared to +1 to hit or 5% more pick pockets's plodding increment. to balance power gain across time, thieves' leveled faster...they GET less at each level up, but they get more levelups so it's balanced. SURE, there are other ways to accomplish the same goal. but this ALSO accomplishes it, so it's not "stupid." High level foes were resistant to spells. OK. What's stupid about that? A couple of things that we could call stupid from 3.5, IMO: infinite HP progression. a 20th level fighter can take 20 times the punishment of a 1st level fighter. I know all about the abstract nature of HP...it still strains my credulity that the same physical form gains so much more ability to withstand damage, and the "abstract nature" is handwaving to sortof justify a desired outcome. nerfing of multiclass casters. A necessary consequence of the change to multiclassing, sure. Somewhat ameliorated if you use DM OPTIONAL Prestige Classes? sure. But the base mechanic makes a wiz/fighter WAY LAMER a pure wiz of same level...ask on character optimization boards about multiclassing w/ caster levels and fighter.
grandaustino 12-21-05, 12:59 PM	LOL. There is no "logical" explanation why only humans can gain certain magical powers? How about, "only one entity hands out such powers, and chooses to hand them out only to humans." LOL also that gp=xp being an "artificial mechanic" is somehow noteworthy or distinguishes it from "killing an orc when you're 2nd level w/ 3 friends who are ALSO second level results in X xp" being a "natural mechanic." If you can believe in magic spells causing meteor swarms if a made-up race called dwarves can do it, but not if they can't, then that's an awfully fine distinction you're drawing, IMO. Some of the upper-level feats, which are NOT magical, are at least as belief-defying as demihuman level limits. Which were inferential in any case...why aren't elves controlling the whole planet, since class levels are the key to power and they live for 10 times longer? 1st edition rules engineered a humanocentric outcome. 3e just pretends we have the basis for a humanocentric outcome, without ever actually considering or addressing it. I think you are missing the point here. Of course the subject matter in D&D is fantastical, its a fantasy game. The mechanics of the game are another matter. They are designed to ground the game into a realistic framework that we mundane earthlings can understand, and to give a set of reasonable expectations to the players. You can't say that realism in the mechanics of the game is not important. For instance if WotC put in a rule saying the first person to spot an aardvark gets a free +5 enchantment to their weapon I think we would all sit there and scratch our heads.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 01:00 PM	Straw poll : So does anyone here think that putting arbitrary level caps on non humans made sense? I think we can all agree that the rules would be concidered stupid by a vast majority of people. I see your point though, I guess every judgement is subjective in nature. If we step back and take an objective look at the rules in question you would have a hard tim justifying them. Yes, because without it, you couldn't rationally obtain the desired outcome in the gameworld. Which is, really, the best criteria for evaluating the necessity of a rule. As to discussing certain items, sure, let's do that, that was really my point, the OP asked for intelligent discussion, not "x sucks"
mike_beavers 12-21-05, 01:05 PM	I have mixed feelings. There were alot of things in second that I liked but I feel that 3.5 is a much better game. I have been playing since 75 with the initial three books and remember buying the greyhawk, blackmoor and eldritch wizardy at a convention in san jose. I knew that there was no logic to the level limitations except for a potiental play balance problem. Demi humans were generally superior to humans in almost all cases and like one poster listed most campaigns didnt last long enough to have level limitations as a problem. 3/3.5 fixed this nicely in my opinion with allowing humans an additional feat and an additional skill point. Thaco wasnt difficult but again 3/3.5 fix works fine and is easier for new players to understand. Again there were no logic for differing exp for different classes except for play balance. Some classes were better than others in my opinion. We just never had a problem with any of these things and just dealt with it when we played. The compressed exp chart has been more of a problem to me. Back in second when you lost exp for any reasons it was really painful, now its eh so what I can get it back fairly easily. I also feel that some of the mystery of magic items has been reduced to a formula and thats kinda boring. Need x just make it and spend the ep. Snoozer material. Spells like identify take again the mystery away. In 2nd you werent always sure of what you had, now its like a printout of what the abilities are. The 3/3.5 game is more geared to player survival than the previous editions. Raise dead and such, in second your con had a percent chance of being raised and then your con went down and if you croaked again it was less likely for you to survive. I felt that this made the players a little more worried about combat in my opinion. Anyway we are playing 3.5 now. Two of my players have been playing in my games for 25 years and another for 20. Its all good and fun and thats what it needs to be :D
clarkvalentine 12-21-05, 01:32 PM	As much as I love 3.5 and would never want to go back, it's interesting sometimes to take a look at 1st ed., or even basic, and just think about what they got right. They were for all practical purposes starting from scratch, and they pretty much built the whole model of the game up, even if a lot of the details were wonky. I do so love D&D. :)
q'afuu 12-21-05, 01:36 PM	LOL. There is no "logical" explanation why only humans can gain certain magical powers? How about, "only one entity hands out such powers, and chooses to hand them out only to humans." That's a very nice explanation, but nothing in the rules supports this. Paladins don't get their abilities from following a deity in AD&D - they get them just because they're paladins. Anything else you want to make of it is entirely your own. Nothing wrong with that, but then you're crossing into the realm of houseruling. Either way, it's just one example. I can give you plenty others. Bards are limited to humans and half-elves, no entity to hand out powers there. Elves can become rangers and as such cast nature spells, but they can't become druids. Gnomes can't become regular mages, but they can become illusionists. Characters who are naturally adept at functioning in a particular class (because they have high scores in the correct attributs) get more XP for what essentially is easier for them, because they are so well-suited to it. Characters have to be decidedly stronger as rangers than as fighters, despite nothing about the ranger class promoting strength more than the fighter class. And so on. LOL also that gp=xp being an "artificial mechanic" is somehow noteworthy or distinguishes it from "killing an orc when you're 2nd level w/ 3 friends who are ALSO second level results in X xp" being a "natural mechanic." 'Overcoming challenges makes you stronger' makes sense. 'Paying gold makes you stronger' doesn't. If you can believe in magic spells causing meteor swarms if a made-up race called dwarves can do it, but not if they can't, then that's an awfully fine distinction you're drawing, IMO. Some of the upper-level feats, which are NOT magical, are at least as belief-defying as demihuman level limits. Which were inferential in any case...why aren't elves controlling the whole planet, since class levels are the key to power and they live for 10 times longer? 1st edition rules engineered a humanocentric outcome. 3e just pretends we have the basis for a humanocentric outcome, without ever actually considering or addressing it. Which upper-level feats are that? Actually, never mind - it doesn't matter, since you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Demi-human level limits don't defy my belief in and of themselves. They make no sense from an in-game perspective, so I just have to accept them. They stand entirely outside the game. Magical spells or laws-of-physics challenging feats *are* part of the game. They have meaning for characters in the game. Characters understand magic and they know what happens when they use a feat. They don't know what happens when they hit a level cap. That makes all the difference. Something that affects my character in a way that that character can understand is fine by me. Something that affects my character without it making sense to that character drives the point home that it's a character in a made-up world doing made-up things and following rules that aren't designed to make that made-up world a sensible whole.
grandaustino 12-21-05, 01:44 PM	I agree. It is truly a remarkable acheivement, to build a set of rules we all value and utilize to play such a great game.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 01:49 PM	That's a very nice explanation, but nothing in the rules supports this. Paladins don't get their abilities from following a deity in AD&D - they get them just because they're paladins. Anything else you want to make of it is entirely your own. Nothing wrong with that, but then you're crossing into the realm of houseruling. Either way, it's just one example. I can give you plenty others. Bards are limited to humans and half-elves, no entity to hand out powers there. Elves can become rangers and as such cast nature spells, but they can't become druids. Gnomes can't become regular mages, but they can become illusionists. Characters who are naturally adept at functioning in a particular class (because they have high scores in the correct attributs) get more XP for what essentially is easier for them, because they are so well-suited to it. Characters have to be decidedly stronger as rangers than as fighters, despite nothing about the ranger class promoting strength more than the fighter class. And so on. 'Overcoming challenges makes you stronger' makes sense. 'Paying gold makes you stronger' doesn't. . It wouldn't be houseruling and I didn't say deity. It is a logical explanation. You said there was none. The 1st ed rules are mute on why, so if the argument "that's not stated" is invalid if "why is that?" is a valid question. Druidism was a human belief system. Elves don't follow it, ergo, they can't be druids. Elves don't worship their deities the same way, so they can't be clerics. This stuff isn't hard or any less right or wrong than other arbitrary made-up standards. And "watching a fighter stab an orc makes me learn fireball" or "watching a rogue unlock a chest lets me cast sleep another time" doesn't make ANY more sense than "plundering a temple lets me learn shocking grasp."
grandaustino 12-21-05, 01:57 PM	Can we not allow this thread to become yet another, Thats not what I said! Yes it is!! debate. Nobody wins that sort of argument. Thoose of us who have allready expressed our opinion on the OP's question should just move on. Otherwise this will turn into a 10 pager about whether 2E level caps made sense, which is not what the OP was looking for.
Gailbraithe 12-21-05, 02:02 PM	I was a huge fan of the Basic D&D Rules Cyclopedia, and Mystara is still one of my favorite settings. My first two campaigns were set in Mystara. I've only played 1st Edition a few times. With the Dungeoneer and Wilderness Surival books 1st Edition is "allright", but 2nd Edition really improved on it. Compared to 3.0 and 3.5, 2nd really just looks like a polish in 1st. 3.0 I've never played, but 3.5 is pretty sweet. It's easier on the Dm, because the rules are more solid and consistent, which makes making new rulings easier. But the huge number of rules covering everything is a rules lawyer's wet dream. It seems to lack the flexibility of 2nd, and leaves very little to DM perogative, which annoys me. I spend too much time looking stuff up now. I think a large part of the problem is that the gaming community has changed. First Vampire brought too many wanna-be improv actors with angst issues to gaming, and then Magic:TG brought too many idiots. 3.5 seems to cater heavily to both, while leaving more traditional gamers out in the cold.
Lincoln Hills 12-21-05, 05:05 PM	I've DMed Basic, and played/DMed in 2nd Edition and 3.0 - but not 3.5. In terms of clear and well-detailed rules, 3.0 (and, I reluctantly concede, 3.5) are vastly superior. The XP tables are unified, the classes are closer to parity and there are mechanics for a variety of things (mounted combat, fields of knowledge, and magic item creation spring to mind) which were once left vague or even omitted entirely. But the bloom is off the rose in one regards: my players were more involved with their characters in 2nd Edition. I suspect that it is because 3.0 and 3.5 characters are... well, made with clear and well-detailed rules. PCs these days are wearing their skeletons on the outside - there are statistics for everything and it takes more mental effort than it once did to make a person out of all those stats. Once upon a time there were only about a dozen numbers defining your character, and you got to spread yourself as far as skills, personality and background went. Now everything's so well defined that the spaces for "hair" and "eyes" are about the only things a 3.x player still has to make up. Also, benefits were harder to come by in 2nd Edition: gaining a +1 to your AC or a stat was reason to rejoice. Nowadays, players have a tough time accepting that a session wasn't "wasted" if they don't increase one of those dozens of numbers in SOME way. I'm not saying that every PC is obsessed with increasing his or her personal powers... but there's an expectation that such increases should be fairly frequent. Jeez, this post already looks mighty long. I suppose I should get off the stump and let somebody else talk. For the record - though I run 3.0 and like it, I do feel 2nd Ed gave me more memorable PCs. Farewell!
Kaneohe 12-21-05, 05:23 PM	I like 3.0. I'm generally in favor of the newest version anyway, but 2nd edition - well, it had more depth, but I really didn't enjoy how the system worked...it all sounded backwards...and first edition is kind of simple for my tastes. The reason we're not playing 3.5 is that it came out way too soon after we started playing D&D. In fact, our DM bought the Monster Manual from the guy who was throwing it out, on the day 3.5 hit bookstores.
Chobemaster 12-21-05, 05:35 PM	Can we not allow this thread to become yet another, Thats not what I said! Yes it is!! debate. Nobody wins that sort of argument. Thoose of us who have allready expressed our opinion on the OP's question should just move on. Otherwise this will turn into a 10 pager about whether 2E level caps made sense, which is not what the OP was looking for. Indeed. Like straw polls on that topic? ;)
Fharlang 12-21-05, 06:22 PM	Having played 1st, 2nd and 3.5 IMO 1st Edition was a better game, mostly due to the lack of restrictions. There were only 8 or 9 books for 1st Edition with 3.5 since 2004 there have been 32 “Core” D&D products. So in terms total number of rules 3.5 has more. Of course you don’t have to allow the entire “Core” D&D product line in your game, the same holds true for 1st Edition. The THAC0 was a pain so we never used it, we just had a hit chart with every AC and the number you need to roll on your character sheet. In the 3.5 SRD under Combat there are 9 categories with 136 sub-categories on how combat works, compared to maybe 10 to 15 pages in 1st Edition. It’s all individual choice as to what you are used to, it took longer to learn most of the rules for 3.5 than it did 1st Edition. I play 3.5 currently since that is the system that most people in the area are familiar with. I would like to go back to 1st Edition, but most of my players have enough difficulty with 3.5, changing systems would only confuse them more. I enjoy D&D in any version, so when 4.0 comes out I will try that. :D
Pellanor 12-21-05, 07:07 PM	Now everything's so well defined that the spaces for "hair" and "eyes" are about the only things a 3.x player still has to make up.Except for Concept, Backhistory, Personality, Motives and Goals. Not to mention the choice of Race, Class, Skills and Feats all also helping to define who you are. I Started DnD in 3.0, played for one night, then after that iended up joining a 2nd edition game. That game only lasted a little while, but it was so frustrating. The rules made no sense, I couldn't play the class I wanted because I didn't roll well enough, and all in all it was a lousey game. Now I DM 3.5, and I have to say it's my favorite by a long shot. I love the number of options available. If I have a concept for a character, I can usually find some mix of classes that will let me do what I want. No "Well this class is kinda close to what you're looking for, but you'll need to roll really well and be one of these three races in order to play it.". Also the rules actually make sense. I can typically calculate anything I need to in my head (ie. 6, 7th level characters will each get 700 exp for a CR 9 encounter), and, well, the rules make sense. Or at least most of them do anyways. Anyways, those are my thoughts, not your's.
LordHell 12-21-05, 07:26 PM	I like both AD&D and 3.5. I like AD&D for the flavour and cinematics it had, but I like the rules in 3.5 edition - they make way more sense, there just needs to be less of them (particulary for combat). I agree with the others that say that AD&D was more roleplay focused - simply because there were less rules for things. If you charged, you made up some fancy description. Now, charging is a rule and the DM has to say something like "Oh no, sorry, no charging. You're moving through an allies square". This takes the game back to the mechanical focus all the time. In AD&D I never used the terms 'square' or 'attack of opportunity' etc etc etc. Combat was way more cinematic. For the record, ive played in many different groups. It's not a group thing. 3rd edition is just more tabletop mechanical based. Thats how it seems for me. All my opinion of course.
Thurbane 12-21-05, 09:32 PM	I've played D&D for around 20 years, and I've played Basic, 1E, 2E & 3.5E. I am currently playing (DMing) a 3.5 group, and I enjoy it a lot. BUT... I still prefer 2E. To me, that was the culmination of "classic" D&D. Yes, it had it's faults, and a ton of supplements that added bizarre and potentially game-breaking rules, but it was still my favourite. To me, 3.5E feels like a whole different game than 1E or 2E. It feels a lot more wargame oriented than roleplaying oriented. It also caters to powergamers - and while that isn't neccessarily a bad thing in itself, it doesn't really mesh that well with the style of game I enjoy playing or running. The seemingly unlimited race/class/prestige class combos, especially when coupled with feats and the ability to self-manufacture magic items, produces what I consider to be massively overpowered characters. And the way WoTC have balanced this is to make the monsters more powerful too, which to me is a bit of a "cop out" of a fix. I get the uneasy feeling it's to make the game appeal more to the "extreme sport/Dragon Ball Z" generation... :D So for me, it would have to be 2E, but 3.5 is growing on me more and more each time I play it.
Thurbane 12-21-05, 10:52 PM	This lead to the famous invincible elf fighter/mage/thief of doom. Not quite. Unlike 3.5E, multicalss characters didn't get to stack their attack bonuses, hit points or saves together. A 7/7/7 Fighter/Mage/Thief would only have the attack bonuses (aka THAC0) of a fighter, and the most favourable save of the three 7th level classes, and the AVERAGE HP of all three. Also, triple classed characters progressed VERY slowly in level compared to single class counterparts. In 1E and 2E, a 7/7/7 character was realistically only about as powerful as a 10th or 11th level single class. in 3.5E a 7/7/7/ characters is in almost every aspect a true 21st level character. I've been playing since '79 and I have to say that 3.5 is the best version I've used. I really like the fact that some of the really stupid rules were removed: Demihuman level limts Dual classing Using XP as a class balancing factor 1 gp=1 xp (1st edition) NPC only classes At high levels a 3 or higher always succeeded on a saving throw Sometimes you need to roll high, sometimes you need to roll low The To Hit Charts with the floating 20 from 1st edition Specialty clerics (they were not balanced at all) OK, I take exception to many of these. Some I will adress now, others (raised by others) I will address later. "XP as a balancing factor" I really can't see a problem with it. Weaker classes, such as thieves, could level up faster, while more powerful classes, such as a paladin or wizard, progressed more slowly. "At high levels a 3 or better always succeeded on a saving throw." Yes. So? More powerful characters are more likely to make saves. Just as in 3.5 high level warrior types have attack bonuses that would make a 2E demigod envious. On THAC0 and high/low rolling - I dunno, I never found any of these concepts especially difficult, and neither did the guys I played with. And most of us weren't what would would call "math whizzes". Specilaty Clerics - these are one thing I REALLY miss from 2E. Now you get cookie cutter clerics with 2 domains and a preferred weapon (if they are lucky). People accuse 2E of churning out cookie cutter characters, but this was one area where 2E had more variety than 3.5E. I mean, why should a priest of the God of War be almost identical in abilities, skills and weapons to a priest of a God of the Harvest. Why would a priest of the Harvest be endowed with the ability to turn undead? For all those spectres he's likely to encounter in the wheat fields? Sure, you can customize your 3.5 cleric with feats and prestige classes, but IMHO 2E speciality priests had more "flavour" from the outset... Racial class/level limits are the same: there is no logical explanation why only humans can be paladins, or why a halfling can't become a better Thief after a certain point. Straw poll : So does anyone here think that putting arbitrary level caps on non humans made sense? OK, now on to racial level limits and race/class restrictions. Racial level limits existed as a power balance. Humans got no feats back then (nor did anybody), weren't allowed to multi-class (but could dual class, which was handled quite differently), and got no infravision, racial ability modifiers etc etc. Racial level limits and class restrictions were there so humans wouldn't be totally redundant. Who would want to play a simple one classed human when unlmited level multi-classed demihumans were available? I don't necessarily say that this was a good thing, but the way the game mechanics were set up, it had to be there for balance and playability. Besides, there were always variant rules that allowed demihumans to work around these restrictions anyway. Anyway, IMHO some race/class combinations are just plain silly. To me, a dwarf wizard or gnome paladin still seems "wrong". You could just as easily ask "why can't a human be a Dwarven Defender" in 3.5E. ;) I like 3.5. 2nd seemed to require eight thousand house rules to get it to work in any sort of consistent manner. This is spoken like someone who never really played 2E. We use approximately the same amount of "house rules" in 3.5 as we used to in 2E. I will freely admit though, 3.5 has the rules more neatly packaged than 2E did. Sometimes you'd have to look to a wide array of supplemental sources to cover something in 2E that is covered in the 3.5E core. I guess it all comes down to personal experience and taste...
Bob Loblaw 12-22-05, 02:02 AM	The XP as a balancing factor simply doesn't work well. Look at each class in 2nd edition and compare an equal amount of XP against each class. You will see that at some points the Magic User is actually a higher level than the thief. It really didn't do its job as well as it could have. Besides, how many times were you in a game where the DM said, let's all play 8th level characters? Now that they all have different XP, which one was more powerful? My problem with the saving throws wasn't that the high level opponent could withstand something, it was that a high level wizard couldn't do anything against that opponent. I believe that Rary, Otto, Otiluke, et al should have been able cast some potent spells. However, since the big bad has an 85% chance of successfully surviving the attack it seems to be that the Magic User is getting weaker at the upper levels. I didn't have a problem remembering when to roll high or when to roll low. I ran into problems when I was trying to teach others. Try explaning that the negative is a bonus sometimes and a penalty others and there is no rhyme or reason for it. THAC0 was counter-intuitive (actually THAC0 wasn't really all that bad, it was combined with the negative AC that confused people). It could be done, but it took an extra step or two. Personally, I prefer the 3rd edition way. The speciality clerics would have been better if they were balanced. I really liked the flavor that they brought to the game, but I think that there were some that were considerably more powerful than others. I do think that the game has managed to progress to a better version each time. I have enjoyed every version I have played. I think every version has some stupid rules in it. 3rd edition is no exception. I just fix them myself and my group and I continue to enjoy the game. My fondest memories are actually from the Basic set. I really miss playing my elf. I had no idea what Magic Missile was, but it was by far the coolest thing I had ever cast. If I had the chance, I would play a game in each edition on a regular basis. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. In the end, everything depends on the group.
AesirRaven 12-22-05, 05:08 AM	Since starting in 1981 with The Red Basic Book, I have played BXCMI D&D, 1st edition AD&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, 3.0 D&D and 3.5 D&D. Which one is the best? Yes. Okay, if I stop trying to sound like a Zen master for a moment, I have to say that 3.5 makes the most sense to me. * I find most aspects of d20 to be logical. I like skill mechanics -- Non-Weapon Proficiencies never quite cut it for me. * For the guy who said he had no trouble remembering which direction a d20 roll was supposed to go in 2e, congratulations... I spent way too much time trying to remember and wound up having to write it down on my sheets. Unidirectional resolution mechanics chalk one up in the win column for me. * I won't bother arguing about demihuman level limits, because the first house rule I ever made was to eliminate those. My friends never wanted to be demihumans anyway because they didn't think elves, halflings and dwarves were "cool". They subscribed to the (I believe mistaken) school of thought that says humans can't properly roleplay nonhumans because we can't understand fully how they think. They didn't need a carrot or a stick to lead them into playing human characters. 3e did something canonically I'd been doing for 19 years. * Oh, and hooray for unified XP charts. * People act like more options means a DM must allow the idiotic 8-class cherry picking munchie builds of Doom. DM responsibility to adjudicate player choices has never changed. I don't consider this to be a valid argument against d20. * Adding a skill system and clarified mechanics to D&D makes roleplaying harder? Wow, somebody go tell the Rolemaster people that they've been underestimating the challenge. Seriously, folks, please stop talking like the number-happy munchkins are the only people playing the game. It's not a valid criticism of d20 itself, it's a criticism of people who play RPGs. One thing, though, has not changed since 1981 (and, for some people, since the mid-70's): be it no-label wooden box or 3.5, D&D brings people together with friends. It doesn't matter if Elf is a single class or a race with a thousand subrace options. It doesn't matter if a Fighter has a d8 hit die that stops at level 9 or a d10 hit die that never ends. It doesn't matter if Assassin is a core class or a prestige class or no class at all. D&D puts butts in the seats around the table and makes good times happen, and that is the most important thing of all. So which edition is best? The answer is: Yes.
WolfHati 12-22-05, 05:53 AM	You will see that at some points the Magic User is actually a higher level than the thief. Actually, flipping through my 2e player's manual I do not see that. I do see that a bard is as powerful a spellcaster as a mage for a tiny span of experience points, but thieves are always a level or so ahead of mages. But back to actually relevant things. I think the core rules of 3.5e are better than 2e or 1e. But all the extranneous stuff (except the Eberron campaign setting) gets on my nerves. Also, I wish they'd implemented multiclass casting a little better, since 1 higher level of spells is an effective doubling of power, more or less. In 1e and 2e, you just stayed a couple levels behind everyone else for a multiclass character, so you had twice the abilities, but they were lowered just the right amount for it to be balanced more or less. I think the problem I have with 3e is the rules are too thorough. In 1e and 2e, there really was a tendency to only use rules if they were useful, and inore them if they weren't, and there was a lot more winging it, and therefore a bit more "outside the box" thinking. Also, I was rather disappointed with the 3.5e DMG compared to the 1e DMG. The 1e DMG had rules, or at least suggestions, for just about everything - building a castle, hiring an army, insanity, disease, sailing, random dungeon generation, purported properties of herbs and gemstones for spell/alchemy components, converting different gameworld rulesets, the effect of spells underwater (with attention to every single spelll). Heck, it even had an easy reference condensed version of the monster manual. The 3.5e DMG just had the "useful" stuff, and after playing for years, I more or less know enough about DMing. Oh, but I do like the rules for monsters as player races, those make character options much more diverse in the appropriate setting. All in all I like the (core) 3.5 rules, but there's still something to be said about earlier editions.
LordHell 12-22-05, 06:49 AM	* Adding a skill system and clarified mechanics to D&D makes roleplaying harder? Wow, somebody go tell the Rolemaster people that they've been underestimating the challenge. Seriously, folks, please stop talking like the number-happy munchkins are the only people playing the game. It's not a valid criticism of d20 itself, it's a criticism of people who play RPGs. You act as if people only get their experiance from these boards. My group switched from the older editions to 3.0/3.5 and the roleplaying factor went down. I DM. I DM roleplay focused games. I am a very good roleplayer myself and I can say from experiance, across multiple groups, that roleplaying in 3.5 - no matter how good you are - takes a back foot compared to other editions. There are just more rules to cover things that in older editions you just played it out. Yes you can tag on some description to your action, but as a DM and a player you are left with a lot less creative liscence. Is this a good thing? Well, the new rule system certainly makes it easier for new players, and DMs. It also makes it harder to encounter poor DMs if they simply just stick to the rules. My personal experiance in real life is that D&D now feels a lot more like a tactical tabletop wargame in combat despite how you sugar coat it with flavour and descriptive roleplay. Outside of combat also now is heavily dominated with dice rolls and rules checking. Take Diplomacy for example. Now there is a [poorly written] rule that governs it. Before, the DM would take the players Charisma, background, personality, and so forth into consideration and the entire encounter would be roleplay based. Yes you can still do that, but you're cheating the character of something they've invested heavily into on the mechanical level. The mechanics are always coming to play. It is a good thing in many ways, but I can't help but feel the new edition lacks something. Flavour? I dont know. There IS something missing however. Perhaps hanging out in these forums, which are so heavily mechanically focused, has also killed a little of the magic. -shrug-
Bob Loblaw 12-22-05, 11:17 AM	Actually, flipping through my 2e player's manual I do not see that. I do see that a bard is as powerful a spellcaster as a mage for a tiny span of experience points, but thieves are always a level or so ahead of mages. I was going off of memory, but now that I have had the chance to grab the books I was wrong with my example but my point is still the same. If one compares all the classes, there is no rhyme or reason to the XP pattern. It was even worse with 1st edition. The barbarian and cavalier had some outragous XP patterns. I have to agree completely with AesirRaven that all editions got friends together for a good time. That is the real reason we game anyway. In that regard, they were all good. I also agree with WolfHati that the 1st edition DMG was by far the most interesting with its content. I still like to reference some of those tables. LordHell, I think that you are right when you say that it feels like something is missing. I think it is the lack of advice for how to deal with roleplaying situations and combining them with the mechanics. While one can definately add some flavor to the encounter (whatever it is at the time), something is lost when you can have a character with +30 Diplomacy tell a group of peasants to ****-off and still have them donate to his cause because he rolled well. While that is an extreme case, it is legit by the rules. I think that there should be an entire book on how to use the mechanics to fully enhance roleplaying. I know that it can be done. It gets difficult to suspend disbelief when you have to keep throwing numbers into the roleplaying.
grandaustino 12-22-05, 01:02 PM	The skill system does help to deal with the problem of player versus character abilities, which I think is one of the most difficult parts of role playing. If a player using a fighter with a eight int and cha makes an eloquent and empassioned plea to an NPC it gives the DM a justification to say it didn't work. If the player were completly "in character" he probably wouldn't try anyway, but it gives the player a reasonable expectation of whether or not his efforts will succede.
bob_the_great 12-22-05, 09:05 PM	i'm currently playing 2nd edition. one thing that annoys me is how much luck can affect character creation. if you and i both play fighters with 18 strength, yet i roll a 19 pencentile str and you roll an 92 you are a lot more powerful than i am. if you create a halfling you have a percentage chance to have infravision. my party just made a bargain with a devil and got sent to hell to fight in the blood wars, and we were offered a chance to become devilkin. as part of that i roll a d6 for a special trait. hmm, horns, claws, a tail, or a bite are kinda worthless to my wizard but wings would be awesome and scales wouldn't be too shabby. *rolls d6* woohoo, fangs... i love that non-prime ability scores don't mean as much as in 3rd though. my high int is important as a wizard and my high dex gives an ac bonus. after that it basically comes down to "am i strong?" and "am i charismatic" and doesn't really affect any mechanics. maybe i just over-thought ability scores in 3rd.
Thurbane 12-23-05, 12:47 AM	You act as if people only get their experiance from these boards. My group switched from the older editions to 3.0/3.5 and the roleplaying factor went down. I DM. I DM roleplay focused games. I am a very good roleplayer myself and I can say from experiance, across multiple groups, that roleplaying in 3.5 - no matter how good you are - takes a back foot compared to other editions. There are just more rules to cover things that in older editions you just played it out. Yes you can tag on some description to your action, but as a DM and a player you are left with a lot less creative liscence. Is this a good thing? Well, the new rule system certainly makes it easier for new players, and DMs. It also makes it harder to encounter poor DMs if they simply just stick to the rules. My personal experiance in real life is that D&D now feels a lot more like a tactical tabletop wargame in combat despite how you sugar coat it with flavour and descriptive roleplay. Outside of combat also now is heavily dominated with dice rolls and rules checking. Take Diplomacy for example. Now there is a [poorly written] rule that governs it. Before, the DM would take the players Charisma, background, personality, and so forth into consideration and the entire encounter would be roleplay based. Yes you can still do that, but you're cheating the character of something they've invested heavily into on the mechanical level. The mechanics are always coming to play. It is a good thing in many ways, but I can't help but feel the new edition lacks something. Flavour? I dont know. There IS something missing however. Perhaps hanging out in these forums, which are so heavily mechanically focused, has also killed a little of the magic. -shrug- Agreed on basically every point. There really is something about 3/3.5 that seems to downplay roleplaying while promoting combat mechanics. And to be a bit harsh, a lot of the in-character/in-game discussions I've seen on these boards back that up. There is a hint that unless you are a [insert exotic race and uberpowerful class combination here] your character isn't worth playing. Does anyone out there play 3.5 with humble human fighters or dwarven clerics? But as I said, 3.5 is growing on me more each time I play it.