* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Back to the old...Because the new isn't working!? Started at 02-20-05 10:37 PM by Delvesdeep Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=382677 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Delvesdeep Date : 02-20-05 10:37 PM Thread Title : Back to the old...Because the new isn't working!? Why have you chosen to still play the old rules and not the new rules? I have played D&D (like the rest of you here I'm imagining:)) since the the boxed sets first came out but have ridden the 'TSR/WotC Wave' all the way to 3/3.5 Edition. Later though I have been finding it harder to explain why my group should bother trying to wade through the difficult new rules and use the new editions. The problems I have, which we didn't seem to have using the old systems, are - Length of battles As the characters progress into the higher levels a fight seem to take up the complete game! No. of Attacks Characters all get multiple attacks - even the magic users, and rangers can get up to 7 in one round. Monsters also get multiple attacks and magic users can even cast more than one spell a round! Hit Points They never end1 You have hit points well into the hundreds and monsters have hit points that can into the thousands (yes you heard me -thousands in Epic Play). Damage Damage, conversely, does not seem to go up to match the increase in hit points nor the modifiers to hit creatures and characters gain. This means you have to hit a creature or they you, a rediculious amount of times to knock things down! Calculations! Because the modifiers continue to go up and vary for each new attack, skill, damage, spell etc you find yourself continuely pawing over you sheet and then calculating results every action. Roleplay takes a back seat There are skills now that make roleplay near obsolete. Diplomacy, Sense Motive & Intimidate are all designed to have players role the dice and see if their characters were able to relate to a NPC in a certain manner. No roleplay required. You don't even have to try to make up a story or converse in character you just have to add you skill modifier to your role and the jobs done. This is meant to enable players who can not roleplay or are uncomfortable trying, an opportunity to play charismatic characters but what it has done in reality is effectively cease all roleplay. Only those who bend or break these rules now roleplay in the new Editions. Anyway there are plenty of other reasons I have becomed disillusioned with the new editions but the reality is that any new products available will be realised with these rules. Converting such products to the 'old editions' will be time consuming and in many cases impractical but maybe that is the only way to go. Perhaps the answer is to just ignore the new products and just create my own? I did it for years before I became lazy..maybe thats the way to go? What is your views. Delvesdeep:b: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 02-21-05 12:45 AM I play D&D/AD&D 1st Ed. purely for nostalgic reasons.....I played a bit in '79 - '81....lost touch then about 2 years ago bought core books, box sets, mods., etc on Ebay.....call it a mid life crisis at 35....Musn't lose touch w/ youth....brings back memories of how great America was back then ......no BS.......Love 1st Ed. also.......tons of integrity.......not much of a reply sorry.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : rogueattorney Date : 02-21-05 04:36 PM Never stopped playing the old versions. 1e for the more experienced/hard-core gamers, B/X D&D for my more casual 'beer & pretzel' group. 3e just doesn't float my boat. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : weasel fierce Date : 02-22-05 12:31 AM I prefer rules light games. I like many of the ideas they had for D20, but I think many were poorly implemented, and its made as a "package" where you cant pick and choose. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : buzardb8 Date : 02-22-05 04:14 AM Nostalgia, plain and simple. But after going back and forth between versions, I've found it to be pretty easy pare-down 3.x and make it feel like the old days, only more consistent. YMMV of course. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : kengar Date : 02-22-05 09:02 AM I play Moldvay & Cook's Basic/Expert because the rules stay out of your way unless you need them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : I'm Batman Date : 02-22-05 11:20 AM I started with 1E and Basic in '79 (my parents, who bought them for me as a birthday present, didn't know they were two different sets of rules). When 2E came ought I made the switch but quickly discovered a lot of poor changes had been made to the best 1E rules, so I amalgamated what I liked from each edition. And now the same thing has happened with 3E--there are several ideas I like, but too many good 1E (and even 2E) rules were dumped in favour of power-up rules. So I added up all the editions: 0+1+2+3 = 6th edition! And that's my game now. Of course, my players like 3rd edition because of the rapid level gain and the increased powers of low-level characters, so I DM it for them sometimes (currently doing a 3E Greyhawk game). But they'll grow sick of it again--for instance, when someone's 6th-level Fighter is killed in one round by a half-dozen stirges. :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : rogueattorney Date : 02-22-05 05:40 PM Nostalgia, plain and simple. :rolleyes: And this thread was being so polite. Apparently I listen to the Beatles for nostalgic reasons even though that kind of music is old and outdated. I really should be listening to Brittany Spears, since her music is new and hence SOOOO much better. But that nostalgia keeps holding me back from updating my music collection. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : buzardb8 Date : 02-22-05 11:44 PM :rolleyes: And this thread was being so polite. Apparently I listen to the Beatles for nostalgic reasons even though that kind of music is old and outdated. I really should be listening to Brittany Spears, since her music is new and hence SOOOO much better. But that nostalgia keeps holding me back from updating my music collection. R.A. Hey, nostalgia is why _I_ play the old versions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : chatdemon Date : 02-23-05 05:28 AM I've found it to be pretty easy pare-down 3.x and make it feel like the old days, only more consistent. YMMV of course. MMDV. I find it much easier and logical to take the game I know and enjoy and add on things to make it better for my group than to learn a whole new game just because it's had its mechanics streamlined for those who can't grasp subtraction. I also find it logical to venture over to the 3e forums when I want to pimp that game (which isn't often these days, honestly), but maybe that's just me... :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : buzardb8 Date : 02-23-05 11:48 AM MMDV. I find it much easier and logical to take the game I know and enjoy and add on things to make it better for my group than to learn a whole new game just because it's had its mechanics streamlined for those who can't grasp subtraction. I also find it logical to venture over to the 3e forums when I want to pimp that game (which isn't often these days, honestly), but maybe that's just me... :D What sort of things do you find need to be added to make your game better? So do you add in material from products that are currently in print? Not just D&D, mind you, but any game. Or do you just add material of your creation? BTW, it's just you, if I was a pimp, I wouldn't be playing D&D... :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Elendur Date : 02-23-05 12:18 PM Delvesdeep: Many people don't use the social skills of 3e, or restrict their use severely. And many of the other problems you mentioned are reasons why I tend to prefer a low level campaign, no matter what the system. That said, if the rules are giving you and your players trouble, you should definitely stick with what what you enjoy. The rules are meant to facilitate play, not dictate play style. As for new products, I don't think conversion back to older editions will be that hard. Since the old rules are more streamlined there's just less stuff to deal with. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Son_of_Thunder Date : 02-23-05 02:54 PM Thread Title : All of the above! Why I returned to earlier editions. Answer: All of the above. The two things that really make me cranky are as follows: Skill System. Why on this earth should a warrior, who's sole purpose is as a watchman on the tower, have to buy listen and spot as cross class skills? I know, I know, just change it for my game, but .... Implied level of magic use. A character of a certain level should have X amount of magic to fight this CR monster. Screw game balance. Yes, I know I could change this too. A few things that bother me: Here we go round the mulberry bush. Each new book has X number of new prestige classes, feats, skills, spells, and magic items. Rinse.... repeat...blah options. I could go on but why? Son of Thunder -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : RobertFisher Date : 02-23-05 03:42 PM It took me a long time to figure out why I was unhappy with post-2000 D&D. It looked like I should've liked it, but I didn't. I still don't know that I really know why. In any case, I try not to dwell on what I don't like about post-2000 D&D. I just have found that I really like the simplicity of classic D&D. The nostalgic feelings are just gravy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 02-23-05 04:03 PM Just a reminder that this is the OOP board, not a "Bash the current edition" board. So, let's see some topics about your favorite OOP edition! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Delvesdeep Date : 02-23-05 06:01 PM Thread Title : Just a question of preferences... Sorry WizO_Paradox, I'm sorry if this thread seemed to be aimed at putting down the newer editions of our great game. My fundamental objective wasn't to begin a 'Why we hate 3rd Ed' thread but more to just find out why people who use this forum have chosen to use the older editions in preference to the newer systems. From my very limited experience with this forum it appears to attract players that do questions things and don't accept things without question. Many of them seem to be saying, they don't necessarily dislike every aspect of the new editions but rather prefer to use the best 'bits' to enhance the older versions which they use as their base system. My agenda here is to find out if I should do the same. Delvesdeep:b: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 02-23-05 11:14 PM From what I hear about 2nd through 3.5 editions...it seems that the game can get really bogged down in technicalities.......D&D/AD&D was great because the core rules are given, you can use most and still have a relatively nice flow....there are things that I don't use such as encumbrance, but I may start to incorporate it.....(seems silly lugging all the treasure w/ you...... may as well stash it and hope it's there when you return!) Also I don't use psionics (yet), may never, but there are other rules (too tired now to go and find other examples) that I find to be pointless....they're there if you want them....a brilliant gaming system..... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : GreyLord Date : 02-24-05 08:04 AM Just a reminder that this is the OOP board, not a "Bash the current edition" board. So, let's see some topics about your favorite OOP edition! ergo sarcasm on Just a reminder that this is WotC does not like criticism...constructive or not...about the current edition. Let's see some topics about your favorite OOP edition whilst excluding any reasons that you might play it if it seems anything but complimentary to the current edition. sarcasm off (Oddly enough WotC is one of the few companies which have this policy...wonder why. I just came from another game board of a game currently selling several hundred thousand copies this month [yes it's a vidgame] where people are just destroying the game comment wise in their criticisms of the game. I of course am opposed to what most of them are saying...however...despite how many and how strongly some are stating thier items...the boards still remain. Then there was Bioware and their normal attacks against their games if anyone remembers their NWN release. There are many other examples...it's just funny how some just can't accept criticism...but then, I know why but it's not appreciated when I state the reason on these boards). Now, just for the record, before Wiz Paradox crushes me under his big foot...Ironically I do play 3.5 D&D. I think it's a great improvement over the OOP edition 3.0 D&D. I think it cleared up many of the rules there that were rather vague and hard to understand. As a 3.5 player I didn't find anything in this thread that was even close to being offensive or "bashing" the current edition. Of course I also graduated from Elementary School decades ago so I don't take offense if someone chooses to wear different clothes or play a different game than I. Hence why I suppose the only way I could interpret the Wizo's statement as stated above, if incorrect would be nice for the Wizo to clarify their intent. As for older editions before WotC's time...I typically will play 1e currently when I'm in the mood for something with Archtypes. I like playing where a class is a solid class if I choose to play an older edition. Unfortunately, I cannot give the other reasons of why I might enjoy other older editions when I play them on this board as per the post by the WizO above...and trying to at least give a semblance of keeping that in order. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : RobertFisher Date : 02-24-05 11:53 AM For what it's worth, here's a link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=4114732&postcount=21) to a previous post of mine on why I prefer classic D&D. (:eek: I can't believe I used the word "meme"! :rolleyes:) I think that B/X D&D already had many, if not most, of the things I like about 3e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Delvesdeep Date : 02-24-05 08:43 PM Thread Title : Which rules DO YOU LIKE from the new editions and have incorporated them? My First Love My theory for my, and many others, disillusionment of the current system is similiar to that of a 'first love'. Every other partner (or game system in this circumstance) is consciously and unconsciously measured up to and compared to that person who first opened your eyes to a whole new array of emotions and thoughts. :love: :dancin: :gift: (sorry I don't usually use smilies and wanted an excuse to try them out ;) ) I believe that today I attempt to change every system I use into 1st Edition D&D because it was the system where I was first enchanted by the game, where I first developed my love affair with roleplay and where I was given the sense of excitement and thrill that even today, decades after I began, I find myself continuously seeking to recapture. My Struggles This is why I struggled with the idea that classes should have access to skills and abilities that had always been exclusive in the 1st & 2nd Editions. I struggled with the idea that magic users could be damage during spell casting and still cast a spell. I struggled with the idea that you could multiclass 2,3,4,5 and more times and not be clearly penalised. I struggled with how driven the game was with numbers and how roleplay seemed to be forgotten. I struggled with how an orc could do more than 1d12 damage to my first level party! I struggled with how a wizard could have 8hp at first level and cast 3 1st level spells. I struggled with the Attacks of Opportunity and how rules driven combat seemed to be. Anyhow this is probably more of an introspective post that a discussion point but I wonder which rules people do like from the new systems which they have adapted for/into the older systems? Delvesdeep:b: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 02-24-05 10:19 PM ergo sarcasm on Just a reminder that this is WotC does not like criticism...constructive or not...about the current edition. Let's see some topics about your favorite OOP edition whilst excluding any reasons that you might play it if it seems anything but complimentary to the current edition. sarcasm off Truth On: There's a difference between criticsm and constant bashing and endless, pointless flamewars that plauged this board to the point where people wondered where the OOP topics were considering all the threads were nothing but to bash the current edition. There are folks who want to do nothing more than have flame wars and gripe fests about the current D&D game. We went down that road, and it didn't work. We finally cleaned up this board for people that really want to talk about OOP games rather than focus on 3e. It's an OOP board. Not a Flame 3e board. Truth remains On. Hence why I suppose the only way I could interpret the Wizo's statement as stated above, if incorrect would be nice for the Wizo to clarify their intent. Always better to have a "Yo, heads up. Let's not start flame bait topics again." than have to issue warnings after the fact. Nobody is getting warnings over this, nobody's in trouble. Just an alert to someone who might not have known what this board has already went through. :) Sorry WizO_Paradox Nah, no worries. See above comment. Many of them seem to be saying, they don't necessarily dislike every aspect of the new editions but rather prefer to use the best 'bits' to enhance the older versions which they use as their base system. My agenda here is to find out if I should do the same. Yep. I've got many editions of the game and in fact sometimes confuse what rule set I'm playing in. But, all the previous D&D games were all hodge podge events anyway so using rules from everywhere is nothing new to me. Eberron, for example, could be used with earlier editions with some tweaking. (Of course what D&D game doesn't have any tweaking at all?) Way back when I was using some older 1st edition material with my 2nd edition game. I'd even use the old LJN characters (Strongheart, Warduke) in those days. It was a lot of fun. "I remember those guys!" one of the players said. My favorite maps would be the color ones in the later days of the Basic game. (Mystara.) They were done in full color and in hexes. I'd use some of those maps as treasue for 2nd edition games as well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : xeno_macht Date : 02-25-05 04:06 AM "I believe that today I attempt to change every system I use into 1st Edition D&D because it was the system where I was first enchanted by the game, where I first developed my love affair with roleplay and where I was given the sense of excitement and thrill that even today, decades after I began, I find myself continuously seeking to recapture. " I feel the same. I started with 2nd Ed in the early 90s, and it just became second nature. I can still open my DMG or PHB to within a few pages of exactly what information I need on the first try. As for what I use from the new edition, I like how any race can be any class, something that sometimes bothered me in the old editions. It allows players to create strange and exciting characters, yet since each race has their "favored class", it allows for some realism in there as well, preventing the entire race from taking up the alien class. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : I'm Batman Date : 02-25-05 06:50 AM Hmmm. I started with 1E and basic mixed together. Since then, I've been trying to make it more like GURPS. Wonder what that means.... Anyhow this is probably more of an introspective post that a discussion point but I wonder which rules people do like from the new systems which they have adapted for/into the older systems? I like my critters to have attribute stats. I also like attributes to go above 25, so I've got more room to work with. And I like dropping the whole percentile Strength thing (although it wasn't such a bad arrangement). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : WizO_Catoblepas Date : 02-25-05 10:20 PM Personally, I just consider them all great games with different nuances. As for older versions of D&D and nostalgia, I really don't consider that to be a insult to older D&D to say that you do it for nostalgia. That is one of the things that I like about 1st edition AD&D - I can open my books, review the rules, and it takes me back to my high school days. Figuring that I'm getting ready to go to my 20th high school reunion this year, anything that helps remind me of my youth is a good thing. edit: Edited my thread because to clarify what I meant. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Stonebeard Date : 02-25-05 10:34 PM Why do i play the old editions of D&D? One very simple reason, its what i know. Why learn a new system? What could possibly work better than me winging it, cause whatever version you play you ultimately end up winging it if your a DM. If your a player (and any good) then your pushing the limits of whatever set of rules your using. Its impossible to have a rule for everything that comes up in a game and while some versions may or may not try they will ultimately fail. But you gotta start somewhere. For me its first edition i use that as my spring board for adventure because I can recall just about any rule i ever need and know instinctively where to find the rest in the rule books. It could just as easily have been second edition if I had gotten into the game 10 years later or even third edition if I had gotten into it more recently. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : weasel fierce Date : 02-26-05 02:58 AM Not a lot of D20, that I think would enhance AD&D. Improving attributes is a good idea, though I would make it semi random, and keep racial maximums. Extra Ranger options are nice. Feats are a nice idea, but very poorly executed. I'd rather see something like what Hackmaster did. As for the rest of the changes.. mostly things that either werent needed, or were already provisioned for, but just done differently. Though to be fair, its different games. AD&D is traditional high fantasy. D20 is superheroic fantasypunk. Neither is nescesarily better or worse than the other, depending on what your tastes are. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : I'm Batman Date : 02-26-05 04:06 AM Feats are a nice idea, but very poorly executed. I'd rather see something like what Hackmaster did. Hruh?!* What did Hackmaster do? *That's the noise I make when something unexpectedly interesting gets my attention. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : weasel fierce Date : 02-26-05 04:18 AM Hackmaster did a lot of nice things, though in regards to feats, they essentially offered a load of small edges and advantages for your character. Things like +1 to hit with a particular weapon, slightly better aptitudes with some things, etc. Similar to many of D20's low level feats, but without the stacking and high powered results. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : I'm Batman Date : 02-26-05 08:53 AM Oh yeah, now I remember asking that before. I'm old, Gandalf.... I added Advantages and Disadvantages to my own game, after seeing something similar in one of the 2E Player's Options books--must've been Skills & Powers. My list started out with modified versions from there, then expanded with modified GURPS material, and finally I added my own ideas (and scoured the internet for other people's ideas, natch). I like Advantages and Disadvantages, although it greatly adds to the time required for my players to create characters--and they do tend to min/max as much as the system will allow. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Michael Proteau Date : 02-26-05 12:36 PM Thread Title : Alternatives I don't dislike 3.5 but at times find it unweildly and slow paced. I like the elegance and simplicity of the core d20 mechanic but find too much has been tied to it making it much mor complex than it needs to be. I like the visceral feel and pace of the older editions, but some of the mechanics lack the simplicity and ease of use that the current edition does. I did find an alternative though in the Castles and Crusades game from Troll Lords, and OGL game that really can bridge the gap between editions. It feels and plays like the D&D I longed for but has the best of the current mechanics. It is modualr enough and easy enough to convert on the fly that I can bring in and use my favorite adventures and materials from any of the previous or current editions ofD&D with minimal effort. And the icing on the cake is that EGG himself is producing new material based on his classic home campaign for C&C. It has been a breath of fresh air for me, giving me a core to use all the things I like about D&D old and new, and modular enough to let me make any modifcations to my tastes with amazing ease. It has me pouring through lder material with a new eye and evaluating new material based on what I like not just what is available. -M -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : weasel fierce Date : 02-26-05 04:02 PM C&C does look extremely interesting indeed. Im hoping to pick up a copy in the near future -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 02-27-05 02:21 PM I did find an alternative though in the Castles and Crusades game from Troll Lords... Nice off-topic pimp of an in-print game on a thread about OOP games on an OOP forum. If you have nothing to say about returning to OOP gaming (the subject of the thread, if you'll read the title) why exactly are you posting? :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : WizO_Catoblepas Date : 02-27-05 02:46 PM Well, I think he meant to use it as to suggest that the new product in question has the flavor of the OoP editions which is an answer to one of the concerns with the new editions. As for mentioning C&C on this board, we're o.k. with it as long as it is done sporatically and with reference to the older D&D editions - like as was mentioned, this is the OoP board first and foremost. Just so we're all on the same page. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Delvesdeep Date : 02-27-05 07:15 PM Thread Title : From the ground up Rules Simplicity I am a big fan of the general simplicity of the early editions. They have an excellent rules foundation which can be built upon easily when the an unforseen circumstance arises. My problem with the later systems is the amount and complexity of the rules. As i mentioned earlier I don't feel their needs to be skills/rules to assist you in roleplay. Initiative What I do like from the new editions is the use of initiative which rewards quicker, usually less combat proficent characters with the first strike. Attack vs AC I also like the attack vs AC system as I found the THACO a bit confusing for general play particularly for new players. The problem with this though is that this positive becomes a negative in higher level play as the AC and attack modifiers esculate to almost ridiculous heights as I mentioned in my initial post. Strength Percentile I never felt that the exclusivity of the percentile strength was a negative. I always enjoyed the fact that every class had a distinct role and was an essentual piece of the party structure. I feel that has been lost in the later editions with an overlap of abilities and skills. The fact that the fighters were the only classes to high strength and constitution was a benefit in my eyes not a negative. XP I really like the experience point concept in the newer editions. I had difficulties with the idea that a magic-user could theoretically fire off 5 magic missiles into five creatures and be rewarded with a share of experience points from each. Also the cleric that stopped fighting to heal or the thief that spent half the battle moving unseen into place were punished rather than rewarded for playing in character with a lower XP share. Rewarding the whole party with an equal share seems logical to me. The only downfall with this newer system is that it does not reward characters for heroic acts or a brilliant series of attacks but I guess it all evens out in the end. It doesn't stop DMs from rewarding players for such acts in XP or other rewards. Anyhow thanks for all your input to date. Delvesdeep:b: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : weasel fierce Date : 02-27-05 07:46 PM Initiative What I do like from the new editions is the use of initiative which rewards quicker, usually less combat proficent characters with the first strike. Im not entirely familiar with the new initiative system. How does it work, and how does it assist less proficient characters ? Attack vs AC I also like the attack vs AC system as I found the THACO a bit confusing for general play particularly for new players. The problem with this though is that this positive becomes a negative in higher level play as the AC and attack modifiers esculate to almost ridiculous heights as I mentioned in my initial post. To me, both are the same. The calculation is exactly the same. Either you have THAC0 - AC = number to hit or you have AC - BAB = number to hit. For new players, ascending numbers is propably easier to figure out, I guess XP I really like the experience point concept in the newer editions. I had difficulties with the idea that a magic-user could theoretically fire off 5 magic missiles into five creatures and be rewarded with a share of experience points from each. Also the cleric that stopped fighting to heal or the thief that spent half the battle moving unseen into place were punished rather than rewarded for playing in character with a lower XP share. Rewarding the whole party with an equal share seems logical to me. The only downfall with this newer system is that it does not reward characters for heroic acts or a brilliant series of attacks but I guess it all evens out in the end. It doesn't stop DMs from rewarding players for such acts in XP or other rewards. Uhm, Im not sure which XP system you are talking about. In AD&D1st edition, XP from a battle are divided evenly between every character that took part in the battle in some way or form. Mentzers edition of Classic D&D doesnt even specify that far. It just states that all XP earned are divided between the members of the party. I dont have a 2nd edition AD&D book with me, so I cant check there, but I'd be surprised if it had anything like you describe above. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Delvesdeep Date : 02-28-05 12:13 AM Thread Title : Xp?? weasel fierce, thanks for your quick reply! Im not entirely familiar with the new initiative system. How does it work, and how does it assist less proficient characters ? Instead of the party simply rolling one d6 to figure out the initiative of the party player individually roll a d20 and add their Dex modifier to figure out their order. This rewards quicker more dexterious individuals with more likelihood of action before the more slower to react individuals. Their is also a feat you can purchase (you gain one of these every 3 levels) which gives you an additional +4 to your initiative roll. Uhm, Im not sure which XP system you are talking about. In AD&D1st edition, XP from a battle are divided evenly between every character that took part in the battle in some way or form. Mentzers edition of Classic D&D doesnt even specify that far. It just states that all XP earned are divided between the members of the party. I dont have a 2nd edition AD&D book with me, so I cant check there, but I'd be surprised if it had anything like you describe above. Interesting. Perhaps our interpretation of the XP system was in fact out of kilter with the true ruling. The XP system i was refering to was the 2nd Ed but it is quite possible that our understanding has been incorrect for many years now. My group would be certainly interested to know if we have been :). Either way if you can let me know I would be very thankful. One thing can say about the old XP system is that you didn't seem to progress up through the levels any where near as quickly. Players bearly get time to get used to the abilities/powers they gain from their new level before they are ready to go up again. Players regularly go up a whole level in one session of play. This also makes for less roleplay opportunities, chance to gain allies, ties to locations/land etc. Thanks for all your help Delvesdeep:b: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : weasel fierce Date : 02-28-05 12:44 AM Thanks for the initiative explanation. I know we used a modifier based off dex for initiative in our 2nd edition games, but it was propably a house rule. AD&D1 and classic D&D just uses a plain D6, which is faster but less accurate for duels and suchlikes. Regarding XP, I'll check when I dig out my 2nd edition books, uinless someone else beats me to the punch. It does seem that D20 is geared towards faster advancement, particular since the XP requirements are much lower (I havent really compared monsters a lot so cant tell if the XP given out is equal or not), though thats a valid choice of course. I usually give more XP for the first 2 levels, then ease up and take it slow after they hit third or fourth -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : I'm Batman Date : 03-03-05 06:44 AM Thanks for the initiative explanation. I know we used a modifier based off dex for initiative in our 2nd edition games, but it was propably a house rule. AD&D1 and classic D&D just uses a plain D6, which is faster but less accurate for duels and suchlikes. I always used 1d10 plus initiative mods (Dex and weapon speed et al). Wasn't that the 2E version, or did someone so impress me with their houserule that I latched onto it? Regarding XP, I'll check when I dig out my 2nd edition books, uinless someone else beats me to the punch. I dunno, I tried to stick with the 1E XP system as much as possible. But to the best of my understanding, 2E XP was split evenly amongst everyone who "partook" in the battle (generally speaking, if they were there and actually in some sort of danger, even if they turned out to be no help at all). Seems to me just as many 2E Wizards stood in the back and sponged up XPs as did 1E Magic-Users. ;) There were individual rewards given for use of class abilities, though, I remember that much--Warriors for HD of defeated foes, Wizards and Priests for casting spells, etc. But that might have been one of 2E's famous (blue section) Optional Rules. It does seem that D20 is geared towards faster advancement, particular since the XP requirements are much lower (I havent really compared monsters a lot so cant tell if the XP given out is equal or not), though thats a valid choice of course. XP for 3E flows like water. If you're thirsty, it's great, but if you're a sipper (like me) you find yourself inundated. Orcs, for instance: In 1E/2E, a good orc might be worth 15 or 20 XP; in 3E, they'd be worth at least 150. I prefer slower advancement, gives me time to "fit into" my character. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Monteblanco Date : 03-03-05 09:34 AM I've moved back to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia because it includes much less detail than the curren edition but still covers all I need. Better yet, it does it all in a single volume. There are a number of things I dislike in d20, such as the broken skill system (have you noticed how hard it is to pick a medieval lock?), and the feats. New players criticize old edition in terms that there was a myriad of rules. That's fair, however, d20 just replace them with feats, which are just a myriad of rules exceptions. A friend of mine never moved to d20 D&D and he still running his game with 2nd edition AD&D. He says he spent too much money with AD&D products and he argues that there aren't enough benefits to replace his library. I believe that this is a strong argument. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : havard Date : 03-03-05 11:15 AM I've moved back to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia because it includes much less detail than the curren edition but still covers all I need. Better yet, it does it all in a single volume. Yep. The RC is a wonderful sourcebook, since it covered so much within one book! :) There are a number of things I dislike in d20, such as the broken skill system (have you noticed how hard it is to pick a medieval lock?), and the feats. New players criticize old edition in terms that there was a myriad of rules. That's fair, however, d20 just replace them with feats, which are just a myriad of rules exceptions. I wouldnt say the skill system is broken. Flawed yes, but not broken. The setting of the DCs is what I dislike most about it, so I just ignore the rules for setting DCs and determine my own. If I was going to run an RC game these days, Id probably import the D20 skill system, rather than use the General Skills from the RC tho. 3E is indeed suffering from the same problem as AD&D did, with the vast number of rules available in various books. When I play 3E, I usually stick to the Core Books only for rules/feats. I suppose I could have done the same was I ever to run an AD&D game. A friend of mine never moved to d20 D&D and he still running his game with 2nd edition AD&D. He says he spent too much money with AD&D products and he argues that there aren't enough benefits to replace his library. I believe that this is a strong argument. If you are happy with one system, there is no reason to change. However, many of the new books are of wonderful quality, so I'd pick up some of them even if I was using the older systems. Currently I am using the older supplements for 3E instead, but that is just a matter of preference. I have noticed a drop in product quality from WotC lately though... Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Elendur Date : 03-03-05 11:30 AM I just have to say, rules aside, WotC books are some of the best rpg books ever made in terms of production values. For example I think every D&D fan owes it to himself to check out the 3e Draconomicon, the artwork is just superb. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Thailfi Date : 03-03-05 11:58 AM Our group has played of 1e/2e campaign going on 25 years now. We are still finding things in the rules we don't do correctly. We have a large monetary investment in the old editions. We still have a lot of 1e/2e material that we have not used. So to sum up, we still play 1e/2e because: 1. We still have a lot of fun. 2. We don't want to make the requisite monetary investment in 3e. 3. We don't want to make the requisite investment of time needed to become adept eith the new rules. We are learning them a little bit at a time using D&D games like Neverwinter Nights. 4. We want to use up all of the old edition material we have before thinking about converting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-03-05 01:43 PM Regarding initiative. D10+weapon speed and other mods is 2nd edition. Actually, its the optional individual initiative from 2nd ed. Standard initiative in AD&D2 is a D10, and a few modifiers that only apply if they apply to everyone in hte party. But most people used the individual initiative above. I prefer AD&D1 initiative. D6 unmodified, draws are determined by weapon speed. In charge combat, weapon length determines rather than initiative. Spell casting in melee is a pain though -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Monteblanco Date : 03-03-05 05:09 PM I just have to say, rules aside, WotC books are some of the best rpg books ever made in terms of production values. For example I think every D&D fan owes it to himself to check out the 3e Draconomicon, the artwork is just superb. Funny, to me, 3e Draconomicon was the most disapointing product WotC ever published. From early descriptions, I was expecting some sort of art book, one of those you put over your living room table. Despite being nice, the actual book doesn't have as much art as I was expecting and far too much crunch. Definetly a case of high misplaced expectatives, nevertherless, a great disapointment. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Elendur Date : 03-03-05 07:34 PM Safe to say then that opinions vary :) Did you like the art that was in it? I loved that there was a depiction of every color dragon in every size, so you could see their development. And artwork of sample lairs for each dragon, depictions of how dragons take flight, views of their differing wingspans when viewed from the ground, etc. I loved that stuff, and it would be useful no matter what edition you play in. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Varl Date : 03-06-05 04:55 PM Well, everyone has pretty much already stated most of the reasons why I've stayed with AD&D 2e. The only things I've found I liked out of d20 were the stats added for creatures, creature tomes for ideas on new beasties (who can't use those for inspiration?), and the lore included in FR supplements that can be used in any edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : protonik Date : 03-11-05 10:01 PM I probably started out the weirdest of all the people on this board. I began with a combination of the 1e PHB, the OD&D box (I got it for 3 dollars at a yard sale in 1989) and a few adventures. I will never be able to recreate that nostalgic ruleset we created with these few books because it was so long ago and many of these materials are no longer available to me. It was in 1990 that I got a 2e DMG and we got a really good idea of how the game played (weird huh) but it had only been a few months since we started anyway. Not long after I got the PHB for 2e and using the DMG, PHB and Monsters & Treasure book with a few of the MC's like the FR, Ravenloft and Kara Tur MC's we ran probably the most fun campaign I can imagine. I was a Kender Druid and we played to the 36th level using the Master Set guidelines and into Immortality (we didn't play an Immortals level game, just the quests). It was fun, we played just about everyday and during school most days and all weekend. I quit D&D in 1998. I got to a point where I could NOT STAND 2e, the rules proliferation was worse than anything out there with the PHBR series, the PLayer's Anything But Option Series etc. I don't mind unbalanced kits etc, but Kit proliferation was waaaaay worse than Prestige Classes (though they are getting there in the annoying factor). As far as unbalanced kits go, it is the DM's job to keep the players with those kits from stealing the show. It wasn't so essential in 2e as it is in 3e though. In 98 I was all pumped for the return of Greyhawk, bought the revised core books (I had up to that point REFUSED to purchase the revised stuff) but that stuff was so mangled and poorly edited, thought out and man, it was just bad. Hey, let's give them a list of gods and not tell them ANYTHING about them and that map... blach. I had high hopes for D&D under WOTC and it just fell flat until 3e for me. I started playing again when 3e came out. It captures that nostalgic feel and at the same time was something new. The whole back to the dungeon aethetic and the dungeon punk look really appealed to me and I created a new group here in Logan. We played 3e until after 3.5 came out and I still LOVE 3.0, it wasn't as complex and didn't have the overflow of Prestige classes, extra rules etc. Even with 3.5 you could run several years worth of games with just the core rulebook so I don't really see the complaints about rulescreep. But I am kind of sick of generating high level stat blocks and the multiple attacks and the rapid advancement etc. I started yearning for a faster system, more rules lite and free form and I hooked up with a 2e group and man is it a blast playing with those old rules. I am stuck on a lot of rules though and forget how to calculate THAC0 etc sometimes. I still HATE the PHBR series outside of the core classes (PHBR1-4). I started remembering why I loved D&D after poring over the stat inflated 3e books and then looking at my fluffy collection of 2e books. 3e just seems to be all about rules in the supplements and not about who does what and who lives where and how people worship this god compared to how these people over here worship that same god. I miss that stuff. Basically, 3e does it for me but I tend to prefer the quicker play of older editions. I like the always roll high mechanic though and I decided I am going to look at Castles & Crusades a bit and prolly use that or just go out and out 2e! Maybe I will just buy up a stash of 3.0 PHBs and the class books from 3.0 and run with them. LOL Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-12-05 01:39 AM I must admit that Im amazed when I see the statblocks for 3.x monsters and bad guys. Soo much, and how much of it is actually used ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : protonik Date : 03-12-05 02:00 PM I agree Weasel, but it depends on if you use minis or not in some cases with stat blocks but overall all that is needed is a monster write up in the back and in the actual module: BAB, Saving Throws, Armor Class, Damage, pertinent skills for the encounter, and feats. I recently got E-tools and boy, the 1.5 version really cleans up that mess and cuts waaaaaaaaay down on the amount of time needed to create 3e adventures. They should try and get patches to use for Star Wars and D20 Modern. The program IS that much better and Dundjinni you get the full Master Tools experience to boot! Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 03-15-05 06:39 AM Why have you chosen to still play the old rules and not the new rules? What is your views. Delvesdeep:b: Having never tried anything 3 or 3.5 I won't comment on them. I play 2E with some of the PO books thrown in. I play those rules because I know them well and once you know the rules well for any game it makes "on the fly" gaming and decision making so easy. I figure it's not the rules that make munchkins, powergamers, thespians, quiet guys, elf lovers, etc. A guy's gonna play what a guy's gonna play. We've played super hero games, wild west games, spy games, and each guy usually plays the same way no matter what the rules. So why bother changing? Just because a newer set of rules might make game play faster or slower won't stop Johnny Big Sword from charging the monster. Or having every dice roll be on a d6 or a d20 won't make Rick Quiet Man any more of an ebullient actor. Just my opinion, of course. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 03-15-05 06:39 AM Why have you chosen to still play the old rules and not the new rules? What is your views. Delvesdeep:b: Having never tried anything 3 or 3.5 I won't comment on them. I play 2E with some of the PO books thrown in. I play those rules because I know them well and once you know the rules well for any game it makes "on the fly" gaming and decision making so easy. I figure it's not the rules that make munchkins, powergamers, thespians, quiet guys, elf lovers, etc. A guy's gonna play what a guy's gonna play. We've played super hero games, wild west games, spy games, and each guy usually plays the same way no matter what the rules. So why bother changing? Just because a newer set of rules might make game play faster or slower won't stop Johnny Big Sword from charging the monster. Or having every dice roll be on a d6 or a d20 won't make Rick Quiet Man any more of an ebullient actor. Just my opinion, of course. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : protonik Date : 03-15-05 02:38 PM I XP for 3E flows like water. If you're thirsty, it's great, but if you're a sipper (like me) you find yourself inundated. Orcs, for instance: In 1E/2E, a good orc might be worth 15 or 20 XP; in 3E, they'd be worth at least 150. I prefer slower advancement, gives me time to "fit into" my character. :) Well sort of, INDIVIDUALLY an Orc is worth 150 but that is spread through the party in however many ways depending on the size of the party. Adding levels to them etc increased that value. In 2e an Orc is worth 15-650 XP depending on his caste etc within the tribe. What needs to be kept in mind though is that 3e IS more lethal as Monsters work on the same BAB system as the PC classes and races and have variable attributes. I prefer a slower levelling myself, much like you but I find that after about 3rd level that level advancement is a heck of a lot slower than those first few levels and is really noticeable at level 5. In the early levels all the monsters are equal to you or better but when you hit level five, many are weaker and while a lot are stronger, you won't necessarily run into them... ever. A 1st level Orc warrior gets worth less and less the higher in level you go to the point where he is worth nothing at all. If the party were CONSTANTLY facing CR monsters equal to or greater than their level, well, they would advance at the same rate EVERY level. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 03-15-05 02:54 PM I just have to say, rules aside, WotC books are some of the best rpg books ever made in terms of production values. For example I think every D&D fan owes it to himself to check out the 3e Draconomicon, the artwork is just superb. I'm going to have to digress. The third edition D&D books have to be some of the worst looking RPG product, ever. Dark sepia-toned text on light (and glossy) sepia-toned paper? These attempts to make the books and supplements look like DARK AND MYSTERIOUS TOMES falls flat, and speaks volumes about the content. Black font on white paper with the occasional in-line illustration. TSR got it right the first time. Oh, and who's idea was it to make the books frangiable? (Oh, wait, that was the Blumes' fault shortly after Gary left.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : Elendur Date : 03-15-05 03:27 PM As I said, opinions vary. Fortunately both styles are available in the marketplace. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : protonik Date : 03-15-05 06:11 PM Sepia font? WTF are you talking about? Looks black to me... Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 03-15-05 06:35 PM If the party were CONSTANTLY facing CR monsters equal to or greater than their level, well, they would advance at the same rate EVERY level. IME this seems to be the most common way to run 3e games. If anything, the description of the CR system in the 3e DMG encouraged this type of game. I've never seen a DM who started with 3rd ed. run games where the PCs regularly run into monsters of a CR more than 1 or 2 below the party's average level. But that is a player preference issue. Potentially it's a "rules interpretation" issue (with the rule descriptions being at fault for discouraging or not adequately illustrating a certain option). However, I would agree it's not really a mechanics issue. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-16-05 12:37 AM The books do encourage and promote a different sort of attitude. If you have never played anything else, you are going to most likely go with what the books offer. Ever played through the classic B2 module ? Skirmished with the goblins, when the ogre wades in ? Thought "oh my *&#@ god, we're so going to die" ? Thats what adventure gaming is all about -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : okaynowa Date : 03-17-05 08:29 AM This thread makes me so incredibly frustrated that all my 1st and 2nd edition books are sitting on the other side of the Atlantic. I have the overwhelming urge to look at the equipment tables and see the bec de corbin's to-hit bonus against different armor class types, to see the intellect devourer's psionic attack and defense modes, to recall the maximum Strength score for a female gnome... And you know, with the right DM, regardless of edition, all the rules go out the window when that die comes up a natural "1" or a natural "20." Man, I love this game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : kengar Date : 03-17-05 02:40 PM This thread makes me so incredibly frustrated that all my 1st and 2nd edition books are sitting on the other side of the Atlantic. I have the overwhelming urge to look at the equipment tables and see the bec de corbin's to-hit bonus against different armor class types, to see the intellect devourer's psionic attack and defense modes, to recall the maximum Strength score for a female gnome... And you know, with the right DM, regardless of edition, all the rules go out the window when that die comes up a natural "1" or a natural "20." Man, I love this game. You could buy 1e books as PDFs at http://www.rpgnow.com/default.php?cPath=1_297& ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : okaynowa Date : 03-18-05 03:07 AM Gasp! So much more portable... my wife will approve. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : I'm Batman Date : 03-18-05 03:12 AM Well sort of, INDIVIDUALLY an Orc is worth 150 but that is spread through the party in however many ways depending on the size of the party. But that's exactly the same method of XP sharing throughout all the editions. In 2e an Orc is worth 15-650 XP depending on his caste etc within the tribe. The same Orc in 3E would be worth what? 150 to 1800? What needs to be kept in mind though is that 3e IS more lethal as Monsters work on the same BAB system as the PC classes and races and have variable attributes. Actually, 1E monsters had better THAC0s than any of the character classes. What makes the 3E monsters more lethal is the extra damage they do now, through higher basic weapon damage (up to 1d12) and Strength bonuses (heh heh, how many 3E monsters have 10 Strengths?). PCs have access to the same extra damage sources, though. As the end result, it is more dangerous to face larger numbers of opponents in 3E than it is in previous editions. A 1st level Orc warrior gets worth less and less the higher in level you go to the point where he is worth nothing at all. That's pretty much a requirement of the 3E XP system--you need less XP to advance than in previous editions. One of the things I've noticed in 3E, however, is that the party is almost constantly facing monsters of slightly higher CR than the party average character level. You see it in all of the published adventures. Fifth level parties, for example, will usually face a CR 7 or 8 monster toward the end. We normally gain a level every gaming session, unless we're taking it easy (doing a lot of shopping, non-adventure role-playing, or talking out of character). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 03-20-05 11:06 PM The whole "CR" system is a set of fetters clapped on to the wrists of DMs who should be doing a little thinking for themselves. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : I'm Batman Date : 03-21-05 01:26 AM You just made me look up the word "fetters." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : rathbaster Date : 03-22-05 04:26 PM Why play out of print games? As the years have slid into decades, I see older rules light systems as new ground to tread (with our many years of experience) and easier to implement. I started gaming back around 1980 or so, and have come to many conclusions as the years have passed. One of the most recent conclusions in that the simpler the game system, the more tendency there is to role play rather than roll dice. I don't exactly understand why this may be so, but none-the-less it seems to be a fact with my players and myself. (Other people's experience may vary.) One of my players is keen on the idea of "going back to the begining" with Basic D&D (1980 red and blue books) so I expect to move in that direction sometime this fall (interestingly, I'm running a Classic Traveller campaign over this coming summer...this was the second roleplaying game I ever owned). -Rath -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 03-23-05 04:36 PM I started gaming back around 1980 or so, and have come to many conclusions as the years have passed. One of the most recent conclusions in that the simpler the game system, the more tendency there is to role play rather than roll dice. I don't exactly understand why this may be so, but none-the-less it seems to be a fact with my players and myself. (Other people's experience may vary.) My B/X D&D groups aren't much into roleplaying. We treat the game as a tactical/strategy challenge and most of the "roleplaying" centers around making plans and dividing the spoils, so a de-emphasis on roleplaying would actually have endeared me somewhat to 3e. That hasn't necessarily been my experience however. The people I play with pretty much treat every RPG as a "rollplaying" game, because amateur theatrics just aren't our bag. What I dislike about 3e D&D is that so much of the challenge/strategy part of the competition happens in the out-of-game aspects of play (i.e. creating and building a "strong" character). It's almost impossible to compete effectively in-game unless you focus a lot of attention on making the "correct" character building choices. I like the fact that in B/X there isn't really any "character building" aspect to the game. One elf/fighter/thief/halfling/etc. is pretty much like any other except for equipment, hp totals and level. The players are forced to focus their attention on overcoming in game challenges through intelligent and resourceful strategy and tactics rather than overcoming challenges through creating the strongest most capable character "build" they can come up with. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : rathbaster Date : 03-23-05 11:40 PM My B/X D&D groups aren't much into roleplaying. We treat the game as a tactical/strategy challenge Exactly what I meant by other people's experiences may vary. :) We each have our own experiences as gamers, our own thoughts and observations. Its easy to take our own experiences as "the whole" of gaming, that our experiences are the only ones that gamers have and that they are universal. I believe its interesting to hear other people's gaming experience and how they approach that, since I always find that there are many out there who have seen the game(s) in very different ways from the way I've seen them. -Rath -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : Eliza_Stormwhisper Date : 03-27-05 10:27 AM May main problem with 3.x: Rolling higher is ALWAYS better. As a DM, I delight in telling my players to roll an appropriate die, and they don't know what it's for. Under 3e rules, they'd breathe a sigh of relief if they got a 20. Under 1 and 2, any number could mean anything. They don't know whether they're making a saving throw (higher is better), or ability check (lower is better), or something else. It's great for suspense. Also, I like that the earlier editions have more freedom for one to make house rules. Personally, I love house rules. They add flavor to any campaign. The thing with house rules in 3e is that most of the time making a house rule is changing an existing rule to something you like better. In 1e and 2e, making a house rule is making a new rule for where the texts don't specifically cover something (whether they cover it vaguely or not at all). I also like the fact that the d20 isn't "the one and only." Rolling lots of different dice is fun. I'm lurking a bit towards the "bash the current edition side" with this comment, but I feel it just has to be said. I really (repeat, REALLY) don't like the "inflation" of everything in 3e. You probably know what I'm talking about. A human barbarian, at first level, could have 20 hp, assuming he got lucky: 18 Con, Toughness feat, 12 on hp roll. Also, I don't like maxing your hit die at first level. I do allow my players to roll or to take average rounded up (7 on a d12, 6 on a d10, 5 on a d8, 4, on a d6, 3 on a d4, 2 on a d3) for hp. I also like the more exponential progression of abilities. An 19 compared to a 18 is a lot better than an 11 compared to a 10. I could go on for a while, but I will simply conclude my thoughts. Earlier editions are more about the roleplaying, realism, and simplicity of actual rules. The current edition is more about game mechanics, and is more game-oriented. I can get more of a feel for my character in earlier editions than in later editions. I also agree with most everything people have already said, with the exception of financial reasons, which is a funny story for me: I started playing in 1999. I had a great DM from what I can remember, but unfortunately the campaign lasted for about 3 playing sessions. He was running 1st edition. I got back into it a couple years later, playing 3.0 or 3.5 (can't remember which one, but I think it was 3.5). I liked it at first, and had a pretty good time, but I wasn't really taking the game seriously like I was for the [brief] gaming period in 1999. I learned more about the game, and started DMing. The more and more I learned about the game, the less I liked it. It was still enjoyable, but I just wasn't grasping the whole "role-playing" part. What eventually saved me three months ago was a DM at my university who wanted to get a campaign going. He runs a combination of 1st and 2nd (mostly 1st) with lots of house rules. At first I was disappointed that I wouldn't be able to use any of the 11 (!) 3.5 books I had accumulated, but I gave it a go. It took me one playing session (as it did in 1999) to fall in love with the old editions again. I immediately bought a set of 1st edition books (PHB, DMG, and Fiend Folio) on eBay. I also immediately switched to DMing 1st edition (with a bit of 2nd and lots of house rules where I got the idea from my other DM), much to the dismay of the players I'd been DMing for for years. Tough luck to them. If they didn't want to play 1e, I said, I'm not running 3.5 for them. Turns out they liked it after all, kind of having the same effect as me. As for my 11 3.5 books, they're now gathering dust. I hope to never open all but one of them (the PHB) again. I'll still play in someone else's 3.5 campaign, but I will never, ever, run one again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : Hiryu Date : 03-27-05 01:16 PM I have one too many reasons to count for not playing the new edition, and most of them go along the same lines of almost all the other complaints in this thread. Personally, I think the greatest problem with 3E and why it has generated such a backlash from us grogs is that it's obviously a half-hearted attempt at designing a game for players, instead of offering a set of tools for the DM, all done in the name of profit. Since the game was designed for players and their PC's, with the DM and game balance as an afterthought, the result is a system that promotes, encourages and facilitates min-maxing and power playing with very little that the DM can say about it "by the book". In 3E, it takes a very strong and experienced DM to say: Look, I don't care what the PHB says. At my table, it works like this, something the books implicitly discourage. In short, in the new edition the DM is reduced to a tool for the players that is only required to look at die rolls and read through a module, and the gaming experience greatly suffers for it. I believe this is in great part due to Hasbro's corporate influence over the game. It is statistically obvious that players buy more books simply because there are more players than DM's out there, and that is why 3E/D20 already has as much splatbooks and suplements as 2ed did (if not more) in half the time. However, it is obvious that 3E also reflects Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker's roleplaying and design ideas, which have never been in good terms with Gary's or even O/A/D&D as a whole. Slavicsek's Planescape setting and Baker's painfully unplaytested Player's Option series are blatant pre-3E examples of this. (one look at Slavicsek's "Eberron" campaign and I am now convinced that he has a fondness for robot creatures and races that borderlines on sexual kink... it is no wonder, tho, since he is resposible for the Star Wars RPG as well, which might explain the MUCH stronger push on fantasy technology, sorcerers and the proliferation of psionics) I can say one thing about the new edition, tho. As a former editor, I can see the flops in the books' design, such as the lack of visual cues, reduced readability on some of the material, the bad organization of the content, the increased dificulty for finding certain entries during gameplay (specially in the Monster Manual), and so fort, HOWEVER, the art is just breathtaking and the books quite pretty to look at. Of course, this is just my opinion and you may feel free to dissagree with it. If you liked kenders, you'll love 3E's halflings, so play it to your heart's content and we'll just agree to dissagree. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 03-27-05 05:54 PM Thread Title : Here Comes the Sieg Heil! Prepare to be locked! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : Attila Date : 03-27-05 10:11 PM Exactly what I meant by other people's experiences may vary. :) We each have our own experiences as gamers, our own thoughts and observations. Its easy to take our own experiences as "the whole" of gaming, that our experiences are the only ones that gamers have and that they are universal. I believe its interesting to hear other people's gaming experience and how they approach that, since I always find that there are many out there who have seen the game(s) in very different ways from the way I've seen them. -Rath I second this. People too often assume their experiences are indicative of everyone else's experiences which is rarely the case. As the Wizo has mentioned and I have stated previously, every edition of DnD has good and bad qualities and they are all great in their own way. It just depends on which of those qualities are most important to you and your group. I've played DnD from AD&D and the Basic Set to 3e and love them all. The great thing about 3e is that it provides a standardized game system that offers benchmarks for playing the game. Of course these are optional and it is always up to the DM to decide what is allowed and what is not. A strong personality has always been a prerequisite for being a DM in every edition. 3e is quite clear that the DM is always right and his rulings trump anything the books say. Just like 2e Player's Option, this can have a downside if you let yourself be carried away by the details and spend too much time looking at the rules and not enough roleplaying. Getting back on topic...The reasons why I still enjoy playing the older editions of DnD are: 1) Level limits for Demi-humans. 2) Multi-class restrictions. 3) Lots of classic adventures to re-play. 4) Simplicity. Yes, I sometimes fall into that perfectionist trap of trying to follow every rule in the rulebook and rather than force myself to accept that it's my game, I play Basic DnD. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : I'm Batman Date : 03-29-05 04:27 AM As a DM, I delight in telling my players to roll an appropriate die, and they don't know what it's for. Under 3e rules, they'd breathe a sigh of relief if they got a 20. Under 1 and 2, any number could mean anything. They don't know whether they're making a saving throw (higher is better), or ability check (lower is better), or something else. It's great for suspense. That's a good point, and it reminds me: My last gaming session, I discovered one of my players using a cheat die. His d20 had no 10 or 9, but had two 20s and two 19s. If we'd been playing my game (1st+2nd edition), that would actually have worked against him half the time--my proficiency system favours middle to low numbers. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : Zyphus Date : 03-29-05 11:04 AM Thread Title : Hey, something on topic! 1) Level limits for Demi-humans. 2) Multi-class restrictions. 3) Lots of classic adventures to re-play. 4) Simplicity. Yes, I sometimes fall into that perfectionist trap of trying to follow every rule in the rulebook and rather than force myself to accept that it's my game, I play Basic DnD. 3 and 4 I understand. Please elaborate on 1 & 2 and why you like them. I play 3.5 with a 1.0 world (halflings are stay-at-home hobbits and not Dark Sun nomadic wanderers, Deities and Demigods instead of the new ones in the 3.5 PH, etc.) The best thing about AD&D is the feel. Using historical things or literary sources, the adventures for some reason seem to be much better (especially 2nd Ed), and the rules are kind of plain and simple, letting the story be stronger than the mechanics. While I think it is possible to bring that feel to the latest edition, not many newer players want to go over those "dusty old books" to be on the same page and mindset as the older players. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-29-05 01:20 PM I personally like level limits as they give a straight and immediatelyu understandable answer to why humans dominate, despite being the weaker race. As for multiclass restrictions, they help maintain the strong archetypes of fantasy, that the class system is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : boschdevil Date : 03-29-05 10:26 PM That's a good point, and it reminds me: My last gaming session, I discovered one of my players using a cheat die. His d20 had no 10 or 9, but had two 20s and two 19s. If we'd been playing my game (1st+2nd edition), that would actually have worked against him half the time--my proficiency system favours middle to low numbers. ;) However, for the most part, 1st edition and 2nd edition required high die rolls as well. I knew of people who tried to use loaded dice back in the day. edit: And if you think of it, cheating really transcends edition level as well. If they're trying to cheat in 3rd edition, they would have most likely tried to cheat if they played 1st and 2nd editions as well. Unfortunately, it is getting to the point of taking the game to seriously. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : Attila Date : 03-30-05 12:51 AM weasel fierce provided the answers to my #1 and #2 reasons for liking older editions of DnD. I would also add: 5) PCs start as average people and have to work their way up to becoming powerful heroes. 6) Average party size is 6-8 instead of 4. Although back when I played AD&D it was always hard to find a group that started PCs out at first level and didn't cheat like hell on their stat rolls. Finding 7-9 players for a game was a problem as well, so I can understand why this was dropped in newer editions. My solution to the d20 high roll is to make players roll d20 on a regular basis whether needed or not. Sometimes it determines thick crust or thin. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : Bladesinger Date : 03-30-05 02:24 AM 1) Level limits for Demi-humans. I actually HATE this aspect of 2nd edition. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Why should an Elf or Dwarf, who have literally hundreds of years to study a discipline, be unable to master a field? Requiring more experience for demi-humans however would make perfect sense since these races are more likely to spend more time developing their skills. In the game I DM, I ignore level limits completely, although I will probably require more experience (as suggested by the DMG) for demi-humans when they reach their posted level limits to "slow down" their advancement at higher levels. 2) Multi-class restrictions. If you mean the restrictions that limit a multi-class fighter/mage from using weapon specialization or becoming a magic specialist, I'd definatly agree since it makes sense that a multi-class character would have certain limitations in comparison to a character who focuses only on one field. I also like how certain races can only choose certain classes. A Dwarf wizard or an Orc paladin just doesn't seem right, and the class restrictions in second edition all seem to make sense. In general though I really don't like the second edition rules which allow demi-humans to multi-class and humans to dual-class. It would be much simpler to simply allow multi-classing for all races and either remove dual-classing or completley re-write the dual-classing rules. The rules for dual-classing are basically completely un-workable as written. How's a 9th level ranger going to dual-class as a thief when he has to go back to using a thaco of 20? Despite the restrictions, however, dual-classing actually works much better than multi-classing in the long run - characters can start out in a class with good hit dice (fighter for example), reach level 9 or 10, then start out again as a thief or wizard after they've gained as much HP as possible. Multi-class characters on the other hand have to average both hit dice for each class and end up with less HP than a character who dual-classed and reached the same levels. Dual-class characters can also use rules such as weapon specialization which are not available to a multi-class characters. I personally plan to use a totally re-worked system for dual-class characters, since the existing rules don't work well at all. As a separate topic, I haven't played 3e (and based on what I've heard about it I don't want to start buying the 3e books) but out of curiosity are there any good 3e adventures that are worth converting to 2e? I have the conversion pdf and should be able to convert the main 3e stats (BAB and AC) back to 2e, and as far as I know most of the other stats such as HP are the same, but I haven't actually tried converting yet so it might be more trouble than its worth. Currently I've been using some good 2e quests I've come across. Our group just finshed the Beholder Eye of Pain/Eye of Doom/Eye to Eye trilogy and I will be running Queen of the Spiders next. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-30-05 02:50 AM Dual classing is mainly usefull for taking a few levels in one class, then switching to another. Simply using straight forward multiclassing for humans as well, could work fine, and I know people who like it that way. I sort of like that humans and demihumans are distinct this way, though it often does not work to the humans advantage. But then, they dont have an upper limit to worry about :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : Hiryu Date : 03-30-05 04:59 PM Gary has actually talked about this issue quite a few times before, Bladesinger, and there was a big argument with him over at ENWorld not too long ago. He was quite clear with the fact that the demihuman level limits, as well as many other rules, are there not to make sense but to provide game balance and encourage humanocentrism in the campaign. When he designed D&D he was more concerned with the game mechanics and how they provide an abstract way to represent what happens in the game, rather than having them make sense from a realistical or historical point of view. I wholeheartedly believe this is the way to go as far as game design goes. However, I think the real problem with demihuman level limits is that they should be campaign-dependant, not "hard coded" into the core rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : Bladesinger Date : 03-30-05 11:13 PM By "Gary" do you mean Gary Gygax? If so, that's interesting that he's addressed the topic. If not, then who do you mean? My opinion on level limits is that they don't do a good job of "balancing" the races, not only because they aren't realistic but also because the limits are too low (typically level 15 for most races). A level 15 elven mage, for example, wouldn't be able to cast spells above level 7, so a wish or similar spell wouldn't be available at all. And this gets even worse in a high-level campaign, since creating a unique spell such as a true dweomer requires level 20. I think the DMG approach that requires more experience beyond the listed level limits is a much better way of "balancing" demi-humans than imposing relatively low "ceilings" that abruptly halt advancement. This would make sense (Elves and Dwarves have longer lifespans and can take their time developing their skills) and would also achieve the necessary effect on game balance (humans would progress faster but have shorter lifespans and are less likely to achieve exceptionally high levels). Another thing to consider about game balance with regards to humans is that despite their lack of special abilities like infravision, long lifespans, and so on, humans are extremely adaptable. This alone could explain their dominance in many fantasy settings. For example, they are not tied closely to nature like Elves, they can cooperate more easily with other races than Dwarves, and so on, which means that humans can prosper in many environments where Elves or Dwarves would have more difficulty surviving. And the relatively short lifespans of humans can actually be advantageous. First, it would make humans more likely to develop skills or wealth relatively quickly (by Elven or Dwarven standards) rather than slowly perfecting thier skills over the centuries. Secondly, since humans can reproduce much faster than Elves or Dwarves they can therefore populate new regions quickly and are more likely to survive events that cause rapid population changes (conflicts, famines and so on). So I don't think limiting Dwarven warriors or Elven mages to level 15 does a very good job of balancing the races, especially consdiering many of the natural advantages that humans would have in a fantasy setting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : Hiryu Date : 03-31-05 12:18 AM Yes, by "Gary" I mean Gygax. There are some boards around on AD&D communities where he posts relatively often and talks about these kinds of things, if the conversation warrants it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : Elendur Date : 03-31-05 11:05 AM Demi-human level limits are a bad way to balance races because they aren't balanced at each level. So a 1st level elf is better than a 1st level human, and that's supposed to be balanced later on when the elf caps out and the human keeps leveling. But what really happens is that people just don't play demihumans at high level. No one is going to say "well I'm stuck at X level as an elf now, I'll just hang out while my human buddies continue to grow in power. Sure was fun when I was 1st level though..." More than likely they ignore the rule, or change it so they continue to level at a slower pace. I do like multiclass restrictions though. In a class based game I think they are important. I just require justification for multiclassing rather than strict rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 03-31-05 01:23 PM Demi-human level limits are a bad way to balance races because they aren't balanced at each level. As Hiryu posted above, the level limits weren't intended to "balance races" in terms of making all races relatively equivalent as character choices. Demi-human level limits were in place to ensure that the fantasy game world was one based on domination by humanity. Specifically, they were intended to insure that the most powerful people in the world (kings, archmages, etc.) were human. I actually have no idea why the 2e AD&D rules kept the level limits around at all, as any level limit that starts AFTER name level completely misses the point of the original rules (which all capped demi-humans at around levels 8-10) and is useless in terms of achieving the original goal (having the vast majority of the world's name level PCs and NPCs be human). I think in this and a few other cases, the 2e revision retained rules for the sake of tradition while at the same time making changes that rendered the rules completely senseless; probably due to a lack of real understanding about why the rules were there in the first place. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Bladesinger Date : 03-31-05 10:29 PM A major problem with the idea that the level limits for demi-humans were designed to "explain" or "ensure" that humans dominated AD&D fantasy is that the concept of using rules to drive background events is completely backwards. The rules only approximate a limited set of events, most of which are combat related, and are not inteded to "explain" anything at all in AD&D. That's why the game needs a DM - someone to use the rules as a framework and discard or change rules that don't work well in the game. Aribitrarily imposing level limits to "explain" why humans dominate a certain setting is totally retarded because it has no realistic interpretation whatsoever, unless the idea of someone suddenly being unable to learn or improve your skills makes sense to anyone. It's simply an annoying, arbitrary rule that wasn't designed very well. Fortunately the DMG provides alternative methods (such as requiring more experience at higher levels) that work much better at achieveing the effect that the original rule was trying to convey. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-01-05 12:09 AM But thats the entire thing though. It was never meant to be anything but a game balance factor. AD&D is very "gamist" in that sense. I play a lot of classic D&D, using the basic and expert set (with some later stuff lifted in) which goes to level 14. So having elves top out at, say, 10, is fine in such a campaign. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : Eliza_Stormwhisper Date : 04-01-05 01:19 AM Demi-human level limits are a bad way to balance races because they aren't balanced at each level. (...) Same can be said about classes. A 1st-level mage with his/her 1 spell per day is weak compared to the fighter. However, the fighter doesn't get a whole lot better (THAC0 and saves are pretty good, though) while the mage gets ever more powerful. Mages are the most powerful class... but they start off weak. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-01-05 02:02 AM I think in 2ed the level limits were raised simply because many mid to name level characters were being ported to the new edition, and by the time 2ed was printed out, it was becoming less and less uncommon to see games with characters on the 15th levels (or even 20th and beyond) while non-thief demihumans lagged far behind. This is also why the limits were raised by gary himself in Unearthed Arcana. (I think) Just like when I read this same discussion at En World, I am finding myself agreeing with both ends of the argument. I do see the mechanichal need of the ruling in order to promote humanocentrism and game balance: Demihumans get a nice bundle of abilities, but with the experience bonuses and penalties usually getting ignored due to calculation times and laziness, it is a necesity to give humans something the other races don't have, as well as all the other points Weasel made in his post. However, I also agree with the arguments that level limits should be campaign-dependant, don't promote humanocentrism as well as they should (a LARGE mayority of NPC's are around 3rd-5th level), probably there was a better way to handle this and generally it does feel like an arbitrary handicap during gameplay. Personally, the way I handle it is by having precalculated XP tables so there is no excuse to skip the experience bonuses and penalties, allowing humans multi and dual class (since multiclassing is the single greatest advantage universally granted to non-humans), and granting humans some abilities that reinforce their "adaptability" and general "can do" flavor. (for instance, since most races get to hit bonuses with certain weapons or against certain monsters, I let humans have the ability to get a +1 with any one weapon of their choice and a free proficiency) On my campaign, I got rid of level limits long ago, deprecating them in favor the of slower advancement rule. I don't know, I think this whole issue really just boils down to the way YOU see and want to experience the game, and is up to every DM to see if they want to keep the limits, replace them with something else, raise them or, why not? even lower them. PS: Eliza, while I do agree that it is the most powerful class at high levels, I think saying mages start off weak is kind of an understatement. I still get teary eyed every time I hear legends about the 1st level wizard who got killed by a duck. :eek: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : Bladesinger Date : 04-01-05 11:45 PM Even though I don't use level limits, I do agree with the idea that human characters are generally at a disadvantage when compared to demi-humans such as Elves or Dwarves. I try to balance this by giving human characters an extra +1 bonus to some non-class related ability score (for example, human warriors or rogues could apply it to Int/Wiz/Cha, human wizards could apply it to Str/Dex/Con and so on) as well as by decreasing the effectiveness of some of the demi-human abilities such as infravision (for example, I use the heat-based rules that give infravision a lower resolution and make it easier to disrupt than normal vision). Otherwise, non-human characters get significant advantages over humans which I don't think is fair to a human character. Regarding mages, in the group I DM I've been running an Elven Bladesinger along with the players' characters, and I definately agree with the idea that mages are underpowered at low levels. My Bladesinger is currently level 8, and although he's got enough powerful spells that he can rival the other characters (a human justifier ranger and a dwarf warrior), they can still inflict and take considerably more damage in a fight. A single-classed wizard would have even more trouble, since they can't wear most types of armour, can't defend themselves properly when casting a spell, have low HP, and don't have any effective combat abilities once they run out of spells. Once they get to higher levels though mages and especially fighter-mages can be extremely powerful and versatile. A level 10 mage almost pwned the group when they were around level 7 during the last adventure (a combination of web and cone of cold) and with better support from a few NPC warriors he probabably could have defeated the group. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : Zavyyn Date : 04-02-05 12:03 AM I have the perfect reason for playing 2E rather than 3E: I have something like 500 bucks worth of 2E material (based on original price), and can constantly find used 2E resources I don't have in collectibles stores for half price (if not less, I bought 9 2E books the other day for 14 bucks, HOO HAH). Considering I'm a college student working my way through, if I wanted to drop the cash on 3E books, I would be doing less of that thing I enjoy... What's it called again? Oh yeah, eating... There are some things from 3E I like, that make sense for the rules variations I've run in 2E forever. I've never allowed multi-classing (everyone dual classes, and none of those insane attribute requirements to do it), I've never imposed level limits, nor have I restricted races from classes unless it absolutely made no sense (dwarves still aren't going to be wizards... Unless they're derro. Dwarf paladin? You pull out that holy war axe of Clangeddin Silverbeard and tear it up on the battlefield, my little angry friend), and I do like the attribute gains one can make in 3E (You rely on an attribute all the time for your survival, and it dang well better improve). The big problem with 3E is no Council of Wyrms. This makes me sad :( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 04-03-05 07:42 AM I still get teary eyed every time I hear legends about the 1st level wizard who got killed by a duck. :eek: I must know more! :eek: :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-03-05 01:27 PM I must know more! :eek: :D *snickers* If memory serves, the story went like so: Once upon a time, on those old text-based D&D adventure servers, there was a mage, and that mage went solo for a bit for a reason I cannot recall at this time. In any case, in his wanderings the wizard (who had already spent his one Magic Missile on a previous combat) came across a random encounter with... a hostile duck!!! With 1 or 2 HP, if I remember correctly, too. Several misses by the wizard later, the duck scored it's 4th 1HP damage peck and the wizard was dead. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : Bladesinger Date : 04-03-05 02:46 PM LOL, that's about what I'd expect for a 1st level mage. That's why I give PCs 100% HP at level 1 and 80% HP at level 2. This helps ensure that they don't get outclassed by ducks, squirrels, kittens, and so on early in their adventuring career. Although as a DM I wouldn't even bother rolling a fight with a duck ... I mean, it's only a duck after all, the characters can just kick it down the street if they want to regardless of their THACO or HP. From level 3 onwards I give the characters average HP (rounded up) since the PCs in the group I DM have very good ability scores and only really need the HP boost at low levels. I've actually found that HP is starting to get a little problematic now that the group is around level 8 or 9. The level 9 dwarf warrior with 18 Con has 96 HP and AC -2, so he can absorb a tremendous amount of damage. I may have to start increasing the HP of monsters since they usually don't last long enough to inflict much damage on the group (I've generally been giving monsters 5 HP per HD, which is only slightly above average). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-03-05 06:32 PM LOL, that's about what I'd expect for a 1st level mage. That's why I give PCs 100% HP at level 1 and 80% HP at level 2. This helps ensure that they don't get outclassed by ducks, squirrels, kittens, and so on early in their adventuring career. Although as a DM I wouldn't even bother rolling a fight with a duck ... I mean, it's only a duck after all, the characters can just kick it down the street if they want to regardless of their THACO or HP. MUDs are just a wee bit different from PnP RPGs. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : Bladesinger Date : 04-03-05 07:12 PM Aaah, didn't realize the mage vs. duck story was from a MUD. I suppose that just illustrates why you need a DM to run the game properly - using the rules exactly as written can cause some significant problems. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : snarfalupagus Date : 04-03-05 10:49 PM Although as a DM I wouldn't even bother rolling a fight with a duck ... I mean, it's only a duck Although not technically ducks, Geese can be VERY mean. I know many a grown man who has run from geese before. (myself included) If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, It's a doppleganger. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : Varl Date : 04-04-05 01:10 AM I actually HATE this aspect of 2nd edition. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Why should an Elf or Dwarf, who have literally hundreds of years to study a discipline, be unable to master a field? It's not something worth hating an entire edition over imo. I've removed level limits from my 2e game because I can. I've never cared for them either, but the bigger picture is why an elf or a dwarf, that has literally hundreds of years of training and study, only achieve teen levels? You'd think someone who is 231 years old would be significantly higher than just 15th level. Isn't it funny how time relationships between species is so asynchronous. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-04-05 01:24 AM The Known World / Mystara setting explained it, in regards to elves. The normal elves envied mankind, becuase, despite their lack of natural gifts, they were able to accomplish much more with their limited lives. Its the inherent "racial" bonus of mankind. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : I'm Batman Date : 04-04-05 07:38 AM However, for the most part, 1st edition and 2nd edition required high die rolls as well. That would depend on what you were doing. Some things required low numbers. There's nothing (that I've found) in 3rd edition that does so, which is the point. edit: And if you think of it, cheating really transcends edition level as well. If they're trying to cheat in 3rd edition, they would have most likely tried to cheat if they played 1st and 2nd editions as well. Unfortunately, it is getting to the point of taking the game to seriously. Naturally. But some people just can't seem to help themselves. They cheat at everything. But let's not get political. ;) The modified d20 wouldn't have been modified if we'd been playing my earlier edition game because it wouldn't have been as useful. That's one more reason why I prefer it when low numbers are sometimes useful. I modified the Players Option proficiency system to do just that. You still need to roll below the target number, but the higher your success number the better. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : I'm Batman Date : 04-04-05 07:42 AM I ran a 3.0 game in which the 1st-level party was wiped out by 5 temple cats. :D "Me-OW!!" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : havard Date : 04-04-05 12:38 PM It's not something worth hating an entire edition over imo. I've removed level limits from my 2e game because I can. I saw someone use this optional rule where any race could be of any class or multi/dual class combination, but where single classed humans got a 10% XP bonus. If I was ever to run a 2e game, I'd use this rule variant. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-04-05 02:26 PM The Skill & Powers books, while vile, offered humans a racial edge of +5% experience. 10% is a bit more interesting though. Also, mind, that in AD&D1, multiclassing was not quite as good a deal, as you had to pay training costs for BOTH classes when you advanced -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-04-05 07:21 PM That would depend on what you were doing. Some things required low numbers. There's nothing (that I've found) in 3rd edition that does so, which is the point. Well, I've known random encounter and information encounter in 3E where lower may have been better. However, as a rule of thumb, 3E prefers higher rolls for rule uniformity, which has its good side. Even now, I'm not even sure about the pummel/overbear rules for 1E - I know whenever they were pull out that it slowed down the gaming session by 15 to 30 minutes. Also, though the earlier editions had some mix-up of rolls, the majority of the important rolls required high scores. (combat, saving throws, hit points, attributes, and starting gold are just s few that roll off the top of my head) Naturally. But some people just can't seem to help themselves. They cheat at everything. But let's not get political. ;) The modified d20 wouldn't have been modified if we'd been playing my earlier edition game because it wouldn't have been as useful. That's one more reason why I prefer it when low numbers are sometimes useful. However, just because some rolls may require high scores and some rolls require low scores doesn't mean that the issue is resolved. After a while, players realize either through the playing with a DM what rolls require high scores and what rolls require low scores. In fact, I remember "back in the day" of 1st edition I used to have two favorite d20s - one that I felt gave me low scores and one that I felt gave me high scores. I had not done anything special to the dice - I was just a "feeling" that I had about each die through past gaming experience. Now, if you were really trying to cheat, you would rig a die that would roll high for high rolls and rig a die that would roll low for low rolls. Thus, at the end of it all, IMHO in order to address the issue one is left with a lose-lose scenario because all that is bound to happen is: 1) The DM accuses the player of cheating by inspecting his dice and the player is caught cheating. Usually, the player is embarassed, develops a grudge against the DM whatever he does if the player stays. If the player is kicked out/leaves, then you go down one gamer. I don't know about anyone else, but it isn't like my gaming table has a waiting list the length of upscale restaurants waiting lists. 2) The DM accuses the player of cheating by inspecting his dice and the player is not. This is the second worst thing that can happen to a game. After all, the last thing that anyone is going to want to be accused of is cheating. The player is bound to have bad feelings for the DM after this, an either (a) a grudge forms or (b) the player leaves. 3) The DM "mixes up the rolls" so that players don't know whether to roll high or low. In essence, this is like saying, "I don't trust you, so just roll something and I'll tell you whether it is good or not." After time, players start accusing the DM of favoritism when things don't go their way. After a while, a few of the players (a) form a grudge against the DM or (b) just plain leave due to the perceived DM's lack of trust. It doesn't matter if it is 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition - cheating has been there if there is one in the group inclined to cheat and though mixing up the rolls seems like an easy fix, it isn't. I modified the Players Option proficiency system to do just that. You still need to roll below the target number, but the higher your success number the better. Well, I guess one could modify 3E so that certain roles require lower roles. For example, all a DM needs is an inverted listing for the die roll, ie: 1 = 20 2 = 19 3 = 18 4 = 17 5 = 16 . . . and you would in essense have the same thing. The DM could just say, "Tell me what your die roll is and I'll randomly roll a d6 on my side. My d6 will note with a roll of 1-3 that the inverting listing is to be used, and a 4-6 will denote that it is not to be used. Measured. Fixed. However, I'd somewhat refrain from this due to what I listed previously. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : Bladesinger Date : 04-04-05 10:13 PM It's not something worth hating an entire edition over imo. I've removed level limits from my 2e game because I can. I've never cared for them either, but the bigger picture is why an elf or a dwarf, that has literally hundreds of years of training and study, only achieve teen levels? You'd think someone who is 231 years old would be significantly higher than just 15th level. Isn't it funny how time relationships between species is so asynchronous. You've misunderstood ... I DON'T hate 2nd edition at all. In fact, I actually think that with a few modifications it is an excellent RPG system. Level limits are simply one aspect of 2nd edition which I think detracts from an otherwise excellent system. I do agree completely that demi-human races need to have their abilities balanced somehow, level limits just aren't a good way of doing it. I don't actually use many house rules myself, mainly just things like changing some of the weapon damages (using the skills and powers crossbow rules and increasing battle axe and warhammer damage for example) as well as a few other things to balance the various races and classes. I haven't had any inclination at all to switch to 3rd edition, because I think it suffers from the opposite problem because it doesn't have enough restrictions. For example, dwarf wizards are almost unheard of due to their inherent resistance to magic, but ANY dwarf charcter in 3e could simply gain a level as a wizard without any need for DM approval. This doesn't seem right to me, since it takes concepts that were used in 2nd edition to define certain races (such as the idea of a human paladin or an elf fighter-mage) and lets everyone use them. So although I generally agree with the structure of the 2nd edition rules, I simply think that certain rules such as level limits and multi/dual-classing need to be modified so that they work better. I do agree that character advancement in AD&D is rather unrealistic with regards to character age though. The characters in the group I DM include a human (19 years old), a dwarf (72 years old) and an elf (120 years old), and in the past year the group has gone from level 1 to level 8 or 9. Even though it doesn't make much sense that the characters would improve their skills so dramatically in only one year, they all started out at level 1 and have all progressed the same amount (gained the same total XP). So despite the lack of realism, all the characters in the group are still "balanced" when compared to each other which I think is the important thing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-04-05 11:23 PM Having no restrictions at all, also reduces the mystery and uniqueness. If only a select few humans can be paladins, then paladins are something to note, when they do appear. If a retarded halforc can be a paladin, then its just another guy -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-04-05 11:54 PM I don't understand where people get the idea that half-orcs or even pure orcs have to be invariably handicapped in the gray matter department. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-05-05 12:14 AM It sounds better than "retarded elf" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : Varl Date : 04-05-05 12:33 AM You've misunderstood ... I DON'T hate 2nd edition at all. In fact, I actually think that with a few modifications it is an excellent RPG system. Level limits are simply one aspect of 2nd edition which I think detracts from an otherwise excellent system. Cool. I did misunderstand you then. I haven't had any inclination at all to switch to 3rd edition, because I think it suffers from the opposite problem because it doesn't have enough restrictions. For example, dwarf wizards are almost unheard of due to their inherent resistance to magic, but ANY dwarf charcter in 3e could simply gain a level as a wizard without any need for DM approval. I haven't ever heard that's the case, but I have suspected so. It's that loss of uniqueness and originality that turns me off from 3e. For me, it's not about just playing a dwarven wizard, it's about keeping them unique enough that the combo doesn't lose its flair and spice by simply having the rules say, "Oh sure! Go right ahead and play whatever you desire." It's a far cry from asking a DM permission to play one. Now I know a lot of 3e DMs would now cry out saying that's the case in their games too, but that same predisposition is still there nonetheless. BTW, dwarven mages exist in my 2e game too. They're called Runecasters, and they use runestones to fuel their magic. VERY, VERY rare characters to play, which is how they should be imo. (Thanks to Dragon magazine for the article that turned me on to the concept of dwarven mages, as well as an online document I found). I do agree that character advancement in AD&D is rather unrealistic with regards to character age though. The characters in the group I DM include a human (19 years old), a dwarf (72 years old) and an elf (120 years old), and in the past year the group has gone from level 1 to level 8 or 9. Even though it doesn't make much sense that the characters would improve their skills so dramatically in only one year, they all started out at level 1 and have all progressed the same amount (gained the same total XP). So despite the lack of realism, all the characters in the group are still "balanced" when compared to each other which I think is the important thing. Yeah. I just go with the presumption that demihumans start out their adventuring careers at the age the player chooses for this character, and pretty much ignore any "what-ifs" about what happened to the dwarf you mention above 71 years before the characters met. I might use that time as campaign hooks and the like, but as far as age goes, it doesn't matter to me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : Bladesinger Date : 04-05-05 01:41 AM I don't understand where people get the idea that half-orcs or even pure orcs have to be invariably handicapped in the gray matter department. I think it's just the stereotype about orcs being bloodthirsty savages, which is generally pretty accurate for orcs that have grown up among orc tribes. Half-orcs, on the other hand, could be as "civilized" as any another other human if they grew up in a human city. It's interesting to note that orc and half-orc characters don't have any negative Int modifiers in the Complete Book of Humanoids. So according to 2nd edition AD&D, they're actually just as intelligent as humans. The 3rd edition player's handbook however gives half-orcs a -2 Int modifier (comparable to a -1 Int modifier in 2nd edition) and actually desribes them as "dull and crude", which I think is the wrong way to describe them. Orcs may lack an advanced society and be generally bloodthirsty, but the 3rd edition rules seem to attribute this to lower intelligence which I don't think is accurate. I actually wouldn't mind playing a half-orc, I think they have a lot of potential as really interesting characters to roleplay considering that they don't really "fit in" properly with either orcs or humans. It sounds better than "retarded elf" LMAO. I've been trying to picutre a "retarded elf" and can't seem to do it properly. It would be really funny to see an elf that couldn't figure out how to tie his shoes though. BTW, dwarven mages exist in my 2e game too. They're called Runecasters, and they use runestones to fuel their magic. VERY, VERY rare characters to play, which is how they should be imo. (Thanks to Dragon magazine for the article that turned me on to the concept of dwarven mages, as well as an online document I found). I personally don't allow dwarven wizards as player characters, but I can understand how some dwarves could learn to use magic. After all, if a beholder can become a mage, then why couldn't a dwarf? Beholders literally dispel magic simply by LOOKING at it, so they're even more magically resistant than dwarves (although a beholder mage does need to lose the use of their central eye before they can learn magic). Another justification I use to support the possibility of dwarven mages is that if there aren't any dwarven mages, how do the dwarves craft enchanted dwarven warhammers and such? Presumably some dwarves can create enchantments, although I still think it should be a very rare occurance (after all, they are naturally predisposed to be resistant to magic). I think the idea of rune magic makes a lot of sense for dwarves, since it could develop somewhat "naturally" from their ability to craft metal and stone. It also makes much more sense to me for a dwarf to use rune-based magic than to cast spells with arcane formula and complicated rituals and such. Yeah. I just go with the presumption that demihumans start out their adventuring careers at the age the player chooses for this character, and pretty much ignore any "what-ifs" about what happened to the dwarf you mention above 71 years before the characters met. I might use that time as campaign hooks and the like, but as far as age goes, it doesn't matter to me. I don't pay much attention to character advancement and age either. If I had to explain it though, I'd just use the common discription of how elves are not really "adults" for several decades among their race, and so an elf that starts adventuring at 120 years old is equivalent to a human starting adventuring at around 20 years old. I actually really like the age differences though, I think it helps add to the personality of the demi-human characters. I run an elven bladesinger in the group I DM, and he tends to be much more cautious than the other players (a human justifier ranger and a dwarf warrior). The fact that he's more than 100 years older then the ranger helps explain his more subdued outlook, which I think is appropriate for my character and helps set him apart from the human and dwarf in the group. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : Eliza_Stormwhisper Date : 04-05-05 05:52 PM On the topic of level limits, I've eliminated those from my games as well. I reason that if you're able to learn a profession, you can advance as far in it as you wish. On the other hand, I kept racial class and multiclass restrictions (although I slightly modified them), reasoning that certain races just don't have the focus, natural talent, or aptitude to learn a profession. In case you're curious, the biggest changes I've made to racial class restrictions are allowing half-elves to be paladins and making the cleric class open to any race. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : Attila Date : 04-05-05 06:09 PM Add racial/class restrictions to my list of what I like about AD&D. Also tack on the fact that you had to qualify to take a particular class. In addition to the mystery and uniqueness you also lose some of the respect for the more demanding classes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : I'm Batman Date : 04-06-05 11:57 PM Even now, I'm not even sure about the pummel/overbear rules for 1E I don't think anyone has ever been sure about those rules. ;) 1) The DM accuses the player of cheating by inspecting his dice and the player is caught cheating. Usually, the player is embarassed, develops a grudge against the DM whatever he does if the player stays. If the player is kicked out/leaves, then you go down one gamer. I don't know about anyone else, but it isn't like my gaming table has a waiting list the length of upscale restaurants waiting lists. 2) The DM accuses the player of cheating by inspecting his dice and the player is not. This is the second worst thing that can happen to a game. After all, the last thing that anyone is going to want to be accused of is cheating. The player is bound to have bad feelings for the DM after this, an either (a) a grudge forms or (b) the player leaves. I accuse my players of cheating all the time, because they do. Nobody has ever quit because of my asking. So what do you do about cheaters? 3) The DM "mixes up the rolls" so that players don't know whether to roll high or low. Here's another possibility: 4) The DM can ask for the roll before saying what it's for. This has been my way, and the way of most DMs I've played with until 3E came along. It doesn't matter if it is 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition - cheating has been there if there is one in the group inclined to cheat and though mixing up the rolls seems like an easy fix, it isn't. But it does matter, as I've already explained: In previous editions, low numbers weren't always "bad." Well, I guess one could modify 3E so that certain roles require lower roles. Or, one could play an earlier edition. Like me! :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : JRRNeiklot Date : 04-07-05 04:20 AM I actually HATE this aspect of 2nd edition. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Why should an Elf or Dwarf, who have literally hundreds of years to study a discipline, be unable to master a field? The reason is BECAUSE they have hundreds of years to study. If they didn't have limits, some 9999999999th level elven mage would rule the world. Or blow it up at whim. Or turn every living thing on the planet into frogs just for kicks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-07-05 10:45 PM I don't think anyone has ever been sure about those rules. ;) To some degree, that is the point. Having a high d20 roll requirement helps streamline the requirements, but admittedly so, does open open up a slight limitation. I accuse my players of cheating all the time, because they do. Nobody has ever quit because of my asking. Then you have an extremely tolerant group. You should really commend them. All I'm saying is that here down south, people have and do quit games and/or have held grudges for much less offensive slights than being accused of cheating. Maybe people here are just more sensitive about being accused of a cheater. Who knows. So what do you do about cheaters? Well, if I think that they're trying to cheat with a loaded die, I basically let it go. As a DM, it isn't like my goal is to get the TPK anyways. Besides, if they're accustomed to cheating, they'll trip themselves up in the future - I'll have my opportunities. Also, (a) cheating only hurts themselves in the long run (ie they'll start asking "How come everything is so easy" then realize it is from their cheating) and (b) you really can't stop the cheating, only escalate it. After a while, they'll just take more inconspicuous measures like slightly shaving sections on the opposite side of die for rolls that that don't wan't, etc. After all, like I noted before, accusing people of cheating has too much to lose and really very little to gain. Here's another possibility: 4) The DM can ask for the roll before saying what it's for. This has been my way, and the way of most DMs I've played with until 3E came along. However, in previous editions, die rolls really had a trend versus what you were doing. For example, when you are in combat, you want high die rolls. (ie attack rolls and saving throw rolls) Thus, if you are into cheating, you're going to use a die that rolls high since the majority (if not all) of the rolls in that condition require high die rolls. You could change it in your game to allow low rolls in combat to be favorable, but it would be a house rule - just like it would be a house rule in 3rd edition. Furthermore, unless it is roll that would alert the players of something (ie. if you ask someone for a listen or spot roll - more often than not they know something is up and wandering monster rolls), I usually like to tell the players that they are rolling for in the first place. The reason is due to that the players start getting paranoid if you don't. For example, let's say that a player argues a rule and over time during the session we resolve the issue. Then, though the player is randomly selected and asked to roll a legitimate low roll (the side for the roll is still not known to them) and ends up rolling high, chances are that the player is thinking that you're out to get them because they argued a rule. It's just the way people are. Thus, if possible, I play with everything above the board. I hate to say it, but trying to get a group together down in the lower 48 isn't always the easiest thing to do in the world. Thus, anything that is going to cause more anxiety in the group really isn't going to help. But it does matter, as I've already explained: In previous editions, low numbers weren't always "bad." But over time, you learn which rolls require high rolls and which rolls require low rolls. I know I learned that when I was playing 1st edition. And if I can learn it, I'm sure our friend with the loaded "high" and loaded "low" dice can do so as well. To me, it is far from an effective method to prevent cheating. Or, one could play an earlier edition. Like me! :) Hmmm .. I thought you said that you modified the player option proficiency system for favorable results for low rolls. If I misunderstood, my mistake. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Author : I'm Batman Date : 04-08-05 03:52 AM To some degree, that is the point. Having a high d20 roll requirement helps streamline the requirements, but admittedly so, does open open up a slight limitation. Having only high numbers being good bothers me. I find it similar to having a tool with many functions, but only using one of them. Then you have an extremely tolerant group. You should really commend them. I should commend them for cheating? :confused: Well, if I think that they're trying to cheat with a loaded die, I basically let it go. As a DM, it isn't like my goal is to get the TPK anyways. Besides, if they're accustomed to cheating, they'll trip themselves up in the future - I'll have my opportunities. Also, (a) cheating only hurts themselves in the long run (ie they'll start asking "How come everything is so easy" then realize it is from their cheating) and (b) you really can't stop the cheating, only escalate it. After a while, they'll just take more inconspicuous measures like slightly shaving sections on the opposite side of die for rolls that that don't wan't, etc. After all, like I noted before, accusing people of cheating has too much to lose and really very little to gain. In my experience, a cheater causes the other players to resent him. Then the cheater's character becomes the most effect PC. You end up with a situation similar to having one powerful character and a bunch of lesser characters, and the other players feel "left out." Either they start cheating too, or they approach me quietly between games and tell me what the cheater is doing. Then it's up to me to fix the situation somehow. And you definitely can stop the cheating. But to do so, you actually have to do something about it, rather than "letting it go." That's been my experience. YMMV. However, in previous editions, die rolls really had a trend versus what you were doing. For example, when you are in combat, you want high die rolls. (ie attack rolls and saving throw rolls) Thus, if you are into cheating, you're going to use a die that rolls high since the majority (if not all) of the rolls in that condition require high die rolls. You could change it in your game to allow low rolls in combat to be favorable, but it would be a house rule - just like it would be a house rule in 3rd edition. There are many things that can call for a d20 roll in combat. Skill rolls and attribute checks often come up. I'll ask the player to roll his die, then ask him if the die roll succeeds at the task he didn't know about: "Does that make a Dex check; what AC does that hit; does that succeed at a Spot check (I made those up first! ;) );" that sort of thing. Furthermore, unless it is roll that would alert the players of something (ie. if you ask someone for a listen or spot roll - more often than not they know something is up and wandering monster rolls), I usually like to tell the players that they are rolling for in the first place. The reason is due to that the players start getting paranoid if you don't. Paranoia is good! For example, let's say that a player argues a rule and over time during the session we resolve the issue. Then, though the player is randomly selected and asked to roll a legitimate low roll (the side for the roll is still not known to them) and ends up rolling high, chances are that the player is thinking that you're out to get them because they argued a rule. It's just the way people are. Some of my players start out thinking the DM is out to get them, that's why they think cheating is acceptable--or so they say. But I always follow the same playing method, so there really isn't anything for them to complain about. The cheaters keep trying, keep getting caught, and keep on playing; and the non-cheaters are glad the cheaters aren't overpowering the game. Thus, if possible, I play with everything above the board. I hate to say it, but trying to get a group together down in the lower 48 isn't always the easiest thing to do in the world. Thus, anything that is going to cause more anxiety in the group really isn't going to help. What? I play above board too! :P And players aren't easy to come by around here either. But over time, you learn which rolls require high rolls and which rolls require low rolls. I know I learned that when I was playing 1st edition. And if I can learn it, I'm sure our friend with the loaded "high" and loaded "low" dice can do so as well. To me, it is far from an effective method to prevent cheating. On the contrary, it's been highly effective in practice. Hmmm .. I thought you said that you modified the player option proficiency system for favorable results for low rolls. If I misunderstood, my mistake. Oh. I meant that I play a modified version of it, as in, I've expanded it (in fact, before 3E came out, I had already incorporated Spot and the Thief skills into the PO proficiency system). The standard system already favours lower rolls (but still high--you need to roll under the target number [usually from 5 to 15], but a higher roll still indicates a better result). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:15 AM.