* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Started at 03-06-08 05:05 PM by tjhairball Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1000607 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : tjhairball Date : 03-06-08 05:05 PM Thread Title : A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Myths, Legends, and Facts about 2nd Edition AD&D A 3/3.5 player's guide to what some of the old farts are mumbling about, Complexity: Fact: Most new players find 2nd edition harder to learn than 3/3.5. There were a few counterintuitive elements in 2nd edition, such as the fact that in some cases, you wanted to roll low, and in some cases you wanted to roll high. The only drawback of having made all the die rolls “higher is better” in 3/3.5: Weighted dice are more effective. Myth: 2nd edition gameplay is more complex. While WOTC marketing suggested that it would be much easier to run 3/3.5 combats, create 3/3.5 characters, et cetera, the fact of the matter is that all of these tend to take much more time than their counterparts in 2nd edition, once you're used to the counterintuitive things. Other things that take less time in 2nd include leveling characters, creating monsters, building high level NPCs, and determining XP awards. However, if you use all the Player's Option rules in 2nd edition, combat becomes even more complex than it is in 3/3.5. Myth: More or less complicated is better. Not necessarily, although 3/3.5 really does have a better tactical system than 2nd. As a tactical board game, 2nd edition isn't nearly as interesting. A system can be more complicated without being any better - or any worse - in terms of how well it works. Neither 2nd nor 3/3.5 is too complex to learn with effort, and neither is too simple to make an interesting game. Classes: Fact: There indeed were a number of restrictions on class/race combinations. If a player begged to play a certain class/race combination, the DM would often allow it, but the DMG suggested that DMs think twice before allowing a restricted combination. If we don't count specialist wizards as being distinct from mages, you "only" had 48 or so different starting class/race combinations available in the PHB, as opposed to the 77 of 3/3.5. Fact: In 2nd edition, there were three different levels of things defined as classes. First, you had the general types of classes - warrior, wizard, rogue, et cetera. These shared a hit die, a THAC0 progression, a saving throw table, and a nonweapon proficiency group. Within each category, you had specific classes. Within each class, you had kits. Kits were entirely optional. Example: The Ninja class was an optional class of Rogue. There were Stealer-In, Shadow Warrior, Intruder, Consort, Pathfinder, Lone Wolf, and Spirit Warrior kits, each being its own variation on the Ninja class. (A core class would have more kits than that, of course, spread across a large number of supplemental books and campaign sets.) Legend: 2nd edition was poorly balanced between classes. This is a little bit true and a little bit false. It is most true at first level; a first level multiclassed demihuman mage, for example, was definitely superior to a first level human mage - but only at first level. Beyond first level, multiclass characters were roughly balanced with single class characters. There was also the issue of balanced development, something that mostly concerned wizards. A first level wizard of any variety was weak (next to useless if you didn't have a good selection of spells); a fifth level wizard could take on a small army (it is at this level the wizard classes began to shine). However, even a 20th level wizard had on average only 35 hit points, and without his magic could be defeated by a 6th level fighter in combat. All other characters were reasonably viable at all levels. There was also the small oddity that a bard, for several early levels (2nd-4th), would have the same spells per day as a mage with the same amount of XP (since wizards required twice as much XP to level as rogues). Of course, a bard usually had fewer spells in his spellbook, and soon after would fall far behind single and multiclassed mages, but this added to the feeling of early-level uselessness experienced by many mages. On the whole, 3/3.5 is not much better balanced over the course of a typical campaign; the core is perhaps a little more balanced than the 2nd edition core at lower levels, and the 3/3.5 supplementals usually less balanced than the 2nd edition supplementals. Legend: There were fewer class options. There are fewer classes - but is mostly because WOTC has produced many more supplements than TSR ever did, and partly because what, in many cases, 3/3.5 makes a distinct class, 2nd makes a kit. Many 3/3.5 players are unaware just how many distinct classes and kits existed in the AD&D supplements, and the comparison is often made out of ignorance. The more important difference in class options lies not in the number of optional classes - counting kits and prestige classes, well over a hundred for 2nd and several hundred for 3/3.5 - but in the fact that in 2nd edition, it was commonly accepted that only a handful of optional classes would be appropriate in most campaigns. Because of the way multiclassing works in the two systems, a character in 2nd has a wider variety of class options in starting a first level character out of the PHB. A 3/3.5 character has more options on how to level that character over time. Fact: Multiclassing is very different in 2nd edition. Multiclass characters tend to be at an advantage at 1st level, but are fairly balanced past that relative to single class characters - on the whole, better than in 3/3.5, which has some trouble with multiclassing. Races: Myth: There was no reason to play human. This is false. Humans had a number of advantages often neglected, such as unlimited full speed advancement at high levels, full access to all classes, the ability to dual class, and (in most campaign settings) social advantages. While this did not produce many tangible benefits at lower levels, it became important quickly at higher levels, as demihuman characters were faced with level limits. The level limits were not necessarily absolute, but usually entailed slowing down. Myth: There was no reason to play half elf. This is also false. Half elves had a good number of elven abilities... on top of wider class options than elves. Half elves could do triple-class multiclassing, and could play druids, rangers, transmuters, diviners, conjurers, and bards (which elves were barred from). However, like elves, they had limited long term advancement (in everything except bard), and couldn't be paladins, necromancers, illusionists, invokers, or abjurers. The primary reason for playing a half elf instead of a human or elf, however, was almost always in order to play the particular role of the half-elf. Legend: There are a lot more race options in 3/3.5 It is true that 3/3.5 has more race options - but only because WOTC has produced many more supplements than TSR ever did. Many 3/3.5 players (and, for that matter, some 2nd edition players) are unaware that rules already existed for everything from tiefling to half-dragons to ogres were all made available to players in AD&D supplements. The main difference lies not in the number of optional races - dozens in both cases - but in the fact that in 2nd edition, it was commonly accepted that only a handful of optional races would be appropriate in most campaigns. Legend: Races were poorly balanced. It is true that the races were not perfectly balanced, particularly when looking at first level, where natural attacks, natural AC, natural abilities, and bonus hit points had the most effect. However, the differences in power between characters of different races after a couple levels was small, and the 3/3.5 races aren't perfectly balanced either. Large races in particular may strike 3/3.5 players as unbalanced - until they realize many weapons deal extra damage to large characters in 2nd, the reach/AoO combination popular in 3/3.5 powerplay simply doesn't exist in 2nd, and natural armor doesn't stack with worn armor, or even shield or armor spells. Ability Scores: Legend: Statistical requirements on race and class kept characters from playing the class and race combinations they wanted. This is a little bit true and a little bit false. Even the base PHB had six different methods for rolling a character, and Player's Option developed point based systems. It was up to the DM whether to use a method that let players easily meet class requirements for the various optional classes or not - or even whether or not to include them. Legend: Stats were more important in 2nd edition. This has a grain of truth to it, as you were not really able to modify statistics easily, and your long term advancement in a class was somewhat dependent on having a good prime requisite. It is, however, mostly false. In 3rd edition, a 12 grants a +1 bonus, and a 9 a -1 penalty; in 2nd edition, the only gameplay difference between a dexterity 8 and dexterity 14 score was when you had to make a dexterity check for whatever reason. In addition to stat bonuses and penalties being less common, stat bonuses and penalties were applied to fewer things. On the whole, statistics are much more important to actual gameplay in 3/3.5, and because statistics are much easier to modify, 3/3.5 is much more strongly focused on ability scores. Fact: Fighters had access to a special "exceptional strength" score category within 18. A fighter with 18 strength would make an extra die roll and fall within one of 4 exceptional categories - these missing categories meant that going from 18 to 19 strength went from +1 to hit and +2 to damage in melee, to +3/+7. Non-fighters were also restricted from getting more than +2 hp per die. Guide to terms in older editions Armor class - You started at 10, but lower was better. AC 0 was considered the golden standard, although negative ACs could go down to -10 (-12 for dragons). THAC0 - This is the number a character needed to roll to hit AC 0 on a d20. It started at 20 and went down at 1 point every level, every two levels, every three levels, two points every three levels, or (in the case of monsters) two points every two levels. So you got the target number (what you were trying to roll) by taking THAC0 and subtracting the AC. If your THAC0 was 19, and the target armor class 4, the target number was 19-4=15. Natural 1: A roll of 1 was always a miss or a failed saving throw, and always a successful proficiency check, power check, or ability check. This was actually in the rules. I've seen some 3/3.5 players claim this was never in the rules. In fact, the PHB stated that any roll of 2 or lower was a failed saving throw regardless of any bonuses. Natural 20: A roll of 20 was always a hit or successful saving throw, and always a failed proficiency check, power check, or ability check. This was actually in the rules. (Please review. I'm pretty sure I've missed some things.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : adidamps2 Date : 03-06-08 11:16 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er looks well thought out i like the comparisons. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : RealmsRunner Date : 03-07-08 02:49 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I like your comparisons for the most part, but one point that you make has always bugged me. When people start talking about the balance between classes, races, etc., I don't get it. Why does every race and class have to be the same? If everything were perfectly balanced, that would kill the variety, and half the fun of the game. Here's an example, and not necessarily the best one, mind you: It can easily be argued that demihumans like gnomes, kinder, and halflings are pretty much ALWAYS unbalanced when physically compared to the larger races. A halfling fighter better be a bada$$ mofo if he's gonna take on a human fighter in a fair fight. But ah, the halfling is devious and sneaky, having honed his skills at fighting dirty over the years to compensate for his size, and so the fight is not fair at all, and the devious halfling ends up taking home the dead human's gold. That's roleplaying, my man. That's what you commit to when you decide to play an "unbalanced" class or race. They all work out in the end. If you know how to play, and be inventive, every race, class, or kit has its use in the game. I hope I didn't sound hostile. I didn't mean to. Just wanted to get that out there. Thanks again for this post. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : tjhairball Date : 03-07-08 01:46 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I like your comparisons for the most part, but one point that you make has always bugged me. When people start talking about the balance between classes, races, etc., I don't get it. Why does every race and class have to be the same? If everything were perfectly balanced, that would kill the variety, and half the fun of the game. Here's an example, and not necessarily the best one, mind you: It can easily be argued that demihumans like gnomes, kinder, and halflings are pretty much ALWAYS unbalanced when physically compared to the larger races. A halfling fighter better be a bada$$ mofo if he's gonna take on a human fighter in a fair fight. But ah, the halfling is devious and sneaky, having honed his skills at fighting dirty over the years to compensate for his size, and so the fight is not fair at all, and the devious halfling ends up taking home the dead human's gold. That's roleplaying, my man. That's what you commit to when you decide to play an "unbalanced" class or race. They all work out in the end. If you know how to play, and be inventive, every race, class, or kit has its use in the game. I hope I didn't sound hostile. I didn't mean to. Just wanted to get that out there. Thanks again for this post. That is one of the complaints I'm hearing about 4th - classes are more homogenized, I have made the point in real life before that game balance isn't necessary to have fun. I've played Council of Wyrms - and boy, is that unbalanced! For those of you not familiar with it, you're playing a dragon character. Gold dragons are clearly the most powerful dragons. I've had loads of fun playing a crystal dragon - the weakest kind available to PCs in Council of Wyrms. The difference in power is huge between the two. I will say, though, that not all groups can play Council of Wyrms without developing friction, and you'll see that in many cases, 3/3.5 players are very concerned with the relative power of their characters. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 03-07-08 05:01 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I saw that in 1st, and especially 2nd editions, every race had its trade-offs, as did every class. My Ogre-Mage (race) Fighter would be more powerful in many ways than the half-elven fighter. But I had to earn double xp to advance, and maxed out at 10th level. I also had superstitions and the fact I was an Ogre-Mage to overcome. The Polymorph ability wasn't indefinate, ya know... not to mention, the character thought it dis-honourable under many conditions. But in 2nd, it was still a viable PC choice at any level of play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : RealmsRunner Date : 03-08-08 03:15 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er That is one of the complaints I'm hearing about 4th - classes are more homogenized, I have made the point in real life before that game balance isn't necessary to have fun. I've played Council of Wyrms - and boy, is that unbalanced! For those of you not familiar with it, you're playing a dragon character. Gold dragons are clearly the most powerful dragons. I've had loads of fun playing a crystal dragon - the weakest kind available to PCs in Council of Wyrms. The difference in power is huge between the two. I will say, though, that not all groups can play Council of Wyrms without developing friction, and you'll see that in many cases, 3/3.5 players are very concerned with the relative power of their characters. Indeed. And you're right on about that kind of gaming not being for all groups. I love Council of Wyrms, by the way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : RealmsRunner Date : 03-08-08 03:16 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I saw that in 1st, and especially 2nd editions, every race had its trade-offs, as did every class. My Ogre-Mage (race) Fighter would be more powerful in many ways than the half-elven fighter. But I had to earn double xp to advance, and maxed out at 10th level. I also had superstitions and the fact I was an Ogre-Mage to overcome. The Polymorph ability wasn't indefinate, ya know... not to mention, the character thought it dis-honourable under many conditions. But in 2nd, it was still a viable PC choice at any level of play. Exactly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-24-08 11:09 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Two things that I would like to comment on here. I have to appologize, I'm a tad out of it, working the night shift, and so during the day I go digging for old 2nd ed stuff. Back to the primary reason for this reply, keeping in mind that I essentially agree with your analysis. First, class/race balance. I think that the concern that has become so rampant across the boards regarding this issue comes from PvP play. In my old 2nd Ed group, we had attempted a number of different campaigns, and we all played various classes. And yes, we were shocked when we first discovered how quickly the rogue leveled... but it was interesting to note that the other classes were fairly balanced against the rogue. And his skill set at higher levels was more help to the party. Just as my mage could use spells to help the party. Or anyone could help the party. That is, I think, the greatest loss that 3.x has brought to the game, is 1.A: a sense of entitlement; and 1.B: PvP play. "I have to be equal to you so that when you eventually betray me, I can have a chance to win." Cruising through the "Whats a DM to do?" and "Whats a Player to do?" threads, you see a huge number of requests for handling PVP issues. I just don't get it. In my entire 2nd Ed career (ranging from 1993 when I turned 12 to 2003, when I finally converted at the request of the group), we only had one PVP incident, which we errased as it was caused by someone who was bitter about a real life incident. They never came back. So I have to ask: Where the heck did this sudden anger and hostility become acceptable in a social game? My second point, I do have to disagree with you on complexity. I can sit down and generate a party of 6 2nd Ed AD&D characters of nearly any level, and do so in about an hour. They will have equipment, concepts, and even brief write ups. If I want to include kits, I can. Without any kind of frustration. These characters will be strong and capable of game play right there from the paper. If I wanted to do the same thing for 3.x, and make sure the character was "optimized" or that I followed all the possible rules/feats/skill combos out there, this would take a heck of a lot longer. Now throw in the fact that you can be a half-ogre/dragon/demon/celestial (how you can have four halfs... still not sure), and it becomes even more complex. Now some will point out that doing all those race additions is bad due to LA, but that doesn't stop some people from wanting it (see the "Me First" phenomenom I put up in another thread on this board). 2.B: Finally, I do want to stress that I agree with you when you say: "The main difference lies not in the number of optional races - dozens in both cases - but in the fact that in 2nd edition, it was commonly accepted that only a handful of optional races would be appropriate in most campaigns." I feel that this statement is true, and reinforces the idea, in my mind, that the game has degenerated to a numbers based wargame, with a me-first attitude, and a general lack of player/dm/group cohesion. The M&M of D&D 3.x = ME! and MINE! I was recently talking to a person at the FLGS about a campaign I was working on, this is a huge undertaking on my part and one in which I drop both elves and dwarves. East/Central European flavor, with gnolls replacing orcs as the primary bad guys. We were just chatting, and he was like "That sounds like fun. I'd probably want to play a half-demon in that setting." Maybe it is just me, and maybe I'm being overly protective/stupid about my setting, but what happened to asking the DM about the race/class combos? Whatever happened to cooperation and compromise? Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-24-08 06:23 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Rosisha: I pretty much had that exact conversation with my wife, on the aspect of the "me me me" feeling that is strong in the teen/young twenties crowd. A sense of entitlement that seems a strong identifier for the generation. I guess she was reading or watching something that was blaming Mr. Rodgers (kids show in the US from the 80's) for telling kids that "every one is special" and spoiling them all. I found blaming mr rodgers pretty funny, but the point did seem to make sense. I brought up the feeling I get on the main boards here, and how there seemed to be a strong sense of self-entitlement. She teased me lightly for bringing up d&d, but agreed w/ me. It's hard to tell always someones age just from a thread (though some are pretty obvious), so it's hard to say the exact age of the posters that seem more spoiled, but comparing the "out of print" board to the other boards, it seems to be completely different worlds in attitude -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Varl Date : 04-24-08 06:51 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I was recently talking to a person at the FLGS about a campaign I was working on, this is a huge undertaking on my part and one in which I drop both elves and dwarves. East/Central European flavor, with gnolls replacing orcs as the primary bad guys. Sounds fun! We were just chatting, and he was like "That sounds like fun. I'd probably want to play a half-demon in that setting." Maybe it is just me, and maybe I'm being overly protective/stupid about my setting, but what happened to asking the DM about the race/class combos? Whatever happened to cooperation and compromise? I think that's how players today ask. They test the edges of what you allow and don't allow, and if they can slip something by on you without you noticing, they get what they want. And even if you say you don't allow half-demons in your game, they try and manipulate you into accepting something slightly less than what they first proposed, but still has demon in it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-24-08 08:34 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I must admit that the mention of AD&D allowing half-dragons before TETSNBN did got me thinking "Half-dragons, my butt, I played full dragons!" so I was amused to see Council of Wyrms get mentioned so quickly. Basically a very constructive effort to contrast the systems. Nicely done. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-24-08 11:15 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Sounds fun! I think that's how players today ask. They test the edges of what you allow and don't allow, and if they can slip something by on you without you noticing, they get what they want. And even if you say you don't allow half-demons in your game, they try and manipulate you into accepting something slightly less than what they first proposed, but still has demon in it. Agreed. Yeah I'm actually enjoying my campaign design, and I am taking some stuff from 3.x that I think works (I'm open minded, 2nd Ed, what I learned on, did have some problems, so if I see something that can fix it, I'll take it!). However, what kind of makes me scratch my head... ... but does it strike anyone else as a little strange that a lot of the feats share names with abilities in the Player's Option: Combat & Tactics? In fact, doesn't a lot of that book seem to have gone into the Player's Handbook for 3.x??? Maybe I'm just paranoid. However, I do like some elements of the D20 system. I must admit that having every role work the same is good (i'm learning disabled, I can remember one thing to do, and it is nice not to have to keep the two main books with me all the time). On the same note, fourty million steps to create anything... not so good. Rules for everything... not so good. I never used Combat & Tactics cause it overly complicated combat. I'm not trying to play a wargame, I have other games for that! :D Maybe I'll post some of my campaign work on here for ya all to read. It is 2nd Ed, the edition I learned on :D! Question: I've found PDF copies of the DMG, PHB and stuff from 2nd Ed, but does anyone know if there is a download of the CDROM set available to purchase as an online product? I didn't see it on any of the sites, and B&N (I work for them) doesn't seem to have any used ones... I really want it, but if I have to I'll buy new shiny PDFs and burn them onto my own CD :D I was just hoping. NOTE: I'm talking about legally buying a copy. Not evil illegal stuff. I didn't know if WotC would allow it to be purchased online as a download (the full CD set too: map maker, encounter generators, and the books!). I just reallllly want it. Here that WotC? Another customer eagerly awaiting product already made and designed! :D Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-25-08 02:44 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er A Few things: Rosisha: You'll only be able to get it on Ebay. Typically going for 50-75.00. They never did have a dload of it. Well worth the money for core rules 1.0, even more so for core rules 2.0 with the 2.0 expansion. I use those every day for my 2e game, just for editable searchable printable text from almost all of the major 2e books, including brown. ...in 2nd edition, it was commonly accepted that only a handful of optional classes (& Races) would be appropriate in most campaigns. Agreed. That post right there is one of the major problems with 3.X all the multiclassing and dipping stuff. The thread in general: The player base overwhelmingly has mnoved into an anti-DM, anti-DMs game to a We are all equal, under the rules, and the ref is there to look up rules stance. I'm not saying the DM is of more value, but 3.X brings out the rules lawyers in droves...because there ARE more rules. That plus the idea of the build, and optimization...it's just insanity to me, as a 1e / 2e (and have DMed 3.5) Player / DM. And woe betide the DM who says "That race, class or feat, whatever isn't allowed." You'll get the following: (from actual threads on these forums) - Railroad! - It's just as much the player's Game as it is the DMs. - Let the players have what they want. - You just don't know how to balance it, better, read more 3.5. - (Paraphrased) you're too chicken-**** to play with the real men, the masters of 3.5, the optimizers. - If I can't play what I want, your game is stupid. - If I can;t play what's in the books, your game is not D&D. Ad nauseum. Also agreed, the tone here on the OOP threads is much more civil, and in general, respectful, from old vets of the game, and the newer players of 3.X, just asking questions. Participating in the general threads has been ******* me off daily, these last three weeks. I'll be moving on pretty soon, to places like GygaxGamers.com, and Campaign Builder's Forums, where people are respectful, open minded, and can argue points without flaming, and the rest of the nonsense. That guide covers it. Though I will suggest that in groups I played, hard;y anyone used player's options and hardly anyone used kits. Not nearly in the way 3.5 has all the class comboes. Another thing I'd like to have brought in is no magic stores in 2e, as printred in the DMG. 3.X has them. Magic in 3.5 is or seems to be encouraged to be much more common, I think influenced by the official FR campaign books for 3.X. 2e has a few stats, 3.X has huge stat blocks. I like that you said, "once you get past the wierdness, 2e is simpler. Cause it was." maybe also put in something about name level and keeps and such, in 2e, (moreso 1e, yeah) whereas seems to me like 3.X everyone is a masterless Ronin as paradigm for adventurer. Certainly, balance was not as big an issue back then. Seems like barbarian was really powerful in 2e, as i recall. But the real thing was flavor. You wanted elf of 1.2 E play that. You wanted a wizard, play that. Not this feats to stack plus power combo synergy jazz. All these arguments about balance and broken in 3.X to me are kind of silly. Classes back in the day were for the flavor, not on who got the most plusses. And if all PCs of XP X and Level Y are exactly equal in damage output, it's just too mechanistic. As posted yeah wizards were weak in HP in 2e, and I think that was a good think. This gish stuff nowadays, is a bastardization of the rules as intended from 1e and 2e, I mean...The comboes that people do nowadays are just weirdness to me. Play a 2e fighter, hoo yah. Not in 3.5, lest people say what a stupid wussy wuss build you got. Enough ranting. Great thread. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Extempus Date : 04-25-08 03:30 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I think that's how players today ask. They test the edges of what you allow and don't allow, and if they can slip something by on you without you noticing, they get what they want. And even if you say you don't allow half-demons in your game, they try and manipulate you into accepting something slightly less than what they first proposed, but still has demon in it. This seems to be an appropriate place to quote Gary Gygax in "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" on this very subject of character class and race (from Dragon, Vol. IV, #3, September 1979, p. 12-13): The Half-Ogre, Smiting Him Hip and Thigh Of late I have seen several different treatments of half-orgres, and the suggestion that this type of creature is a viable and worthwhile racial type for player characters has thus gained some small popularity. This subject also touches upon another, closely related matter, the whole gamut of cross breeds which could possibly be included in AD&D. Dungeon Masters must be apprised of the potential can of worms they will be opening by allowing these mixtures in their campaigns. The character races in AD&D were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of these racial types give short term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game. The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise. It is in vogue in some campaigns to remove restrictions on demi-humans--or to at leat relax them somewhat. While this might make the DM popular for a time with those participants with dwarven fighters of high level, or elven wizards of vast power, it will eventually consign the campaign as a whole to one in which the only races will be non-human. Dwarves, elves, etal. will have all the advantages and no real disadvantages, so the majority of players will select these races, and humankind will disappear from the realm of player character types. This bears upon various hybrid racial types as well. In designing ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, I considered the possible racial mixtures. Should half-dwarves, half-gnomes, and half-halflings (and is a half-halfling a quartling, perchance?) be allowed? How about a dwarf-elf, dwarf-gnome, dwarf-halfling, elf-gnome, elf-halfling, and gnome-halfling crossbreeds? Then there are tri-racial mixtures. Those involving humans and orcs add still more confounding factors. And now somebody decided that ogres could cross with humans! Could they cross with elves also? How about hill giants interbreeding with humans? with elves? with ogres? with ettins? Why leave out goblins? hobgoblins? gnolls? bugbears? Because of the potential for absolute madness in the game, I included only the half-elf, hoping that the rest would not arise to plague the placid waters of racial selection, but it is apparent that it was not meant to be. Consider the various factors which must be taken into account when designing a race for game purposes. Remember that last part, game purposes; AD&D is, first and foremost, a game. Races, just as with classes, must be in relative balance with each other, as well as with the game as a whole. Setting this balance is a difficult and delicate operation! So we have 1) character class limits due to race, 2) level limits due to race, 3) ability adjustments due to race, 4) racial minimums and maximums of abilities, 5) racial preferences, and 6) special characteristics of racial types, i.e. magic resistance, saving throws, combat versus specific monsters, visual and other sense capabilities, and "sixth-sense" or innate skill capabilities (such as detection of grades, and underground conditions, etc.). If these six factors are considered only as single entities, not as multi-faceted ones, there is still plenty of work to do in setting up even a single additional character race, for each must be meshed with and balanced against all other such races. Now consider the possible cross breeds, and multiply your DMing woes by a thousand! As surely as you allow a single player to select a non-standard hybrid, another will come along asking for some special cross breed which he or she envisions to be "logical", meaningful, and fun to play (read advantageous for the player in question!). Pixie-storm giant half-breeds would not be impossible....(For those who doubt the last claim, consider a lecherous male pixie equipped with several growth potions and a love philtre. And, when all is said and done, AD&D is fantasy.) Then followed the write-up for the half-orge... to continue: It is important to reiterate that hybrids not shown in PLAYERS HANDBOOK should be generally rejected in the well-run campaign. The device is that of players seeking to gain some advantage for themselves by choosing a racial mixture which they believe will have greater advantages (with fewer drawbacks) than those of the character races given in AD&D. If exceptions are to be made, be certain that you, the DM, consider each thoroughly prior to admitting it into the milieu. Each exception must be detailed as was done for the half-ogre, above. Do so privately, and if after listing its parameters you find that the hybrid is unacceptable, disallow its use--or go back and restructure the characteristics, being careful to use the example of the PLAYERS HANDBOOK as a guide. Then, and only then, should a player be allowed to have such a hybrid racial type to choose from. Lastly, if thereafter many of your participants suddenly express a desire to start characters of this particular racial mixture, you can pretty well rely upon the fact that you blew it. All of this will certainly lead to the question, why is it that the human race is so favored in AD&D? There is no question that human characters have an edge in all others in the long run--even considering the generally unlimited potential for non-human thieves. The bias was placed in the game on the assumption that the vast majority of campaign milieux would be based on human-dominated worlds. Therefore, humans must have some sort of edge. As human adaptability is undoubted, and human capabilities deemed vast by this writer, it seemed to follow that allowing them the full range of possibilties was the best answer. Thus, humans are found in all alignments, in all professions, and so on. The weakest are very weak, the strongest very strong. The human race plumbs the depths and soars to the heights. In AD&D, as in the real world, humankind will certainly attain greatness and domination if it doesn't destroy itself first through warfare and strife within its own race. There was a reason why things were as they were in 1e, and with all restrictions gone and with anyone able to be anything they want... what exactly is the point of playing a human? The game has become far too PC with the ridiculous amount of diversity and cross-breeding that exists now. Granted, the game is fantasy, but even in fantasy games, there has to be a real, logical framework on which to base everything, and cross-breeding between unlike species simply does not work (except maybe with magic, but would any wizard go to the amount of trouble it would take to tinker with and produce the vast number of cross-breeds there are???). Not just that, but think about this (and this has never really been addressed anywhere that I know of): in order to produce cross-breeds, the creatures in question actually have to be intimate with each other! I honestly do not see a human finding an orc or ogre very appealing (even in a fantasy game), so the only alternative we are looking at is quite distasteful to even discuss and really has no place in a game, fantasy or otherwise. And when talking about half-demons, how does one think they come about? 99.9% of the time, it is not consensual, ie, they are the offspring of incubi and succubi (unless one is dealing with demons and evil humans, such as Graz'zt and Iggwilv). The problem isn't just half-demons, it's all the cross-breeds. It's a can of worms, all right, and the implications of how many (if not most) of these cross-breeds must have come into existence is really quite sickening. And the fact that it's officially part of and integral to a game (fantasy or otherwise) really makes one wonder wtf is going on in the heads of the current designers... Gary Gygax certainly has words of wisdom on this subject and has addressed many points apropros to 3e, 3.5e and now 4e, and that's part of what's bothered me so much about the direction D&D has been going the last 8 years... and in that column, he addressed mostly the problems associated with non-standard character races but touched on character class as well, and that term doesn't really seem to have the meaning it once did in the game... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-25-08 06:22 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Extempus: Brilliant Post, and well organized. The sad but true fact is, if you post that in the main forums 6 people will agree. The optimizers will flame you. Wha? can't have races? Can't have classes? Level caps are for railroading DMs! Get real, get 4e! and all the rest of the stuff we've seen. Someone call me a liar, please. Cause everyone reading this knows it's the truth. It's no longer D&D as Gary Gygax designed it. 3.5, and yet to be born 4e is not what he wanted, and he's said so publicly. D&D is now this mish-mash hybrid Frankenstein's monster, where each PC has pultiple races and classes, and who plays: "Human Fighter" anymore? It's disgusting, sickening and discouraging all in one fell swoop. I'm glad I didn't get rid of my 1e and 2e books. I want a game with flavor, lovingly crafted by a DM, that doesn't have all this weirdness in it. I've seen a thread where a guy was posting 3.5 10th level mage, 6 attacks a round, 500 HP max damage. Let's remind each other that the baddest of the bad, Asmodeus, lord of The Nine Hells himself, only had 199 Hit points, in 1e. Where has our game gone? Thankfully, it is still around, even if a few voices here and there, on scattered forums, net wide, and small play groups across the planet. There are too many players these days that want to be Uber, slaying all around them at a thought, who don't understand that tough situations make heroes, not 24 STR, plus your feats. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-25-08 12:12 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er There are too many players these days that want to be Uber, slaying all around them at a thought, who don't understand that tough situations make heroes, not 24 STR, plus your feats. Reminds me of a thread I started two months ago asking about the nature of heroism... got a few people w/ your response, and a few of the expected "if he's not strong he's not a hero" answers. While I loathe to defend 3.x and go against you, for all the multirace/class vomit that does occur, humans probably still are the most common race you'll see anyone take. Because of the way to rules work, the extra feat that humans get is a big advantage and many players still go that way. (slaps self for saying that) Fighter on the other hand... just a level dip at most for the feats, then never touched again. IMO getting rid of the different XP tables really through things for a loop. Fighters were tough, and leveled fairly quickly, thieves were middle ground, but leveled fast... couldn't take a lot but were super useful every situation. Wizards, for all their power and glory, took a long time to level up, and will always be a few levels behind the party. The feats were a cool idea, and when it was limited to the PHB it wasn't that bad, but once they started adding book after book... it takes 2-3 hours just to flip through them to see what you want.... if a player is a tweaker... it'll take all day (unless he's an uber-tweaker, and has mapped out his level progression point by point from level 1 to 20 (shudder)). In a thread today, a DM was asking (a valid question) about balancing encounters for his players (they were too strong).. a few replies recommending how to make monsters stronger, then a wave of people "reminding" him to make sure that his players should still level every 13.3 encounters... That leveling has been taken to that... a simple equation... blah -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-25-08 03:45 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Or even the fact that it's about leveling. Or that it's expected. I prefer skill based games much more. Your PC might gain skills, but essentially you have the same hit points as when you started, so in combat you got to really win big, and fast. Most of those games use luck points though. So it's a trade off. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-25-08 06:42 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I don't mind the leveling (it's always been there, it's part of the game), just when it becomes ALL about the leveling (noticed a thread you posted in about a guy who lost 2 levels when he died, and just about everyone but you was complaining how it's harsh to penalize someone like that). I'm more of the "you start at square 1" mindset from 1e... never could figure how they just happened to bump into a 15th level druid just as their buddy died. Plus, as in that thread you posted in, people were commenting on how you can build a character at high level better (since you don't need to "waste" stats/feats on things only useful at low levels). I just avoided that thread all together, sorry for not giving support -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-25-08 08:37 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Yeah, I'm not long for these boards these days. Too much "All you old guys been DMing too long, just go away." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-25-08 10:06 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Etarnon made a good point when he said Classes back in the day were for the flavor, not on who got the most plusses. Many of the younger players today choose classes based on how they can get the most bonuses any thought towards flavor is merely secondary. Older players on the other hand do tend to look at flavor first and if the bonuses are there thats a happy coincidence. For instance, in th 1st edition game I am running, I did away with racial limits (possibly a discussion there for another time) but still the majority of my players opted for humans. In fact I dont think we have a single elf in the party. They could have maxed to the same levels as a human but with a stat bonus, they chose instead to play a human because thats how they envisioned their character. I think it's a sign of gamer maturity to make such a choice. It eliminates the need for everyone to be balanced as well as it is evident from the start that noone is trying to be the baddest guy in the party, they are just trying to make the character they envision come to life. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-28-08 11:04 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I wanted to comment on this, "Gamer Maturity." Far to often I think that this has been set aside in favor of the "Win win win me me me" mind set... best summed up by this: -50 DKP!!!!!!111oneoneoneelevinity - omgwtfbbqpewpewpewlazerbeams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtvIYRrgZ04) And no, I'm not saying WoW is bad. Heck I play the game and its enjoyable. However, I find that the video game mindset (and there are other videos from other games, like the 12 year old who freaks out on his mom while playing halo) which show the same mindset. Players have gone psycho. D&D is just another venue to prove your awesomesauce. It is no longer a cooperative game. Players fight players, they fight the DM. I'm reading what Sunic Flames is posting on the "Whats a DM to Do?" board, and I'm not reading his posts and saying "What a jerk!" though he is, I'm reading his posts and I'm reading the thoughts and minds of an extremely bitter person who has to have total control. I won't speculate as to why. But this is the problem: everyone is fighting to control the game, forgetting that it is a cooperative game. Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-28-08 11:25 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I wanted to comment on this, "Gamer Maturity." Far to often I think that this has been set aside in favor of the "Win win win me me me" mind set... best summed up by this: -50 DKP!!!!!!111oneoneoneelevinity - omgwtfbbqpewpewpewlazerbeams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtvIYRrgZ04) And no, I'm not saying WoW is bad. Heck I play the game and its enjoyable. However, I find that the video game mindset (and there are other videos from other games, like the 12 year old who freaks out on his mom while playing halo) which show the same mindset. Players have gone psycho. D&D is just another venue to prove your awesomesauce. It is no longer a cooperative game. Players fight players, they fight the DM. I'm reading what Sunic Flames is posting on the "Whats a DM to Do?" board, and I'm not reading his posts and saying "What a jerk!" though he is, I'm reading his posts and I'm reading the thoughts and minds of an extremely bitter person who has to have total control. I won't speculate as to why. But this is the problem: everyone is fighting to control the game, forgetting that it is a cooperative game. Rosisha Much of that mentality comes from the fact so many videogames are now set with the player versus player option. They are simply importing the PvP into their roleplay. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-28-08 11:34 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er True. And this is where the debate regarding balance comes in. If the game isn't cooperative, balance is a huge issue. if the game is cooperative then it is not an issue. If a cooperative game has a mage and fighter, the mage buffs the fighter and the fighter goes at it. Ah the good ol days. Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 04-28-08 12:05 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I can easily understand why people wouldn't want to play a human, and it isn't for "kewl powerz". I've been playing AD&D since I was eight, and I've never played a human in all that time. I look in the mirror every day. I play to be something else for awhile. My first character ever was a hal-orc assassin, who eventually went from lawful evil to lawful neutral. My second character was a drow ranger, when Unearthed Arcana just came out. Usually in 1st edition, I played half-orcs, half-elves, and drow. In second edition, I played half-elves and drow or half-drow, then the Humanoids book came out and I started playing minotaurs and ogre-magi... occasionally hob-goblins. I play what I do because it's fun, bth to be something cosmetically different but also the "outsider's voice". The characters are fun role-playing challenges, too. You have to work around the natural PC/ NPC hostility to get things done. What I do isn't for everyone, obviously... but playing a human isn't for me either, so it's fair enough. Of course, the groups I've been in always used kits as well... they're fun, and another way to separate Joe Fighter from Jack Fighter, as it were. When I run, it's a home-brew world that isn't human-dominated... though regions are. And as for the half-breeds, half-orcs have been a PC race since first edition, and rape has been at least hinted at even then (other than Krynn, there are no female minotaurs, they use human women). So to an extent half-breeds don't bother me, it's the sheer numbers they came out with for 3.x (half-dragons, half-demons, things like that should be exceedingly RARE, not a daily occurence). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-28-08 12:39 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Fair enough indeed! I have a not-so-secret love of Gnomes :D Gnomes and humans make up most of my characters actually. I love gnomes. I have the Complete Book of Gnomes & Halflings and consider it the best book ever written. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Beware of gnomes, for you are tall, and your ankles taste good with ketchup! :plotting: Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-28-08 01:19 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I can easily understand why people wouldn't want to play a human, and it isn't for "kewl powerz". I've been playing AD&D since I was eight, and I've never played a human in all that time. I look in the mirror every day. I play to be something else for awhile. Bingo. I don't play a lot of humans in D&D. I do in Traveller, T2K, real life, etc., but D&D gives me the option to be the elf, the half-elf, the dwarf, etc. It's not a question of power, and I don't comb UA looking for elven subraces (anymore, I was a teenager when it came out, so I've done it, if not recently) but sometimes the demihumans are just a way of being different. YMMV, of course. I'm not going to say I haven't seen (and been) the min-maxer at work with that stuff. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-28-08 06:25 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Roshisa: For the sake of sanity, skip by any post by Sunic... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-29-08 02:18 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er LOL Aww going to go ruin my fun. Actually since his last post to me was a blatant hypocracy "You throw around general terms OMGWTFBBQ" later on his post "oh yeah I threw around a general term but thats okay." I'm adding him to my ignore list. I can't stand that kind of two faced approach. And frankly, it just isn't worth responding too. He doesn't want to talk about the merrits of any approach, he just wants to be the Uber Internetz Police and enforce his view on everyone. I say play what you want. God if everyone enjoyed my type of gaming, then it would be boring. Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Mock26 Date : 04-29-08 03:17 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er snip... Well said, by both you and Mr. Gygax. I will like to say that I don't think that there is anything wrong with opening up this particular can of worms, if the can is only opened long enough to allow out one or two worms. In all my years of playing (27) and with the exception of some 3.x games, the only cross breeds that have ever been allowed by my DM's or myself as a DM have been the half-elf, half-orc, and half-ogre. That's it. The first two are kind of core (half-orc disappeared in 2nd edition). As a player one of my favorite characters was Nug the half-ogre, who had an 18/00 strength and an intelligence of 6 or 7. The only advantage that the race gave was a +25% to the strength percentile score and an altered dice rolling system for stats that gave a better chance of getting that base 18 strength. The disadvantages (taking large damage, being number than dirt (part of the original Dragon Magazine "rules" about half-ogres), and being a social outcast and feared by most common folk) far outweighed the advantages. I chose the race because I thought it would be fun to roleplay. And it was! That strength bonus wasn't much help compared to the other fighters. All it basically got me was a +3 vs. a +2 to hit and +6 vs. +3 to +5 on damage, which really isn't all that much. Additionally, none of my DM's had it has a general race, but just something that happens every once in a while. As a DM in my current campaign half-ogres are a standard race that was bred by several evil kingdoms centuries ago. They wanted troops stronger than regular humans but which were smart enough to be decent troops. So, they started breeding programs with their established human slaves and new acquired ogre slaves. Eventually the several kingdoms practicing this had stable breeding stock and they soon had legions of loyal slave troops. These kingdoms, of which there were about 6 in various parts of the Forgotten Realms, eventually fell into ruin and the half-ogre folk fleed across the realms. I allow standard stat determination for Strength and Constitution (4d6 drop the lowest). For Dexterity it is a straight up 3d6. For all others it is 3d6-3. As a whole the half-ogres are a martial race and are often found as mercenaries. My group has come to fear half ogres clad in full platemail and carrying a half-dozen arquebusses each along with a shield and giant axe. I think when done in small and limited doses additional half breeds can add some great flavor and depth to a campaign. But, I do think that the current 3.x system of allowing anything to breed with anything does nothing but promote munchkinism. It seems to me that fewer and fewer players are picking a race for the flavor of it but are instead picking the race based solely on the benefits they can reap from their choice. While there is nothing wrong with that if that is what gives them enjoyment in the game, it is not for me and my group. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Mock26 Date : 04-29-08 03:20 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er However, what kind of makes me scratch my head... ... but does it strike anyone else as a little strange that a lot of the feats share names with abilities in the Player's Option: Combat & Tactics? In fact, doesn't a lot of that book seem to have gone into the Player's Handbook for 3.x??? Also notice that a lot of skills and feats are nothing more than non-weapon and weapon proficiencies? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Extempus Date : 04-29-08 04:59 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er Mock, of course, if someone prefers to play crossbreeds or whatever, that's up to them (assuming the DM allows it). The point I was making is that, and I didn't want to actually say it, but since Vrykolas2k did, many crossbreeds would seem to be the result of rape, so I find it interesting that such a concept, while not actually said anywhere in the rules, is integral to the game, and I do find it rather distasteful. Granted, it's fantasy, so things could possibly interbreed with the aid of magic, but as Gary Gygax was saying in his column from 29 years ago, the main reason players would choose certain crossbreeds is for the advantages they think they can get over everyone else while having few, if any, disadvantages, and that isn't really what the original game was about. In 3e+, anything goes, and I get the impression that players want uber-characters like Khan Singh, a eugenically produced/selectively bred/genetically enhanced superman who took over much of the Earth in the 1990's in Star Trek. I guess I'm too much like Captain Kirk, I don't particularly like such beings... That being said, I did introduce an alu-demon wizardess as an NPC in my campaign many years ago, but such things would seem to be pretty rare, since she is the only one encountered thus far. Any other cross-breeds are very rare, and the ones that do exist are the work of the Scarlet Brotherhood (which is logical, considering they're all evil). Just for fun, I also introduced a fighter/illusionist, who is one of the Winged Folk, and a frostman cleric/fighter/magic-user (it's cool having someone with ice vision!), but they're all low level and are exceptions, not the rule. After 27 years of play, probably 90% of our characters are human, which shows not only our preference, but the fact that, like Gary Gygax' way of thinking, humans have an edge over the other races and dominate most of the worlds we have visited... Either way, something like half-orcs could have been around for centuries and are pretty much a race in their own right, and I could certainly see how they originated. Since elves and humans are very much alike, it would be surprising if half-elves didn't exist! But beyond that (OK, maybe half-ogres too, specifically bred by the Brotherhood)... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 04-29-08 04:01 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er I allowed an alu-demoness a few years ago for a girl I was dating as well... it wasn't imbalanced at all, considering the level cap (10th for anything) and the fact she had to earn an additional 25% xp to level up. I'm not bothered by certain types and amounts of half-breeds... as long as their rarity, occurence and type is logical. 3.x just seems to have taken the thing waaaay too far. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Extempus Date : 04-29-08 09:26 PM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er In 1e, they maxed out at 12th level... mine is currently 13th level (wishes can be quite useful), but considering our highest level human wizard is 23rd level, 13th level is actually quite low and isn't imbalancing... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 04-30-08 12:02 AM Thread Title : Re: A guide to 2nd edition for the 3/3.5er In 1e, they maxed out at 12th level... mine is currently 13th level (wishes can be quite useful), but considering our highest level human wizard is 23rd level, 13th level is actually quite low and isn't imbalancing... She didn't roll the required Int for 12th level... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.