* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : whatever happened to 2nd ed. Started at 03-31-06 03:20 AM by tennorslayer Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=613666 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : tennorslayer Date : 03-31-06 03:20 AM Thread Title : whatever happened to 2nd ed. ive been playing the game since the begginning ive played the original box set back in the day so to speak when TSR ran this system i dont like the new additions i think that they have went off course and i would like what all you 2nd edition fans think 3rd ed can answer this two -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Midnight Lurker Date : 03-31-06 12:06 PM Please try that again, and seperate your thoughts with a "." creating "sentences" so that people can understand it. I'll try to answer anyways... I loved 2nd edition. Played it for 10 years. Hated the very idea of this "new" company called WotC taking over our beloved D&D and bastardizing it into this so-called 3rd Edition. So, for a few years, we kept playing 2nd, and giving dirty looks towards and 3e/3.5e books we saw in the stores. Well, then I played 3.5e, since I was at GenCon with a bunch of other 3.5 fans. It turns out, the system does what all the 2e options books were trying to do, only cleaner since it had the luxury of being designed that way, instead of shoe-horning new stuff into an existing system. Most complaints I've heard about 3.5 are from people who have never played it, and made some really strange assumptions based on rumor and flipping through a couple of pages of a random book. So, IMO, no, they didn't go off course. They actually stayed the course fairly well. I miss some things about 2e (like weapon speed, for one) and still play it from time to time, but 3.5 is worth the play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Evergreen_Aldaron Date : 03-31-06 05:44 PM Please try that again, and seperate your thoughts with a "." creating "sentences" so that people can understand it. I'll try to answer anyways... I loved 2nd edition. Played it for 10 years. Hated the very idea of this "new" company called WotC taking over our beloved D&D and bastardizing it into this so-called 3rd Edition. So, for a few years, we kept playing 2nd, and giving dirty looks towards and 3e/3.5e books we saw in the stores. Well, then I played 3.5e, since I was at GenCon with a bunch of other 3.5 fans. It turns out, the system does what all the 2e options books were trying to do, only cleaner since it had the luxury of being designed that way, instead of shoe-horning new stuff into an existing system. Most complaints I've heard about 3.5 are from people who have never played it, and made some really strange assumptions based on rumor and flipping through a couple of pages of a random book. So, IMO, no, they didn't go off course. They actually stayed the course fairly well. I miss some things about 2e (like weapon speed, for one) and still play it from time to time, but 3.5 is worth the play. Well said Lurker - I still play both and the one thing I learned is that all those house rules we developed for 2nd edition to customize it are already built into 3.5 They both have there place, but ripping 3.5 isn't being fair to it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : goblin_gronth Date : 03-31-06 07:42 PM I have played for around 19 years. If you have played for along time, you would see that 3rd edition is more closely related to the original and 1st edition. There was some things taken out of 1st edition when 2nd ediiton came out. I have seen them returned with 3rd. Im with Midnight L... though. I held out for awhile from playing 3rd. Read the players handbook twice also the DM handbook twice. The monsters manual once. Having played 3rd edition off and on now for the last 3 years, i'll say its growing on me. There is a lot i like about it. There is somethings that second does that i still like but 3rd does it in a different way. The different way isnt worse... its still a lot of fun too as i get use to it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : They_banned_my_old_name Date : 04-01-06 12:22 AM I still play and prefer 2nd edition. I do like the character level and class level setup very much. I like the d20 rules, ever since i saw Alternity. I don't like WoTC popping out a book every month just for money. I can't stand all the rollplaying i see in 3E. You've seen the charater builds. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Ekard Date : 04-01-06 06:24 PM ive been playing the game since the begginning ive played the original box set back in the day so to speak when TSR ran this system i dont like the new additions i think that they have went off course and i would like what all you 2nd edition fans think 3rd ed can answer this two i agree with you my dads been playing sence it came out i've been playing the same edition with my friends on weekends of couse im dm.... :D but i enjoy it but i have a problem... my hit and miss charts are destroyed :( i was wondering if someone can send me them or something ... please!! cuase i dont like that thaco **** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : chibirias Date : 04-03-06 10:43 AM i agree with you my dads been playing sence it came out i've been playing the same edition with my friends on weekends of couse im dm.... :D but i enjoy it but i have a problem... my hit and miss charts are destroyed :( i was wondering if someone can send me them or something ... please!! cuase i dont like that thaco **** You can buy a pdf of the 1st (or 2nd) edition DMG at www.paizo.com and print the pages you need. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Higmorton Date : 04-03-06 01:06 PM In my experieince I noticed that the conversion manula for 2nd ed to 3rd edition does not really work. I've tried to convert my characters and cannot get the skills and or feats to match up. I am reading through the books though and learning the rules more. To me the object of the game is not to put down the fact that thye are making all these new editions, and rulebooks. The object is to have fun with friends. However it would be nice to see some books come out for older editions as well, or better conversions for earlier edition. For Instance: My 22nd level fighter, is a grand master with two weapon style and longswords. I just can't see to be able to convert him to 3.x. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : caeruleus Date : 04-03-06 02:12 PM In my experieince I noticed that the conversion manula for 2nd ed to 3rd edition does not really work. I've tried to convert my characters and cannot get the skills and or feats to match up. I am reading through the books though and learning the rules more. To me the object of the game is not to put down the fact that thye are making all these new editions, and rulebooks. The object is to have fun with friends. However it would be nice to see some books come out for older editions as well, or better conversions for earlier edition. For Instance: My 22nd level fighter, is a grand master with two weapon style and longswords. I just can't see to be able to convert him to 3.x. Most people think that it's best not to convert directly. Keeping the basic character concept in mind, try your best to make a 3.x character that fits the concept rather than converting numbers. Back on topic, I enjoy 3.5, but I miss many things from older editions at the same time. For example, I like how multiclassing works in 3.5, but at the same time I miss the archetypes of earlier editions. Both have advantages and disadvantages, depending on what you want to do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Raastin Date : 04-04-06 10:57 PM Frankly, having played plenty of 3.5 I have no use for it. The only thing that I really like about 3/3.5 is the d20 mechanic, it is more intuitive than the THAC0 that I cut my gaming teeth on. But that is about the only thing that I like from the newer editions. I recently began a 2nd Edition game, which is ever so much simpler than 3.5, and we are loving it! We don't need to get out a battle board or mini's every time we have a combat, we don't spend 30 minutes on a round of combat trying to plot out moves that won't incur AofO, or picking from a laundry list of feats. Truth be told, I'm hoping to ease my players in to a game of Castles & Crusades, which is what 3rd edition should have been! I'll never even consider purchasing another 3.5 product, or anything from WOTC/Hasbro until a 4th edition is released; and that is based on the assumption that they will realize what a dismal failure 3.5 is and return to their roots! J. Haney -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 04-05-06 03:02 AM In my experieince I noticed that the conversion manula for 2nd ed to 3rd edition does not really work. I've tried to convert my characters and cannot get the skills and or feats to match up. The "conversion" booklet was more of an intro to the new edition, to give a preview of the game and what changes were made. 2nd edition had something similar. It's always recommended to just re-create the character from scratch. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : realmaster Date : 04-05-06 03:53 AM I have been playing AD&D since 1980 and still going strong. I also play 3E but AD&D is still #1 in my book. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Thailfi Date : 04-05-06 12:00 PM I don't have anything against 3e. Our group just wears 1e/2e like a pair of comfortable old shoes. It is familiar, fun, and we have plenty of material. A few years from now we may take the dive into the new edition (whatever it may be then) if we run out of things to do. Then again, maybe not. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : havard Date : 04-05-06 01:02 PM I don't have anything against 3e. Our group just wears 1e/2e like a pair of comfortable old shoes. It is familiar, fun, and we have plenty of material. A few years from now we may take the dive into the new edition (whatever it may be then) if we run out of things to do. Then again, maybe not. I dont see why these things have to be such major decisions though. I enjoy a wide variety of RPGs, and go back and forth between the various editions of (A)D&D... Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Thailfi Date : 04-05-06 01:54 PM Well, right or wrong, our group is of the opinion that 3e is so different from the previous editions that it would require substantial time investments by all of the players to familiarize ourselves with the new rule set. If we switch, we would want to give 3e a fair shot and to do that we would all have to do a fair amount of studying to ensure that the first few playing sessions are as enjoyable as they could be. We would all want to come to an agreement and make the commitment together. Also, AD&D is the only RPG that any of us has played (unless you count dabbling in Gamma World with AD&D characters in the 80s), so switching away from the only thing we have ever know would be a big deal to us. I actually own the 3 basic 3.5 rules guides plus savage species and I have given them an initial reading. I know I'll have to do a whole lot more studying to get to the point where gameplay isn't slowed by rules questions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Raastin Date : 04-05-06 04:03 PM I just want to clarify and say that I know some people love 3.5, it's just not a system for me. I played it for the better part of a year and a half and it just doesn't feel right to me. I prefer a rules lite system that doesn't sweat the details. I think that is the greastest departure between 3.5 and previous incarnations of the D&D game, is it's push towards realism in combat. That is one of the things that I like about earlier editions, I'd rather have a rip roaring adventure and combat that flows quickly and easily than worry about how realistic the attack angles are. But again, if you like 3.5 then ignore me and game on. J. Haney -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : goblin_gronth Date : 04-05-06 11:27 PM Can't they just all get along... haha. The thing i like about this game and probably why i play it more than any other rollplaying game system that i have is that i can take what i like from 1st, 2nd and 3.0/3.5 and put it together into something that i and my players can enjoy. Not to mention the vast resources that they all give. I have converted 2nd edition characters into 3rd, Im currently thinking of taking x1 module and putting it into 3rd edition. In my 3rd edition game i took resources from 2nd edition. If i had to pick just one... id say 2nd edition. but even then i cant play 2nd edition and not reach for an Unearth arcana or Oriental Adventures... :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : RobertFisher Date : 04-07-06 06:00 PM I didn't care for 2e. I switched to other games shortly after it came out, but to be fair, I probably wouldn't have stuck with (A)D&D even if 2e hadn't happened. (Although, I did play a 2e game in the late 1990s--that I really enjoyed--that started me on the road to understanding that I prefer higher levels of abstraction than I'd thought I wanted.) When 3e came out, I thought it was my dream come true. It had everything I'd always said I'd do if I was to try to "fix" (A)D&D. I embraced it whole-heartedly. But...I became increasingly unhappy with it. I eventually found my way back to my first loves: classic Traveller & classic (c. 1981) (not-A)D&D. Besides nostalgia, I found new appreciation for features of these games that I use to think were problems with them. They have become my favorite games. Now, when I play 3e, I see a lot of fixes to things that I no longer see as broken. 3e is an impressive opus, & I respect it a lot. I do still play it, because I'll play whatever the ref wants to run. In the end, the group & the ref are more important than the system. I'd probably even run a 3e game if the group really wanted me to. But 2e is possibly my second least-favorite edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : GoreBag Date : 04-11-06 03:34 AM I've been playing 2nd Ed for ten years and my group continues to play it in addition to other role-playing and board games. It was my first edition of D&D and will be my last, the way things are going. I read the manuals for 3rd Ed when it came out and even tried running a character in a friend's campaign for a short time. I couldn't stand it and that's why I'm in this sub-forum. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Wyre Date : 04-30-06 03:48 PM I'm still a 1st2nd Ed geek. I have modified the rules and character classes in the past 20+ years, but the basic structure is still there. THACO wasn't that hard, and the characters felt more real, not like some min/max computer generated uber character. 3.5 has its good points there is no doubt, but I just can't get past my old editons. Espicially since I spent so much time working with the system making it my own. I always saw the rules as guidlines, not set in stone. And since I never played in any officially sactioned tornuments, haveing a character who follwed TSR/WoTC canon was not a necessity. I'll stick with my hybrid system, use what works out of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, leave the rest and just stick to what works for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : True_Raistlin Date : 05-03-06 05:57 PM I played 2e for about 7 years, and loved it, specially with PO rules... anyway, after some resistance i switch to 3.x gradually, first some testing, then a hybrid and finally full transition. I don't like WoTC popping out a book every month just for money. Couldn't agree more, there are many book that are unnecesary, in fact all that is needed is the core. Some of these books are ok, but some others look as if they had been done in a rush and also have poor art (like complete arcane!!!). So basically, i'd say what i like is the system, not the "pen and paper video game" they created. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : dontheox Date : 05-10-06 04:25 PM I have played 3.5 and its okay, I have not played it enough to really critique it though. My main reason for not playing 3.5 is the 20 years worth of 1st and 2nd edition books. I still buy 1st and 2nd ed stuff when I find something I don't have or to replace something that is been over used. Its not that I am cheap or anything its just the fact I already have enough AD&D material to keep a group entertained for a lifetime. Also there is the nostalgic factor everytime I sit down to run a game it reminds me of all those great years of staying up until sunrise playing AD&D. I have been through all the rule debates between 2nd and 3rd edition, but what it really boils down to: Play what you want! If you can find a group to play 2nd ed awesome! If not then find a 3.5 group. I have been able to to keep a happy gaming group for over a year playing 2nd ed, but if I had to I would break down and buy the 3.5 core books so I could game, or just play Cyberpunk, or Vampire or Star Frontiers or Gamma World well you get the picture! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : dontheox Date : 05-10-06 04:30 PM Sorry for the repost! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : BinaryProphet Date : 05-13-06 08:07 PM First, a disclaimer: This is my opinion. Second, another disclaimer: My remarks about players who have only played 3.5 are aimed squarely at them, and are based on my personal experiences. These are my honest opinions after having played with three different 3.5 only groups. These are not aimed at players from earlier editions who switched. Third, yet another disclaimer: I really have played 3.5 quite a bit: A half-elf rogue (in Greyhawk), a gnome warlock (in homebrew), and a warforged barbarian (in Eberron). Having played 2e and 3.5, I have to state I vastly prefer 2e. It was a much simpler system, THAC0 aside. It also seemed to simply provide more roleplaying opportunities with less emphasis on combat. 3.5's rules seem entirely directed on making campaigns all about combat. I realize that roleplay is largely dependent on the players and DM anyway, but I dislike that 3.5 seems not to bother steering them in that direction. Almost every player who started on 3.5 that I've met seems to spend all of their time min/maxing their characters so that they're unbeatable, with no real emphasis on character interaction outside of an initial concept. They also seem to completely ignore the idea of downtime in between adventures, or even in the middle of one. Another thing that bugs me about 3.x is the feats and skills system. I dislike having to go through x number of levels to have my character do some kind of interesting attack. I really prefer the proficiencies with stat checks. It simply makes more sense to me for a first level character with Tumbling to be able to somersault through an enemy square with a dexterity check than have to wait until he gets x number of points in Tumble. The difference in success chance is something like 20% (75% chance with Tumbling proficiency and 15 Dex, 55% with 4 points in Tumble and 15 Dex) at first level. I hate that when I come up with a character concept, it seems it will take loads of levels to get the character to do what he was supposed to in the first place. I thought feats were there for character customization, not for making my concept nigh impossible (I've had characters die and campaigns end before any of the original concept could even show in his actions). Outside of a few skills, the others you simply won't get better at with experience. There's no real progress past learning how to light a fire with a wet cardboard box in a thunderstorm for Fire-Building or Survival. What adventurer genuinely has time to continue studying texts to level up his Knowledge(religion) skill anyway? It makes more sense to pick up proficiencies in other things, things you would learn on the road. There aren't really any skills that are there for each class, and certainly nothing as useful as the General proficiencies in 2e. And well I'm ranting, what's the idea behind Eberron? You make it take several levels to have a well-defined character with neat tricks and attacks, and then you make him world famous by level 5? That hero has to be a human fighter to even be able to do a whirlwind attack at that level. You don't even have any useful class features. These are just a few of my large list of complaints about 3.5. If you want to hear more, just ask anytime. Anyway, these are why I still play 2e. I would like to try 1e and Basic at some point. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : goblin_gronth Date : 05-13-06 09:05 PM These are just a few of my large list of complaints about 3.5. If you want to hear more, just ask anytime. Anyway, these are why I still play 2e. I would like to try 1e and Basic at some point. I have had some of the same complaints as you have with 3.0/3.5. BTW... 1st edition books fit very good into 2nd edition, or they take little to no effort to make them work. This is just how i have played for most of my 19 years. Using alot of the first edition. You can play alot of the first editions and even basic modules in 2nd edition. Takes a crap load of work to get modules that i have loved playing, some more than once..., to convert to 3.5. Have to check the challenge rating and see if the monster have been changed. Played a game a few years ago that the DM decided he would use a 1st edition module for our 3.0 characters. We about all got killed in the first encounter. When i made a debate of the issue and we got the monster of 1st edition and than the one for 3.0... it was a drastic change. Needless to say i did win that debate and he came to know that he needed to do a little more homework if he was going to just pick a 1st edition module and use it for a 3.0 adventure. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : CharginCrusader Date : 05-13-06 11:12 PM I played it, liked how it cleaned up some of 1e's problems, but did not care for the support products. The DMG was how should I put this.......lacking :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : dontheox Date : 05-14-06 09:58 AM I played it, liked how it cleaned up some of 1e's problems, but did not care for the support products. The DMG was how should I put this.......lacking :rolleyes: I could not agree with you more! The 1st edition DM is 232 pages, the 2nd edition was 192, I know that’s only 40 pages, but the info in those pages was awesome! Construction rules, ecology, climate all kinds of useful things a DM could use if needed. I still use the 1st edition DMG and the 3rd edition DMG can not not hold a light to it! IMO it was one of Gary's best works! As for the support products some of them were good. Towards the end though when they were throwing books out like candy, TSR was in a lot of financial trouble and were doing what they could to stay afloat, so in that sense quality is going to suffer. I was asked by guy why did I go from basic D&D to 1st edition and I told him it was better with more choices and detail, and the same with 2nd edition you could easily use 1st edition stuff with 2nd edition and the same for basic D&D, then he replied, “Well then what’s wrong with going from 2nd edition to 3rd?”, I will admit I was taken aback!. So I asked myself, "Why don't I go to 3rd edition? Oh I know why it’s not better! “If Wizards of the Coast were just a little more friendly with the conversion I would probably play, but its sooooo time consuming and I am sooooo lazy I am not going to do it! Plus I think the conversion is broken! As I said before I played 3rd edition it was Okay but an old schooler like me is going to stick with 2nd edition, mainly because I have so many books, whatever 3.5 character concept some one has you can make with 2ed. On another point in the 2nd edition DMG on pages 22 and 23 (the DMG with the wizard fighting a dragon) there are optional rules for creating a new player character class. So I say phooey to the argument of "Well you can customize your character anyway you want!" THAC0, I always hear THAC0 was too hard or too complicated or what have you, its simple math, if your THAC0 is 15 and you roll a 10 you hit AC 5 (10 - 15 = 5) How hard is that? What dose it matter if the AC goes up or down? I know it says in the rules you can't have an AC lower than -10 but in later books that rules was super seceded, for instance the red dragon in the Dragon Mountain Box set had a effective AC of -12, also once you get to a certain level hitting AC -20 is not impossible. Okay sorry for the rant! I got a little hot under the collar. In any case there is good and bad in both editions I prefer 2nd edition over 3rd mainly because of the large number of books I already have and I do not think it is necessary to have to buy all the 3.5 books I need to run a game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-14-06 09:57 PM 2e is still played. I know of a group older gamers around my area that still plays 2e (they can't stand 3e). I would game with them but I've pretty much retired from gaming at this point due to the demands of work and family. I'm actually trying to start a writing career at the moment. And waiting for my daughters to get a little older so I can start them on the old Basic D&D rules. That's gonna be a blast! Here's the rub. *IF* 2e is so "outdated" and "obsolete" why is it not OGL? The same goes for 1e/BECMI rules as well. Could WOTC be that concerned about losing revenue if the older editions become OGL? As far as the comments about the 1e DMG goes...let's just say I showed this friend of mine (youngin' new to the game, 3e freak) my weathered copy and he thought it was the best thing since sliced beholder! And I added with a wry smile that this was really the golden age of D&D! Later fellas gotta read a bedtime story to my girls! Peace be upon you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : dontheox Date : 05-14-06 10:25 PM Zaxon D'Mir, Where in Mississippi are you from? I used to live in Hattiesburg myself. Anyways back on topic, what dose OGL stand for? And I agree with you that I think WOTC is scared of losing revenue since they destroyed all the old back stock. Isn't the 1st edition DMG great! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Higmorton Date : 05-15-06 07:58 AM I enjoyed the 1st ed. DMG guide better, because it has combat for waterbased attacks, with the stats on ships and their hual. A well as stats for castles and seige weapons. _______________ 2nd ed came out with the book od Ship & Sea, for the water based attacks, and I believe the castle guide, but were these extra good really necessary. _______________ Not really sure where to find the rules for this in 3.x. And from what I see of the new releases. Player's Handbook 2, with more classes and skills and feats why not just make a book title the complete book of skills and feats, and the same as what they did for earlier editions the spell compendium books. _______________ I agree I have a lot of 1st and 2nd ed books whih I refer to all the time. I tried doing conversions to 3rd, but some things don't come close to matching up. Any really from what I have read a prestige class in no more than a kit for the different classes. So I will stick with the ed. that I prefer best and that would be 2nd, until someone would physically show me how much better the newer ed. is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-15-06 09:18 PM Zaxon D'Mir, Where in Mississippi are you from? I used to live in Hattiesburg myself. Anyways back on topic, what dose OGL stand for? And I agree with you that I think WOTC is scared of losing revenue since they destroyed all the old back stock. Isn't the 1st edition DMG great! As a matter of fact Dontheox I graduated from the University of Brett Favre..er..I mean Southern Miss (geez that man's a god down there!) so Hattiesburg was home for a few years. Now the Jackson area is home. OGL stands for Open Gaming License. It is the boon and bane of d20 in my opinion. If WOTC had the game's best interest at heart instead of collecting dead presidents ALL former editions would be OGL! That's my story and I'm sticking to it! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : dontheox Date : 05-15-06 09:34 PM As a matter of fact Dontheox I graduated from the University of Brett Favre..er..I mean Southern Miss (geez that man's a god down there!) so Hattiesburg was home for a few years. Now the Jackson area is home. As a matter of fact I got into a fight with Brett Fart, that guy is a dick! I also went to high school with Steve Mcnair got into a fight with him too I think there is a pattern there. I am a grad from USM myself small world! What years were you there? I lived in Hattiesburg from 93 to about 2004, we might have met and never known it. Back on topic, no OGL and destroying all the back stock that is one of the many reasons why I don't buy 3.5. I know in the near futere 4.0 will be right around the corner! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-16-06 09:27 PM As a matter of fact I got into a fight with Brett Fart, that guy is a dick! I also went to high school with Steve Mcnair got into a fight with him too I think there is a pattern there. I am a grad from USM myself small world! What years were you there? I lived in Hattiesburg from 93 to about 2004, we might have met and never known it. Back on topic, no OGL and destroying all the back stock that is one of the many reasons why I don't buy 3.5. I know in the near futere 4.0 will be right around the corner! Uhhh...You wouldn't have been a polymer science major? I gamed with a group working on their PhDs in the polymer science department. The only English major surrounded by guys and girls with IQs that made me feel like mine was my shoe size! I was there from '96-'99. Personally I'd love for 2e to go OGL. The Forgotten Realms was vastly more enjoyable in its 2e fluff. There's something about 3e Realms that just feels odd. I really can't quite understand why WOTC is not trying to make an extra buck off of licensing OPP to third parties deeply interested in reviving some of the old flare AD&D had. Oh, wait a minute...It would be serious competition when the old stuff is marketed successfully and starts selling better than average. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : dontheox Date : 05-16-06 10:05 PM Uhhh...You wouldn't have been a polymer science major? I gamed with a group working on their PhDs in the polymer science department. The only English major surrounded by guys and girls with IQs that made me feel like mine was my shoe size! I was there from '96-'99. Personally I'd love for 2e to go OGL. The Forgotten Realms was vastly more enjoyable in its 2e fluff. There's something about 3e Realms that just feels odd. I really can't quite understand why WOTC is not trying to make an extra buck off of licensing OPP to third parties deeply interested in reviving some of the old flare AD&D had. Oh, wait a minute...It would be serious competition when the old stuff is marketed successfully and starts selling better than average. No I was computer science major but I did game with a poly major named Jason, and his friend Robert, and his friend Dennis but he moved to Georgia. That was around that time. Well right now the closest thing to 2ed is Hackmaster the game that they play in Knights of the Dinner table. Besides that ebay is your best bet for getting materail. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-17-06 06:29 PM No I was computer science major but I did game with a poly major named Jason, and his friend Robert, and his friend Dennis but he moved to Georgia. That was around that time. We've met then because I gamed with Jason and Robert two or three times. Most of my group was Corey, James and James' wife with a revolving cast of poly PhD candidates in and out. Man, I miss 2e. I'm not much into Hackmaster but I've been eyeing Castles and Crusades. That looks like what 3e really should have been. A lot of 1e but really streamlined combat mechanics. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : dontheox Date : 05-18-06 06:47 AM We've met then because I gamed with Jason and Robert two or three times. Most of my group was Corey, James and James' wife with a revolving cast of poly PhD candidates in and out. Man, I miss 2e. I'm not much into Hackmaster but I've been eyeing Castles and Crusades. That looks like what 3e really should have been. A lot of 1e but really streamlined combat mechanics. Well I am drawing a blank on who you are I remember James and his wife I can't picture Corey I think he was the one that moved to Dothan, Alabama. I don't know if you remember my friend Pat we were roomies actully Jason was one of my roomies for a time. Castles and Crusades is an awesome game a friend of mine up here in Virginia ran it through out last summer it was great! Well if I can find a group to play 2nd edition AD&D in Hattiesburg I am sure you could find some people in Jackson to play you can find the books on ebay very cheap! Also you can try RPG.net that website has a very good gamers classifieds board. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : mistressdash Date : 05-19-06 10:06 PM I haven't played anything newer than 2nd ed., but I have friends who play 3.0 and 3.5 and to hear them talk, it's harder to gain experience and up your levels. Is this true? :confused: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : goblin_gronth Date : 05-20-06 01:40 AM I havent played 3.0/3.5 a lot, but i dont think its harder. In fact, from playing it over the last three years and reading the books i would say its a little easier than 2nd edition. In fact i have taken 2nd edition characters and put them into 3.0/3.5, i have recently found out the best way to do this and that is to just keep the level of the character and cross it over, but when i would take the experience points. The character would in 3.5 would be about 3 levels higher than what he was in 2nd. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : mistressdash Date : 05-20-06 01:19 PM Thread Title : 2nd edition Thanks goblin_gronth. I'll give it a try. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Wyre Date : 05-21-06 12:01 PM My wife likes 3.x, so I whip up a couple of adventures for her when I can. Hopefully we can get our old group back together we had some years ago and get active again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Ruhl-Than Sage Date : 06-07-06 03:06 PM I can understand some of the complaints that people have about 3.0/3.5, but there are a lot of things about 2nd edition that were lacking as well. Although THAC0 may not have been mindbloggingly complicted, it was not intuitive and the new AC/Hit system is easier to use. The Proficiency system was extremely unrealistic and frustrating. You could either use a proficiency to learn how to do something new, or spend it to gain a +1 (which was never really worth it). It think it's much better that character are able to train their skills in 3.x to get good at them with practice. The Racail class and level restriction in 2nd edition were unfair and IMO nonsensical. Why are different races limited to certain class levels? The removal of those restrictions was a good move. If the DM wants to impose such restrictions themselves that makes sense given the campaign world, but for a general setting it doesn't. The Ability requirements for getting into classes were unfair. You could take a better class for having better ability scores, which just wasn't right. The way that it works in 3.x you can take the class no matter what your ability scores are, but they might be a bad fit for the class. The Expirience system was broken. By having a high ability score (thusly making it easier to get expirience you could get more expirience) and don't get me started on the individual class awards. Thieves would advance twice as quickly as the other classes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : 00_Whupass Date : 06-07-06 04:25 PM I've been gaming with D&D since 1989, and I have to admit I vastly prefer 3.5 to 2nd edition, I can't comment on 3.0 since I never played it. One of my biggest frustrations with 2nd ed. was that my character felt completely, or at least mostly static after character generation. Sure there were NWP and weapon proficiencies that I could take to change my character slightly as he leveled up but that was never very much. In 2nd ed a fighter was a fighter through and through from 1st level to however high you played. Whereas in 3.5 characters are dynamic, at each new level you have an opportunity for your character to grow and evolve. Your fighter had a religious epiphany on his last job working for the church of pelor? Cool take your next level in paladin. Maybe he was taken out by a lion that pounced on him and pinned him to the ground, not wanting his ego to be so bruised again he practices his wrestling techniques so as to be better able to get out of that situation. He takes Improved Grapple. The combination of feats and the new multiclassing system make characters something alive that grows and changes rather than 2nd ed which felt like a striaght jacket that you put on at first level and then were confined in for the rest of your adventuring career. Kits, and the later Players option systems did a lot to try to allow players to customize their characters to their own visions, and that was good but they still suffered from the same problem of characters being static after they were created. I also like that gives a clear and balenced mechanic to adjudicate any situation: Roll 1d20 add modifiers compare to a target value. This single unifying mechanic gives DMs a way to make a check that is both fair and statistically randomized for anything, whereas in 2nd the rules were ambiguous to the point that if a method of determining the outcome wasn't explicitly stated DMs had to come up with something on the fly, in my experiance these rulings were rarely consistant from one instance to another. A unified mechanic allows for predicatability of outcomes and a better understanding of the processes of the game, which at least in my own games has greatly reduced the frequency with which players will question a DM ruling, or the fairness of a given mechanic. There were a few things I preferred about second edition, most notibly weapon speed. However on the whole I find 3.5 a vastly preferable system. However such elements are easily ported to the new ruleset I do however feel 2nd edition has had a lasting effect on my preference for low level games, to this day I get lost after about 5th level, which my second edition experience instilled in my as the point at which your character becomes godlike in power. (The highest I ever got in 2nd edition was 6th level) I will grant that part of my preference for 3.5 might owe to simple maturity rather than to actual differences between the editions as I was seven when I began playing 2nd edition and continued playing through my freshman year in highschool, and the maturity level of both players and DMs in that age bracket tends to lead to superficial gaming and frequent digressions, but for those reasons expressed above I favor 3.5 by a wide margin. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : John Paul Stoddard Date : 06-08-06 08:32 AM I recently began a 2nd Edition game, which is ever so much simpler than 3.5, and we are loving it! We don't need to get out a battle board or mini's every time we have a combat, we don't spend 30 minutes on a round of combat trying to plot out moves that won't incur AofO I'll never even consider purchasing another 3.5 product, or anything from WOTC/Hasbro until a 4th edition is released; and that is based on the assumption that they will realize what a dismal failure 3.5 is and return to their roots! J. Haney No one has to use Miniatures in the Game. If your plotting your moves around the battlemap and wasting game time its your fault not that of game mechanics.. We have used Miniatures since 1978 and don't find they hinder the game in anyway And as for the last part..No one is forced to buy any product and I hope they never release a 4th edition so you won't have to worry about the D&D POLICe beating down your down and flogging you until you buy..buy..buy..buy :mad: Locks and Bolts the doors and hides in the Closet with just a PH, DMG, MM :weep: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : John Paul Stoddard Date : 06-08-06 08:46 AM . I really can't quite understand why WOTC is not trying to make an extra buck off of licensing OPP to third parties deeply interested in reviving some of the old flare AD&D had. Oh, wait a minute...It would be serious competition when the old stuff is marketed successfully and starts selling better than average. Copy Right Laws and Royalty Rights Gary owns GreyHawk not TSR or Wizards TSR Created Forgotten Realms when the Rift over the Rights to Greyhawk happened....Hence the realms was created When WOTC took Over they went Generic and have now obtained the rights to their own setting EBERRON...Why because there wasn't an exsisting world in the Generic setting Many of the OPP worlds do exsist in D20 Modren Print..Nothing is stopping you from Using the Realms, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Dragonlance. Heck even create your own world and Map it Out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : havard Date : 06-08-06 09:05 AM Copy Right Laws and Royalty Rights Gary owns GreyHawk not TSR or Wizards Hmm..didnt know that. I assumed that was fixed when WotC reached their settlement with Gygax and Arneson over the rights to D&D... Interesting! TSR Created Forgotten Realms when the Rift over the Rights to Greyhawk happened....Hence the realms was created When WOTC took Over they went Generic and have now obtained the rights to their own setting EBERRON...Why because there wasn't an exsisting world in the Generic setting GH is still the default D&D3E setting. IIRC Eberron was designed in part to make the most of the 3E system however. Many of the OPP worlds do exsist in D20 Modren Print..Nothing is stopping you from Using the Realms, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Dragonlance. Besides, all of the OOP stuff is available for sale as pdfs. This is something we couldnt have dreamed of back in the 2E era.... Remember how hard it was to get ahold of OOP stuff back then? Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : chatdemon Date : 06-08-06 11:49 AM Copy Right Laws and Royalty Rights Gary owns GreyHawk not TSR or Wizards Absolutely incorrect. Greyhawk is the property of Wizards, and thus Hasbro. Gygax retains rights to use those elements of Greyhawk lore, like Zagyg, that are direct derivatives of his name, as well as the Gord saga, but the bulk of the setting belongs to Wizards. This is why WotC and Paizo can publish Greyhawk material using that name, and Gygax must produce thinly veiled generic "Castle Zagyg" material. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Higmorton Date : 06-09-06 08:40 AM After reading through the rules for version 3.0. It looks like WOTC tried to make the rules simpler. All the different tables were reduce. There is no saving throw table, or thaco table. From what I read it was made easy by the fact that: A creatures AC is now what you need to roll on a 20 sided dice, saves have a dc value as well, increased or decreased by modifiers. Having played 2nd and 1st ed, over 20 years, as well as spent money on all thoise book, that is why I do not want to switch. But, since thta is main source of D&D out there, and I am starting to enjoy what is I read. I may stick to the core rules, and make the switch. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : WotC_Huscarl Date : 06-09-06 11:56 AM Well, as the chief editor/developer of 2nd Ed. and past creative director for AD&D, I may be able to shed some light on this. 2nd Ed. was created under some pretty hefty restrictions. Mainly, we weren't allowed to really redesign the game. The #1 goal was to reorganize everything so the rulebooks would be easier to use, streamline some of the clunky rules, unify conflicting rules, and incorporate selected things that came from expansion books such as Unearthed Arcana. Within that mandate (and sometimes beyond it), I thought we did a sterling job. During the final year of TSR, when we weren't publishing much of anything, we had lots of time to think about the future of D&D. One of the things we discussed at length was how the game could be improved if it was completely redesigned from the ground up. Our experience with 2nd Ed. figured into those discussions in a big way. When things moved to Seattle, I wrote up a lengthy white paper laying out all those recommendations. D&D 3.0 was definitely a creation of the team at WotC, but many of those suggestions did find their way into the design. So 3.0 and 3.5 shouldn't really be considered as a direction change for D&D. They were logical next steps in the evolution of the game (and very well done, IMHO). If TSR had survived, something roughly similar would have appeared on about the same timetable. Steve -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Petrankov Date : 06-10-06 02:43 PM I played 2ed and I now play 3.5. I don't really think one is better than the other as far as enjoyability. I do think 2ed sourcebooks were better though. The newer version of D&D makes for much faster level gains than the old editions at least in my experience and I give out XP pretty conservatively. I pretty much use all 2ed sources within the 3.5 rules at this point in time and probably will for a few more years. While the restrictions and pre-requisites to take PrC's can be frustrating for players I think they make for much more versatile characters than 2ed had. I also tweaked the rules to speed up combat somewhat throwing out some stuff that slowed it down in 3.5. I agree BTW that THAC0 is a very easy system. It takes 2 minutes to explain it so I don't think it was more complicated than d20 rules. How cool is it that Zaxon & Dontheox knew each other (or may have) 6-10 years ago. I love the internet. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : dontheox Date : 06-10-06 02:49 PM How cool is it that Zaxon & Dontheox knew each other (or may have) 6-10 years ago. I love the internet. :D I still can't place his face though! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : BinaryProphet Date : 06-11-06 04:42 AM Huscarl: I'm not really sure how that can be considering what appears to be a huge philosophical shift between the editions. The second edition sourcebooks are full of just interesting flavor tidbits, half-disguised ideas, and huge amounts of historically accurate data. Look at the equipment for example: in the Arms and Equipment guide for second edition there is more information on every weapon than I really would have believed could make it into a book designed for playing an RPG. It even cites its sources! Now look at the 3e Arms and Equipment Guide: a single table that lists other names for the selected weapons there, some of which aren't very historically accurate at all. These weapon categories were picked in what appears to be an arbitrary manner with each style of weapon receiving a progression chain all the way to the two-handed version. It looks like rather than go for any semblance of realism they simply opted to make the equipment be balanced for mechanics. Most of the 3.5 sourcebooks are like this, less realism and 'fluff' and more focus on mechanics. I really prefer the sheer amount of content in the older books. I really would have preferred if they had simply released a new PHB and DMG in the same system to fix some of the perceived problems (like demihuman level caps and racial restrictions) without doing such a complete and massive shift. I honestly take huge issue with the feat system as suddenly my character concept can't be done well until 6th or 7th level. One other thing is why is there so much focus on balance in 3.5 if there isn't even a table demonstrating class abilities like there was in the beginning of the 2e DMG? That gave easy numerical values for comparing classes and made it much easier to fit a new class into the campaign. Variable experience was a must for that system really, but I don't see that as much of a problem if you keep some level cap in your campaign period. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 06-11-06 11:13 AM I still can't place his face though! Oh, I was the guy that looked like Brad Pitt! :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 06-11-06 11:28 AM BinaryProphet Most of the 3.5 sourcebooks are like this, less realism and 'fluff' and more focus on mechanics. I really prefer the sheer amount of content in the older books. I really would have preferred if they had simply released a new PHB and DMG in the same system to fix some of the perceived problems (like demihuman level caps and racial restrictions) without doing such a complete and massive shift. I honestly take huge issue with the feat system as suddenly my character concept can't be done well until 6th or 7th level. Exactly. That's my whole beef with the newer edition. Far too much was changed instead of the usually gripes and complaints - like racial level and class limits and dual classing for humans. D&D did not need or deserve this massive overhaul. Half of the d20 concept is pure genius and the other is pure crap. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : Attila Date : 06-11-06 02:59 PM Huscarl: I'm not really sure how that can be considering what appears to be a huge philosophical shift between the editions. The second edition sourcebooks are full of just interesting flavor tidbits, half-disguised ideas, and huge amounts of historically accurate data. I think he's talking purely game mechanics/game system and not about fluff/flavor. I also miss the flavor and historical data from 1e/2e. I do see a clear evolution from 1e-2e-3e as Huscarl stated and consider 3e to have been the logical next step. How big of a step that should have been is purely a matter of opinion. No right or wrong answer there. I view the different D&D editions as separate games with each having pros and cons. What I select for a campaign depends on what best fits what my group wants to play. We always start with a clean slate and select between B/X, 1e, 2e and 3e. I haven't played anything newer than 2nd ed., but I have friends who play 3.0 and 3.5 and to hear them talk, it's harder to gain experience and up your levels. Is this true? Using the standard experience system in 3.x you level up at an incredibly fast pace compared with earlier editions. 3.x spreads feats and other goodies out over a bunch of different levels because of the expectation that PCs will reach those high levels in a very short amount of time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : GreyLord Date : 06-12-06 04:09 PM After reading through the rules for version 3.0. It looks like WOTC tried to make the rules simpler. All the different tables were reduce. There is no saving throw table, or thaco table. From what I read it was made easy by the fact that: A creatures AC is now what you need to roll on a 20 sided dice, saves have a dc value as well, increased or decreased by modifiers. Having played 2nd and 1st ed, over 20 years, as well as spent money on all thoise book, that is why I do not want to switch. But, since thta is main source of D&D out there, and I am starting to enjoy what is I read. I may stick to the core rules, and make the switch. Uh, actually no...there are still saving throw tables...but changed. Now each class has three separate saving throws and then you must do a little mathematical formula in order to figure out what the saving throw is (looking it up on a table WAS actually easier to tell the truth) which normally stays a pretty constant formula. Instead of THAC0 they have BAB which is the same as THAC0, just reveresed. A creatures AC is NOT what you normally need to hit it. There are MANY variables now, such as flanking, AoO, Dodge bonus, Flat footed, and myriads of others dependant of situation that requires a DM to remember several pages worth (and more if they use more than just the core feats). AC changes more in 3.5 than any other edition, and typically can change round to round (hope you are good at addition and subtraction, which is the greatest puzzlement for those who say they hated THAC0 but love this "simpler" system when in truth there is MUCH MORE adding and subtracting, and even negative number adding in 3.5 now that it's "aged" appropriately). However, many ignore said rules, and as long as you aren't in tournament play or in official games one can play as they desire. Added: Reading a little further, it seems that something else should be addressed. 3e DID build upon 2e, (and added some very different things that I felt changed the system completely, which I disagree with them having changed...BUT that's not what this is all about). Basically a LOT of what some people have problems with is what was incorporated from 2.5 in the new books. Things from the Players Option books, where feats and skills and other ideas that tried to bring in character development with a new approach was incorporated into the core rules. So a lot of the things some don't like are the same who didn't like the 2.5 ideas (2.5 being slang for the Options books). I personally think the idea to incorporate them was not what I would have done, but with enough hype it seems to have taken hold of the current editions of D&D...sooooo....successful regardless. If you liked the Options books in 2e but want them brought into core rules in a more organized and logical manner, 3.5 is the game for you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Spectralion Date : 06-14-06 08:48 AM I started playing AD and D about 6 years ago with second edition. When I started to DM 2nd Ed was already out of print so i played 3rd Edition but it was not the same. I liked the old-school Artworks, the ETW0 (THAC0) the level and multilevel restrictions and so on. 3rd Ed. never gave me this pen and paper feeling :weep: . :D Finally i will get an unbelievable amount of 2nd Ed. stuff in the next days :D . nearly 6 years of suffering will be over :) . I also noticed that it took a long time to develop 3rd Ed. characters and till level 6 they all look the same to me with only minor differences (different weapons, spells). My suggestion to WotC:" reprint the second (hmm and 1st) Edition!" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : protonik Date : 06-16-06 03:04 PM I still play and prefer 2nd edition. I do like the character level and class level setup very much. I like the d20 rules, ever since i saw Alternity. I don't like WoTC popping out a book every month just for money. I can't stand all the rollplaying i see in 3E. You've seen the charater builds. Uhhh, Alternity is not D20 and is in fact TOTALLY different from D20. The similarities are like the similarities in Shadowrun 1-3e and Vampire the Masquerade or GURPS and Champions... obvious inspiration from some elements of Alternity but the implementation is very different. Alternity is a roll under system, D20 is a roll high system. Alternity has broad skills that you can then specialize in areas of whereas D20 has feats which represent talents and certain maneuvers etc and skills which represent training. I think you may need to read the 3e core rule books or something because just because some ideas came from Alternity doesn't mean the system is the same, nor the implementation etc of those ideas and the comment applies more to D20 Modern than D&D3e. You don't like WOTC popping out a book every month just for money? How many releases a month did TSR have in 2e heyday? 3-4? How many suipposed optional rules were not all that optional when you bought the supplements and how many times did you need a certain supplement to be able to use certain other supplements? WOTC is putting out 1-2 good quality hardcovers that are designed to benefit players and DMs and are even working to expand the line into some more DM oriented material. "Rollplaying"? Is that like "bad, wrong fun"? I've played in my share of 1e and 2e game, even OD&D games and I've been playing 3e since the core books first came out and I'll tell you something, I have seen just as much "bad, wrong fun" in 1e and 2e and OD&D as I have seen in 3e. What I have seen with the mechanics is players interested in the development of their characters and focusing on goals, whether they be mechanical or roleplay oriented. Prestige Classes? You NEED to roleplay getting a prestige class in my game. You want a Shadow Dancer? You find and join a thieves guild that has a shadow dancer in it willing to teach you the ways of the shadowdancer. You want a Lore Master, you better be a dues paying member of the Wizards' Guild and have a good relationship with the Lore Master of the guild so he will take you under his wing. A Harper? Meet another Harper. Become a friend of his and earn his trust, he may introduce you to his circle. Rollplay vs. Role play is not an edition thing, it's a DM thing. Doing builds on a werbsite just for fun and to see what you can do with the system is NOT the same as sitting down and playing the game out. You can't judge everything about 3e from a message board. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : protonik Date : 06-16-06 03:07 PM i agree with you my dads been playing sence it came out i've been playing the same edition with my friends on weekends of couse im dm.... :D but i enjoy it but i have a problem... my hit and miss charts are destroyed :( i was wondering if someone can send me them or something ... please!! cuase i dont like that thaco **** Uhhh, man, they are the exact same thing in 1e as 2e except that the fighter goes down 2 every 2 lvls instead of 1 every level. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : protonik Date : 06-16-06 03:17 PM Frankly, having played plenty of 3.5 I have no use for it. The only thing that I really like about 3/3.5 is the d20 mechanic, it is more intuitive than the THAC0 that I cut my gaming teeth on. But that is about the only thing that I like from the newer editions. I recently began a 2nd Edition game, which is ever so much simpler than 3.5, and we are loving it! We don't need to get out a battle board or mini's every time we have a combat, we don't spend 30 minutes on a round of combat trying to plot out moves that won't incur AofO, or picking from a laundry list of feats. Truth be told, I'm hoping to ease my players in to a game of Castles & Crusades, which is what 3rd edition should have been! I'll never even consider purchasing another 3.5 product, or anything from WOTC/Hasbro until a 4th edition is released; and that is based on the assumption that they will realize what a dismal failure 3.5 is and return to their roots! J. Haney You don't need to get the battlemat and minis for every combat in 3e or 3.5 and if you just go core you don't have a HUGE feat option. The best advice I ever got when I started getting down on 3e was "ignore the rest of the books, just buy monster books and use the core rules" and wow, has it made a difference. I got to the point where I dreaded game day but now I don't. AoO are not so difficult and if you remind your players that plotting out their attacks to avoid AoO is metagame thinking and the DM actually keeps in mind that unless they have combat reflexes they only get one AoO a round, well, it isn't a huge issue. I use tokens to keep track of those things. I don't think that WotC will EVER consider 3e or 3.5 a failure. 3e alone revitalized the gaming industry when it was released and has outsold 2e in half the time that 2e was available, even counting the revision sales. I believe 3e has been the most profitable version of the game released since OD&D but I can't quote that for a fact. COnsidering that D&D3e outsells the next best selling RPG 20 to 3, well, 3e is a HUGE hit. Keeping even more in mind that White Wolf and Vampire was just that close to knocking AD&D off its perch as the best selling RPG on the market that is really saying something about the success of D&D3e. I workin an FLGS and looking at GTM and Retailers Guide to Games, D&D3e is the ONLY thing currently selling in the rpg and hobby games departments and continues to sell quite strongly. No, WOTC is NOT going to consider 3e or 3.5 a failure by any means. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : GreyLord Date : 06-16-06 09:56 PM Glad we don't play in the same game. For me, if you don't use a mat or something with accurate measures, it's as good as giving me an AoO any time your guy moves. You don't agree...well you better have some proof more than your word vs. a players...cause players will do anything they think they can get away with. Plus...The rules for 3.5 are written around minis and miniature rules, they come with the basic set and only define movement off spaces...AND with the references to classes and other things specifically from the miniatures handbook in relation to D&D (for instance the marshall is even included as a player character in the PHB2) well.... No, miniatures aren't "required" but they are VERY VERY VERY HEAVILY recommended. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-17-06 01:33 AM I can understand some of the complaints that people have about 3.0/3.5, but there are a lot of things about 2nd edition that were lacking as well. Agreed. Although THAC0 may not have been mindbloggingly complicted, it was not intuitive and the new AC/Hit system is easier to use. Right. So, this isn't really worth mentioning. The new system is better, but not so much better that it's really going to enter into a decision of which to play. The Proficiency system was extremely unrealistic and frustrating. Of course, it was optional. Ever try to play 3e without the skill system? I find the many aspects of the skill system in 3e unrealistic & frustrating. Like the fact that Spot is a skill & that (IIRC) my fighters have to pay double for it. The Racail class and level restriction in 2nd edition were unfair and IMO nonsensical. What does it matter if the system lists restrictions & the DM overrules them vs. the system not listing them & the DM adds them? Some people will say that it's easier for a DM to remove restrictions than add them, so having the restrictions in the book was a precedent that improved player/DM relations for those DMs who couldn't imagine a dwarven wizard in their worlds. Again, a minor difference that was so often house ruled that it really isn't worth mentioning. The Ability requirements for getting into classes were unfair. It's no more unfair than the fact that not every PC gets an 18 in every ability score. What's wrong with the game reflecting the fact that not every PC had what it took to successfully complete paladin training? Plus, this is another one of those things that is easily--& was easily--house ruled away in a moment. Is this one really worth mentioning either? The Expirience system was broken. By having a high ability score (thusly making it easier to get expirience you could get more expirience) Possibly the most often ignored rule in the system. I'll agree this made less sense in AD&D2e than it had in OD&D, but broken? Don't get me wrong. 3e may not be my favorite game, but I have great respect for it & do enjoy it when I play it. Indeed, 2e may well be my least favorite edition of the game. Surely you could come up with much more compelling complaints about 2e than these. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Jaisin Date : 06-17-06 09:45 PM For a number of years, groups I ran and groups I belonged to never used minis. Money and time were big factor (especially in HS), but during college, I started gaming with a group that always used minis. I tell you, it made a big impact on the game. The creativity that it spawned was awsome, especially with NWP's like 'Tactics of Magic', and gave a whole new meaning to 'line of sight' spells. :) No longer were the days where 8 people could attack a single 3'6" tall goblin in 5' wide corridor with 8' ceilings. And you got to see what people thought of their own characters. Typically in descriptions, you get 'mage, wearing a red robe and a staff. Oh! he's got tattoos!', but with minis and the people who took time to detail them, you'd get to see that Sir Marten wears the fur-lined cloak, and his tabard is green and white with a matching cross device on his shield, blah blah blah - basically, what I'm trying (successfully, or unsuccessfully, it could be either) to say is 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : protonik Date : 06-17-06 10:46 PM [QUOTE=GreyLord]Uh, actually no...there are still saving throw tables...but changed. Now each class has three separate saving throws and then you must do a little mathematical formula in order to figure out what the saving throw is (looking it up on a table WAS actually easier to tell the truth) which normally stays a pretty constant formula. I don't see how it was easier to look up a table than it is to look on your char sheet and see it right there. Also, the new saves are much more intuitive. Need to get away from a dragon's breath? Reflex. Need to resist a Charm Person? Will. Need to save against a Rod of Charm Person? Will. Eachof the saving throws make sense as well and are tied directly to your ability scores instead of being a number on a chart that has no bearing on your ability. Instead of THAC0 they have BAB which is the same as THAC0, just reveresed. Sort of but not really. The current AC system allows for a broader range in defense. You aren't limited to a twenty point scale. A creatures AC is NOT what you normally need to hit it. There are MANY variables now, such as flanking, AoO, Dodge bonus, Flat footed, and myriads of others dependant of situation that requires a DM to remember several pages worth (and more if they use more than just the core feats). AC changes more in 3.5 than any other edition, and typically can change round to round (hope you are good at addition and subtraction, which is the greatest puzzlement for those who say they hated THAC0 but love this "simpler" system when in truth there is MUCH MORE adding and subtracting, and even negative number adding in 3.5 now that it's "aged" appropriately). They aren't that hard to remember and it amounts to a +2 or not. That is all. Once you actually see them in play you really find them to be intuitive and common sense based. If the system requires several pages for the DM to remember then how did Monte Cook reduce those several pages to 3 or 4 in Arcana Unearthed? How are the variables in 3e combat any different than the variables of 2e combat? AC does not change, the situation changes and the player gets a bonus. If a goblin with an AC of 13 is flanked his AC is STILL 13, the player just gets a +2 to his die roll to beat that 13. LOL, negative number adding? WTH is negative number adding? You mean SUBTRACTING? However, many ignore said rules, and as long as you aren't in tournament play or in official games one can play as they desire. They get ignored about as much as Brad Pitt. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : TheGreenGriffon Date : 06-20-06 01:37 AM I played 2ed for many years but I always felt limited by what the system had to offer and I also found making new stuff myself was very difficult as I would have to constantly be spending more time on finding ways of forcing my new ideas into 2nd editions scrap book rule book in which they made a new system for every single part of the game then I did on actually being creative. I found 2ed amazingly restrictive and it pretty much encouraged by its example for DM's to be as ridgid in their thinking as the game was. "No you cant be a dwarven mage because the book says dwarves cant be mages!" Why not? Is there some curse that ptrevents dwarves from taking this class or is is just because the majority dont? Granted they dont but not every dwarf is like every other dwarf right? The new 3ed made these restrictions vanish. Now I can play what class and race I want, gone are the dum ability score minimums that stop you from playing what you wnat to play just because you werent lucky enough to role high scores. That was lame just was level limits on demi humans. Now theres a system that words with itself, all the rolls are the same, it speeds things up. You usea d20 for everything except damage and add a simple modifier which is easy to calculate. They have opened the system up for others with a new open liscense policy allowing others to make content as well ensuring your not restricted to WoTC products. I quit playing 2ed way before 3ed and 3.5 came out. I was bored, the system was too restrictive and you shouldnt have to change everything yourself to have fun, it should be fun with room for improvement, once youve played a few characters with 2ed the thrill is gone. I came back when 3.0 and 3.5 came out. Im having the time of my life again. ive been playing the game since the begginning ive played the original box set back in the day so to speak when TSR ran this system i dont like the new additions i think that they have went off course and i would like what all you 2nd edition fans think 3rd ed can answer this two If by off course you mean it no longer alienates new players and the rules can actually be understood by everyone now and it allows you to once be creative and make the character you want without having to juryrig new rules into an already broken system then your absolutely right, 3ed is so off course I doubt it will ever be seen again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : Attila Date : 06-20-06 03:17 AM Welcome back Green Griffon. It's always nice to see someone come back to the game. I never felt hemmed-in by the racial/class/level restrictions but I did have a problem with the Player's Option books. They were great and offered lots of really cool options. Unfortunately a lot of it didn't fit together and was inconsistent. We had fun anyway. I like 3.5 because it's a complete system that feels like it was designed from the ground up. Unfortunately I think it lost a lot of the feel of old D&D in the process. ive been playing the game since the begginning ive played the original box set back in the day so to speak when TSR ran this system i dont like the new additions i think that they have went off course and i would like what all you 2nd edition fans think 3rd ed can answer this two . I think D&D changed course starting with 2nd edition PLayer's Option. 3.x edition followed along this same course of added complexity. I currently prefer Classic D&D and AD&D for their simplicity and old school feel. That's not to say I don't play 2E or 3.xE. Every edition of the game has its pros and cons. Choose the one that's right for you. The important thing is that people continue to play the game, regardless of edition. The healthier the game is the better it is for fans of all editions. Players of one edition inevitably become curious about the other incarnations of the game and sometimes become converts. Have fun and keep gaming. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : TheGreenGriffon Date : 06-20-06 04:32 PM Its always been my opinion that the DnD rule system cant have any kind of feel. You may feel nostalgic for the old days when you were playing 2ed but thats not really a feeling for D&D at all, its just holding onto a preferred way of doing things or giving those up for the new way. Thats just preference, its not the essence or spirit of D&D. A book of rules cant give you feelings for a game unless your some kind of weird rules junkie. The real feel of D&D is sitting around a table with some friends while the DM weaves a story of adventure for you. Where you design a new life all your own whether it be a noble knight or a mysterious wizard and you build that persona from the ground up and go on the adventures your DM sets out for you. Thats the real feel of D&D, its not old school or new school. It will always be there because it has nothing to do with the rule system you ae using but with imaginatio and creativity. If anything I think 3.5 sets this feeling up more (in my opinion) as it opens up the system a little bit more for you to create more unique characters but thats where the feel of the game and the system part ways. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : Attila Date : 06-20-06 09:49 PM You're right, it's not the rules. I think it's actually the artwork in the AD&D rulebooks that sparked my imagination and gave me those good feelings. The images were dark and mysterious, it helped me get into the game more. When 3E came out I liked it because a lot of the artwork seemed inspired by the old AD&D books. Where it lost me was with all the rules compared to older editions. I wanted to play the rules correctly but didn't play often enough to get comfortable with them. I focused on referencing and cross-referencing rules instead of using my imagination. I think that's where the difference in feel comes in for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : havard Date : 06-21-06 07:23 AM Its always been my opinion that the DnD rule system cant have any kind of feel. I'm gonna have to go and disagree with you there... Rule systems do in fact encourage different styles of gaming and thus contribute to different feels of the gaming experience. Ofcourse, other factors are important too, but that doesn't mean one should ignore the effect of the gaming systems. GURPS and RuneQuest for instance have a very "realistic" feel. Combat is deadly, and no matter how skilled you are at combat, fighting will always mean risking your life. Level games have the odd effect that they at low levels can be even more deadly than level-less games, but at high levels, the characters are often as Gods compared to the average street thug or bar keeper. Likewise, the different editions of D&D lean towards different styles of gaming. My impression is that 2E downplayed the heroism of the previous editions of D&D and turned towards a more realistic style of gaming. The high level games of Classic were discouraged and Weapon Mastery and all kinds of über dice rolls were removed. 3E went back to the cinematic heroic feel that was sometimes found in the older editions and took this element even further. While in older editions, a player could aspire to have his PC become as cool as Conan, 3E characters of higher levels can be like Neo of the Matrix and slow-motion all over the old barbarians butt before he can even draw his battle axe. Personally, I think D&D (in general) does both the Conan and Matrix styles very well, and also the low level Sword & Sorcery style. The attempt at making the game more simulationist ("realistic") in the second edition was IMO a mistake however, since other systems do that genre so much better. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-22-06 12:44 AM I also found making new stuff myself was very difficult as I would have to constantly be spending more time on finding ways of forcing my new ideas into 2nd editions scrap book rule book in which they made a new system for every single part of the game then I did on actually being creative. Yeah, I used to feel the same way. These days, I find there are very few things that I need rules for, & when I do, I find it easy to ad hoc them if the game doesn't already cover them. I found 2ed amazingly restrictive and it pretty much encouraged by its example for DM's to be as ridgid in their thinking as the game was. I don't think this effect was very strong, since most of the DMs I played with were far from rigid. Some ignored such restrictions in the books when they wanted to. Those that choose to keep them could explain that their vision of dwarfs was one of anti-magic beings. At least one DM I played with even made dwarfs roll to see if their magic items would work! Now theres a system that words with itself, all the rolls are the same, it speeds things up. You use a d20 for everything except damage and add a simple modifier which is easy to calculate. So, you roll ability scores with d20? Hit points? Arcane spell failure? Wandering monsters? 2e was not that complex a system. Mindlessly unifying every mechanic to a d20 roll really wouldn't gain you much. My experience is that combats--on average--take much longer in 3e than they did in 2e. No speed up. once you've played a few characters with 2ed the thrill is gone. That's clearly untrue. Maybe once you have played a few characters with 2e the thrill is gone, but I know many people who had more than a few 2e PCs & enjoyed the last as much as--if not more than--the first. If by off course you mean it no longer alienates new players and the rules can actually be understood by everyone now... Wow. This is completely the opposite of my experience. If anything I think 3.5 sets this feeling up more (in my opinion) as it opens up the system a little bit more for you to create more unique characters but thats where the feel of the game and the system part ways. I see the opposite. I see people who used to spend a lot of time creating a personality for their PC who now spend all their time picking skills, feats, & prestige classes. If they play a fighter, they end up with a minor variation on either an agile fighter, a might fighter, a two-weapon specialist, or an archer; but virtually no personality. Not everybody, but I have seen this with a number of players. All of which I suppose reinforces the point: Different games for different folks. (Or--in my case--if you're willing to run it, I'm willing to enjoy playing it. Different games for different referees, I guess.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : protonik Date : 06-22-06 09:01 PM I still enjoy playing older editions and have never lost that thrill of play. It really depends on the DM I think. I played some 2e last year, a paladin, and I thoroughly enjoyed the simplicity of the system and it led me to get Castles & Crusades and to buy the core rules for 1e, 2e and Basic D&D. There is a certain charm to the older editions. I remember when people talked about AD&D being a complex game... nothing further from the truth. Heck, as much as I love 3e I have been seriously debating on running a 1e or 2e as my next game! Prolly go with 1e with some modifications to the unarmed and grappling rules. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : kalmarjan Date : 06-24-06 02:44 AM I think D&D changed course starting with 2nd edition PLayer's Option. 3.x edition followed along this same course of added complexity. I currently prefer Classic D&D and AD&D for their simplicity and old school feel. That's not to say I don't play 2E or 3.xE. Ahhh... Memories. I started out playing D&D with the Blackmoor supplement. Then I found the "red box." I then started buying Dungeon, and found that I needed to get into AD&D. Fast forward a couple of years later, and 2E came out. Played that for 10 years, then 3.0 Came out. I did not get to play it for a while, (until a couple of months before 3.5 came out) and then I went and purchased 3.5. I have been playiong 3.5 ever since. As for the whole debate; I have played them all. (D&D that is) and I can truthfully say, it does not really matter. As long as you can game until 4:00 in the morning and say, "Crap! I gotta go to work in 3 hours!", then you are playing a system that is good. AD&D was very heavy on rules. Really! There are pages full of herbs and their effects! The magical properties of Gems! You think 3.5 is complicated? D&D basic to Immortal was easy to play. (By far the easiest of all editions.) Problem is, you were very limited on character concepts. You had 3 whole alignments, and Elf was a class for goodness sakes. 2E had its problems. THAC0 was not so hard, and I found as a DM I was already telling people that they hit AC 15 or whatever. It seemed easier, so that's probably why WOTC changed the whole mechanic. When TSR went belly up, and WOTC took over, my friends and I swore up and down we would never buy a MtG D&D game. That lasted all of about 2 seconds when the core books came out for 3.0. One thing I will say is that although there are tons of character builds, maximization, there are also build that would let you *gasp* roleplay. The system may seem like a laundry list of skills and feats, but that is so that theoretically, no 2 characters are the same. When people talk about ubercharacters generated by computers, they are also speaking about lazy players. If you have a chain fighter in my campaign, I really am not going to have that much respect for you, as I know you built the character by reading some optimization boards. (Basically, you came up with a MtG deck, that is all.) OTOH, while combat can take a long time, something is just cool about having the warrir dish out 80+ points of damage in one attack. That was just something that you could not do in any other edition. Also, the PO books in 2E ushered in some cool new things, but they also encumbered the rules system. You now had 18 abilities to take care of. (Str -> muscle and something else, cant remember right now.) Then you throw in all the *uber* kewl critical hit tables, and also all the spellcasting mastery. (I once made a mage that specialized in magic missile, and had my DM freaking out because his bad guys never got a spell off! Thank you 3E for bringing in the Concentration check. :) ) 2E had a level of complexity that far outweighs 3E. Do you remember the whole "warrior STR?" Lets see. You rolled an 18? And now you have to roll a percentile. Hmm... you have 18 STR, cross referece that 56 percentile... and you have... ahh nevermind... Point is, we could talk all day over what system is better. Who cares? I look up and it is almost 3:00 in the morning, and *Shoot!* I need to go to work in 4 hours! That is what makes a good system, whether it is Monopoly, or Chainmail to D&D 3.5 E Sandeman BTW: If you are complaining about books coming out in droves for 3.5E, remember back to 2E when they were releasing supplements in droves for the core rules. And remember when TSR was supporting Al Quadim, Spelljammer, Birthright, Dark Sun, Planescape, Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Celtic, Charlamenge's Palidans, Vikings, Humaniods, the list went on and on.... As for character optimization.... Yes, people pick prestige classes and feats. At least they are not *ALL* taking the bladesinger class. ;) At least the books today will all fit together, and all will be usable together.. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-28-06 11:34 PM The system may seem like a laundry list of skills and feats, but that is so that theoretically, no 2 characters are the same. Yeah. But take my favorite class: Fighter. Everytime I set out to create a 3e fighter, I pore over the feat options, but I always end up with a slight variation on--say--6 basic types. (Power, agile, expertise, archer, mounted, 2-weapon) Well, actually less than that because I only find about half of those attractive. (Yet, it's an awful lot of complexity for a rather small amount of variation.) I'd maybe like to mix it up & try to combine a couple--even if it might not be an optimum build. Yet, the ability score requirements mean there's a good chance I can't qualify for all the feats I want. & the chaining of the feats means that I won't actually get the feats I want until I'm 10th level. But I've never had a PC get past 9th. So, I end up with characters that are pretty generic (mechanics-wise) just like the old editions until they get a number of levels under their belt, but by then they still really aren't customized but just a slight variation on one of a handful of paths. & by the time I actually start to feel like the character is reaching his potential--time to retire him. On top of that, fighters are royally screwed in the skill points & class skills department, so so much for making him unique through skills. So, in the end, I'd rather play classic D&D--& differentiate my character through roleplaying--or Gurps (or something similarly flexible) that really lets me create a custom character right from the start--not many levels in the future. (Or maybe something like True20 that frees d20 from D&D?) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : Arcanim Date : 07-01-06 02:12 AM Ive been playing Dungeons and Dragons (basic through current) for about 19 years now. Like many people I sneered at the fact someone "new" was taking something I loved and changing it. I do have a policy to try "new" things out, providing they dont harm myself or anyone else. One of the wonderful things I loved about 2nd Edition DnD was the fact mages (and other spellcasting types) could "rememorize" or "rest" to regain spells. It was set at a lovely rate of 10 minutes per spell level, per spell of course. (PHB 2nd Ed. page 81) However, in 3E it seems they have taken it BACK to basic edition where a "caster" only has a set allowance per day. Although they could leave areas blank and then fill them in later ( uh huh ). In order to actually "rememorize" spells they have already cast requires a complete resting period, which by the way is 8 hours. (PHB 3E page 154, 155) To say the least it was quite a hit on my wizard that I didn't care too much for. This only made me frown more, but I still tried toiling with the feats, etc... in order to fill this gap. I remember thinking about the elf they portrayed as needing 8 full hours of rest. I could have sworn elves only need 4 hours of rest... I ended up rerolling a character rather than retrofitting my existing ones. I figured the game would probably be more fun that way. Rogues seemed to have alot going for them, and I tried it out. I ended up multiclassing him to a mage. I figured it might come in handy with some prestige class I ran in to. At the least magic would come in handy for scouting out magical items and such, along with it many other abilities. The role play was fun, but to be honest, something was lacking... Another thing I have to comment on was item creation (scrolls, weapons, armor, wands, potions, etc...). I remember reading many articles regarding experience loss. Not only did these come from designers and such, but also from DMs. I do understand that it is neccessary to both limit the creation of powerful items, and that characters will have to face monsters that will sap experience. I however didn't agree that magical items should be created using experience, especially since previous articles were so bent on not removing it from characters. It really lowers moral... The old way worked fine using Enchant An Item, Permency, Wish, etc... All in all I did play 3E. I gave the version a wonderful run, but overall I remain unimpressed. There are many aspects I do like about the version though; D20 system, spell substitution, experience tables, etc... I also sort of liked the modifiers for the ability scores (based on the scores of course) even though they were a little higher than 2nd Edition. I tried to mix and match these to my liking, a 2E/3E setting if you will, but it didn't work out so well and causes more confusion than gameplay. I recently started a new campaign revolving around an elvish forest. I told them to throw out their 3E books...I was going to continue with 2nd Edition rules. They breathed a relief, even though many of them liked 3E, and we've had a wonderful time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : sgt_d Date : 07-01-06 11:06 PM I cut my gaming teeth on 2nd Ed. I still love & play that version of the game the most. I've also played basic, 1st Ed. & 3.5; my opinion is that they're all great games and they all have some issues. I play 2nd most, because that's what my group is the most comfortable with. I guess I just don't see the whole "which system" thing as that much of a big deal. I'm with whoever said the thing about gaming 'till 3 AM! :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : dontheox Date : 07-02-06 09:12 AM Can't we all just get along? :) This is just a more refined version of a earlier post I made. Granted I am a die hard 2nd edition AD&D player but for the most part the reason I still play is because of my collection of 2nd edition books. I literally have thousands of dollars of books in my collection. I would rather just use my old books then have to buy all the new ones. I like some of the changes in 3rd edition, and there are some I don't like. If I just started playing D&D I would probably be playing 3rd edition, as fate has it I started with basic, then 1st edition, then 2nd edition. By the time 3rd edition rolled around I had so many 2nd edition books and a three year campaign going that I just decided that I could get any 2nd edition books and or modules cheaper on eBay (depending on the rarity of the book). When I finally decided to bite the bullet and buy 3.0 my game store told me to wait because 3.5 is coming out soon, that’s when I just decided to stick with 2nd edition. I have great gaming group that has no problems with 2nd edition rules and we enjoy our games very much. I have one little point to make, if a person can not do simple math then I can understand why THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0) is hard for some people. If a character has a THAC0 of 15 and rolls a 10 the character hits AC 5 (15 - 10 = 5) then add/subtract any modifiers. THAC (To Hit Armor Class) as it was called in Gamma World has been around for 20 years or more it’s nothing new. The reason AC went down the better it got was because of the game it was originally developed from, it was not Chain Mail it was from an earlier historical war game (Can't remember right now). In the beginning of D&D they decided just to use a D20 but the dice company would only sell them in blister packs of six, one of each D4, D6, D8, D10, D12 and D20. So instead of just throwing all that money away they made rules for the other dice included in the blister packs. I know that dose not have anything really to do with the discussion I just threw that it in because I am a giant geek! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : dontheox Date : 07-02-06 09:22 AM Oh, I was the guy that looked like Brad Pitt! :P Could you PM your real name I have trying to think who you were its driving me crazy! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : Lord Balthus Dire Date : 07-03-06 02:57 AM I've started playing D&D/AD&D 15 years ago, and have now played all the editions. Each one has their good points as well as bad. The 1E was great for a fantasy campaign. The 2E was great for a historical campaign. The 3/3.5E is good for whomever wants lots of rules. I still play 1E with a smattering of 2E, but have found little use for 3E in our games. I've found some rules in 3E that we have in our house rules (guess we were a head of our time ;) ), but most of them we don't use. THAC0 was easy to use, but rather than calculate it out each time, we made a table just like 1E had (made it alot easier). We liked the race level limits because of the fact the demi-humans had advantages the humans couldn't, such as infravision, resistances to sleep & charm etc. 2E did put out a lot of extras books just like 3E does. If you don't want to use them don't. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : pukunui Date : 07-14-06 08:01 PM I played and DMed 2e in the 90s, played 3e briefly when it first came out ... and now after a break of about 5 years, I've gotten back into d&d with 3.5. I have to say, I really enjoy the new edition. I don't miss THAC0 or Non-Weapon Proficiencies (I mean, come on -- just the name is clunky enough!) or class/race restrictions. Someone was arguing that the ability requirements for becoming a paladin meant that not everyone was good enough to complete the training -- well, let me remind you that someone can graduate with all As or all Cs and still 'qualify' for their profession. They won't be of the same quality, and the person who got all Cs will probably end up being a shady unprofessional sort ... but my point is that's basically how 3.5 works. Different characters with different abilities can be the same thing -- one might not be as good as the other, but they're both still believeable. Also, just as you can omit such things as race/class restrictions in 2e, so you can also just as easily omit things like Attacks of Opportunity from 3.x. I really don't see what the big deal is there ... I do miss one thing from 2e ... the artwork! WOTC's artwork is absolute cartoony crap. My guess is they couldn't/can't afford TSR's artists? The artwork in the old 2e books was so much better and so much more reflective of 'epic fantasy' than 3.x's art. Bring back the old art!!! Speaking of which -- can anyone remind me where the hot babe in my avatar is from? I know I've seen her before in some 2e book, but I can't remember which one ... The other thing I miss is the fact that TSR spent more time/money on editing than WOTC seems to do. Just take a look at the 3.5 Monster Manual. You'd hardly know it was a revision of the 3.0 book. It looks to me like a rough draft. There's hardly a page in it without some sort of typographical error or spelling mistake or something! The best is how the caption for the shambling mound illustration reads "shambine mound". I'm not kidding. The proofreader named in the credits must not have done anything before the book got sent to the printers. She didn't even catch that the sub-editors are listed in the credits as "Editorial Assitance". Anyway ... I'll shut up about that now. In conclusion: I prefer 3.5 to 2e in terms of gameplay, but I really miss 2e's artwork! It did a better job getting you into the spirit of the game than the new stuff does. And of course, it didn't hurt that there was always a good deal more skin showing in 2e art ... ;) ;) ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : sgt_d Date : 07-14-06 09:46 PM I do miss one thing from 2e ... the artwork! WOTC's artwork is absolute cartoony crap. My guess is they couldn't/can't afford TSR's artists? The artwork in the old 2e books was so much better and so much more reflective of 'epic fantasy' than 3.x's art. Bring back the old art!!! Right on! I couldn't agree more. The 1st & 2nd edition artwork was much better than the new stuff. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : VilarinZ Date : 07-15-06 07:28 PM Thread Title : 2nd Ed and 3.x both have good and bad I think we have a lot of good arguments for and against both editions. I have to admit that I have a lot of materials from 2nd Ed. and I collected a big bunch from 3.x. I was excited about a lot of new things in 3.x, but I have had difficulty dealing with the battlegrid style of movement. I don't feel the heroic action that would come out in a swashbuckling scenario. I can only move this many squares and then can't turn unless I have this and that feat. In 2nd Ed. I could play a great Rogue Swashbuckler and feel the excitement of doing a jumping flip from the deck of one spelljammer to the deck of another. That is what bugs me most about 3.x. Happy playing everyone, The Marquis Vilarin Zarsha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : protonik Date : 07-15-06 10:12 PM I like the new art and those guys aren't cheap. Todd Lockwood was a 2e artist before 3e actually and he's prolly my favourite and then RAW> Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : Emjaysmash Date : 07-16-06 01:46 PM I have played 3rd Ed. only once or twice. My group i play with has always played 2nd ed. and probably always will. So what do we do? sure we still buy 3rd. Ed. books, we just convert them to 2nd ed. It's not all that hard. You just have to learn to be flexible. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Darkstrike Date : 07-20-06 04:05 AM Unlike most or all of you, I'm rather new to D&D (just started playing about a year ago). And after reading through this topic, I've come to realize something: Older players find it easier to roleplay in 3rd edition than newer players. Why? Because they've been playing through 1st and 2nd editions. You cannot deny that 3rd edition books, about 95% of such, are rulebooks. All they are are variant or new rules, and it doesn't promote roleplaying. I've heard several of you mention that you have too many 2nd edition fluff books to transfer to 3rd edition, and others have mentioned how they use that fluff information in their 3.x campaigns. I've also determined that it's just as easy to put a player into either edition. So that leaves me at a crossroads, do I want more rules to explain every detail I could possibly imagine, or do I want fluff and story and exciting locations? While 3.x does have things like "fantastic locations: yadda yadda city", it costs me 25 bucks just to get it. And 2nd edition came out with boxed sets which gave you all the information you really needed to run in a certain setting. I'm reading the Forgotten Realms one right now, and I feel I have a good understanding of how things work. There was a lot of story in 2nd edition books, and because the rules couldn't be bent (except by the DM's house rules), there was a lot more information on what was out there as opposed to how you play your character. I feel that the creators of 3.x feel that players are going to know all of the backstory fluff from first and second edition, and therefore just pound players with new rulebooks. And because 3rd edition is mainly rulebooks, new players are easily able to manipulate the rules to min/max characters. I've seen almost every person I've played with min/max their character, simply because it's so easy. In the other editions, min/maxing wasn't as easy, and in the end, didn't make much of a difference. So my problems with 3rd edition consist of: the lack of story portrayed in published material, the fact that farmer Joe Hero can become a first level fighter and somehow wield a falchion, scimitar, scythe, halberd, ranseur, and trident, when he hasn't seen or heard of half of the weapons in question (why does a fighter gain proficiency in ALL non-exotic weapons?), wizards can just KILL someone at level 7, and disintegrate their bodies at level 11, and I'm not a fan of TOO much customization. It's a problem I have with RPGs and MMOs today...it's less about playing THE character and more about playing A character. But here's an example of what I consider "too much" customization. Take any 3rd level human character, and you can have them dual-wielding bastard swords at a -2 penalty. 2 weapon fighting, oversized 2 weapon fighting, and exotic weapon proficiency: bastard sword. A dwarven fighter can dual-wield 2 dwarven waraxes this way at level 1. So if you ask me, there need to be more restrictions in 3.5, especially in the feat area. It would pretty much be exactly like the proficiencies chart in 2nd edition, except modified to fit 3.5 rules and tactics. Thus, playing a certain class opens up new branches for certain feats otherwise unattainable. I know there are some feats like this, but in general, most feats are available to everyone. I wrote up a better and longer rant earlier, but alas it was deleted. So that's all I've got for now. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : pukunui Date : 07-20-06 05:55 AM Darkstrike, I do see what you're saying. WotC has been pretty rules-heavy so far. I'm really hoping that they've gotten over their rules supplement fever and will start at least publishing more adventures if not more story ... However, you can look at it in a more positive way, as well, in that the lack of pre-written history and storylines means that the DM is more able to customize (there's that word again) a campaign to his/her own ends without feeling bound by what's already been written. I like not having a whole lot of story in the general rulebooks. I seem to recall that with 2e, TSR pushed Greyhawk a lot more in the general books than WotC has done (with a few exceptions, namely Complete Divine). There's plenty of story fluff in the campaign setting books -- at least, the Forgotten Realms ones anyway. Dragonlance really only has one story (the Chronicles), as does Ravenloft (Count Strahd), and I'm not familiar with the new Eberron at all, but it seems to me like there are quite a few fluff books on that setting out now. Dark Sun was cool, but if you want to use the 3e rules in that setting, you've got to pick one of two incompatible third-party conversions (or do it yourself). As for the whole fighter-knowing-too-many-weapons thing -- the DM can always restrict it as a house rule. Say what you will about 3e being rules-heavy, but if it has one advantage over the other versions, it's that it's infinitely more adaptable and customizable, both for the player and for the DM. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : oralpain Date : 07-20-06 11:32 AM Concerning 2E: I like the bonus to exp for high prime requisite scores. It's possibly the most logical rule in the game. Fact is, if you are stronger, it tends to take a bit less conditioning to learn to fight. If you are smarter, remembering complex formulai and performing mental calculations are less difficult. If you have greater balance/manual dexterity, skills that depend on these things will take less time to pick up. Also, I've always felt that practicing ones class skills should grant experience, never cost them. As for what I think is better about 3/3.5E... Saving throws are simpler/more intuative, and even more plausible. Ability scores are listed, and have a funtion for all creatures. Strength is also not limited to a 25 point scale (which could not easily do justice to very large beings), However, I see no use for unlimited scales outside of strength. Exactly where an AC value comes from is listed and thus it takes less guesswork to determine what an AC would be in unpredictable situations. Proficencies and skills are pretty screwed up, but still serviceable, in both editions. Someone was arguing that the ability requirements for becoming a paladin meant that not everyone was good enough to complete the training -- well, let me remind you that someone can graduate with all As or all Cs and still 'qualify' for their profession. They won't be of the same quality, and the person who got all Cs will probably end up being a shady unprofessional sort ... but my point is that's basically how 3.5 works. Different characters with different abilities can be the same thing -- one might not be as good as the other, but they're both still believeable. The original premise of the paladin is a holy warrior who is the elite of the elite. There are no mediocre paladins in my worlds. Anyone who doesn't meet the very stringent requirements can still be a holy warrior/knight, but they will probably have the fighter class. If you like the 3E definition of a paladin, that is perfectly fine. However, it is not the same class, from a role playing perspective as it was in 2E. Also, the PO books in 2E ushered in some cool new things, but they also encumbered the rules system. You now had 18 abilities to take care of. (Str -> muscle and something else, cant remember right now.) Then you throw in all the *uber* kewl critical hit tables, and also all the spellcasting mastery. (I once made a mage that specialized in magic missile, and had my DM freaking out because his bad guys never got a spell off! Thank you 3E for bringing in the Concentration check. ) 2E had a level of complexity that far outweighs 3E. Every single rule from the PO books was...well optional. People were encouraged to pick what worked for their games and discard the rest. I use the books quite heavily, but I do not use sub abilities, character points, hard fatigue rules, the new initiative system, or a dozen other things that are more trouble than they are worth. Any game is as complex as you make it. At least they are not *ALL* taking the bladesinger class. Bladesingers were not all that great, and no DM was forced to allow them. Why not? Is there some curse that ptrevents dwarves from taking this class or is is just because the majority dont? Granted they dont but not every dwarf is like every other dwarf right? The new 3ed made these restrictions vanish. Now I can play what class and race I want, gone are the dum ability score minimums that stop you from playing what you wnat to play just because you werent lucky enough to role high scores. That was lame just was level limits on demi humans. All of these things had logical explanations that worked for many people. For example, dwarves are stated as being inherently non-magical (and get magical item failure percentages, massive resistances to magic, and so on). If an individual DM's game worked different, this could be discarded. No longer were the days where 8 people could attack a single 3'6" tall goblin in 5' wide corridor with 8' ceilings. I never had any problems like this without mineatures. In fact I find the game a bit more restrictive with them. The PCs are not always in areas that are easy to represent with miniatures, we don't have massive ammounts of 'typical' dungeons, and the cost would be quite prohibitive for the scale of some of the combats we have had. Imagination, clear descriptions, and memory, works well enough for me nine times out of ten. Fo the other 10% a sheet of graph paper will do. AoO are not so difficult and if you remind your players that plotting out their attacks to avoid AoO is metagame thinking and the DM actually keeps in mind that unless they have combat reflexes they only get one AoO a round, well, it isn't a huge issue. I use tokens to keep track of those things. I disagree that a player having his/her PC move to avoid as many chances for an attack of opportunity as possible is meta gaming. It's just good sense, and it's done in real life. I've certainly been wary about turning my back on people, or lowering my guard, when in violent, or potentially violent situations. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-22-06 12:13 PM IMO, the differences between AD&D and D20 are as big as the differences between Runequest and Exalted. They are better approached as completely separate games, with different design goals, different sources of inspiration and different methods of implementation, than any sort of continuity. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : Renvale999 Date : 07-28-06 09:29 AM I came in on the tail end of 2nd edition and I've played both 1st and 2nd edition....I enjoyed both, mainly because I had some cool characters, but I've found that 2nd edition was far harder to learn then 3rd edition. It took me alot longer to get the hang of 2nd then 3rd. Another big problem with me is the artwork from one to the other. I visualize the game by basing it on the artwork from the books. Now, there are some REALLY cool pictures from 2nd edition, but I generally I find the artwork lacking in previous editions. I had a really hard time with 1st edition because all the artwork is in black and white. Anyway that just my opinion. But I think that 2nd edition gave alot more chances for role-playing vs 3rd. In 3rd it can be tough to find a place to give role-playing XP awards cause you level so quickly, in 2nd it took alot longer and you had lots of room to give out XP as you saw fit. But I hope any edition of D&D never dies out. I love them all....game on players of old and new, GAME ON!!!!!!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-29-06 12:04 PM If by off course you mean it no longer alienates new players and the rules can actually be understood by everyone now and it allows you to once be creative and make the character you want without having to juryrig new rules into an already broken system then your absolutely right, 3ed is so off course I doubt it will ever be seen again. We learned AD&D2nd edition when we were in 8th grade, from books that werent in our native language, and we figured it out just fine. As for making the character you want, thats what GURPS and HERO are for. D&D, even today, has always been a case of "make the kind of character the designers want you to make". Its a factor of the class system, that has never been remedied. As far as the above comments on saving throws. As far as I am concerned, its a wargame artifact, I'd rather loose them permanently, along with alignment. Neither version that has been presented have managed to really work in any satisfactory way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : havard Date : 07-30-06 05:46 AM As for making the character you want, thats what GURPS and HERO are for. D&D, even today, has always been a case of "make the kind of character the designers want you to make". Its a factor of the class system, that has never been remedied. This is not so much a problem in classic D&D as the classes are so generalized that they can fit a wide range of stereotypes. In AD&D, the same can be solved through liberal multiclassing. DMs might also want to allow moderate modifications of class features. As far as the above comments on saving throws. As far as I am concerned, its a wargame artifact, I'd rather loose them permanently, along with alignment. Neither version that has been presented have managed to really work in any satisfactory way. I think saving throws in some fashion or other is neccesary for any level based game. The best one I have seen so far is the one from C&C, linking the saves directly to each of the ability scores. The problem with the saves in OOP D&D is that the categories dont make alot of sense. Should be easy to just give them better names though. No argument on the alignment issue :) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : kalmarjan Date : 08-01-06 02:29 AM On the comment about the original dice. Beleive it or not, D&D was originally played with small chits of paper that you pulled out of a cup. It was Dave Arneson who saw the polyhedron dice and wrote the rules to incorparate them. For the person who was asking about the Hot Avatar: Goldmoon from the DL series. Now, for the person who was talking about THAC0 verses the D20 mechanic, and the D20 Mechanic having so many modifiers: 2e had the same thing. When you rolled to hit, you had to constantly do math to figure out what the heck happened. Most of the to-hit modifiers are the same today. (Like being on higher ground.) The only difference is that with the D20 mechanic, you are doing what us players did way back when we were saying "you hit AC 19". And the bladesinger not being that good? You're kidding, right? The ability to cast spells and to have a weapon that you get a bonus on before any magical enhancements? Keep in mind this is before stacking rules. A bladesinger that devoted 3 WP slots, had a +3 weapon with Bless Weapon would get a total of +7 to hit. By that time, the THAC0 of the bladesinger followed the fighter tree, so by fourth level, with that sword, you would have to roll an 8 or less to miss a creature with AC0. The penalties? Oh... you must die for the cause? How would that happen when you are a fighting/spellcasting machine? Oh, you get a penalty if you use another weapon? So? Why would I use anything other than my magical bladesinging sword? And, I can use a bow, but with no penalty because I am an elf? The class was just too good, and I nerfed it after a few sessions. Finally, as for 2e pushing greyhawk? No, it wasn't until 3e that it was brought back. In 2e, there really was no campaign world. It seemed for a while that the default was FR, because so much was coming out for it. This reflected TSR pardigm, with tons of campaign worlds coming out. (Birthright, SpellJammer, Crhonomancy, Planescape, Dark Sun, Mystara, Hollow World, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Lankmar, Greyhawk, the Green book series (like the Celts and the Vikings), Dragonlance and the Savage Coast setting.) So there was not really a campaign world that was the default, and there were so many to choose from. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : kintire Date : 08-01-06 11:01 AM The problem with ADnD was that it had no system. Everything was a special case... everything. To hit was d20 roll high, proficiences d20 roll low, Thief skills d100 roll low etc etc. 3.0 introduced a single mechanic, d20 plus bonus vs difficulty number, which covers almost everything. There are still a couple of special cases, but basically once you've got that you've got the system. The other problem was the elitism problem. Having been on the wrong end of this, I feel quite strongly about it! It's all very well burbling on about realism, but this is a game that is supposed to entertain people, and if someone in left with no role in the party, that just sucks. And the ADnD generation system was almost set up to produce this. You rolled your stats, and if they were high you rocked, and if they were average you didn't, and if they were low you sucked. But wait; there's more. If your stats are quite high, you get access to the better classes. Not only are you more powerful than your companion innately, but you get a more powerful class, widening the gap. And the better the stats, the better the class you have access to, and the gap just gets bigger and bigger. To those that have much, more will be given. Those that have little, are fubared. I've been in a party with a Paladin, Evoker and Speciality Priest. I was a Thief, because my stats were too low for anything else (yep, Str 8). You can mock balance if you like, but when one member of the group realises that they are contributing nothing, literally nothing, to the group, and that if they just didn't show up it would make no difference at all something is Wrong. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : weasel fierce Date : 08-01-06 08:57 PM Try playing a character with average stats in 3.x, and realize that almost every cool feat and thus prestige class is not available to you. Nothings changed man. The only version of D&D that has ever supported the idea of playing even with mediocre stats were the red/blue book "basic/expert" game. As far as a thief being useless, thats the problem of the DM making an adventure where thieves are useless. Not the game in itself. Switch the characters to 3.x, and the thief would still be useless. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : kalmarjan Date : 08-01-06 11:02 PM Try playing a character with average stats in 3.x, and realize that almost every cool feat and thus prestige class is not available to you. Nothings changed man. The only version of D&D that has ever supported the idea of playing even with mediocre stats were the red/blue book "basic/expert" game. As far as a thief being useless, thats the problem of the DM making an adventure where thieves are useless. Not the game in itself. Switch the characters to 3.x, and the thief would still be useless. The difference here is that in 3.x, you have the ability to increase your stats every fourth level. Even if you started out with an 8 in STR, theoretically you could build up your STR to be 11 by level 12. That is better than a kick in the arse like 2e, where failing a magical item or wish (and with wish, the higher level stats took multiples to go up one), you were pretty much stuck with what you had in the beginning. In 3.x, if you get yourself a magical item (like the headband of intellect), then the feats or prestige classes associated with them are now available to you. And I also take exception to the theif being useless in 3.x. Can you say sneak damage? By 20th level, the theif really does not need a high Str score to dish out damage, he needs to only hit while the opponent is denied Dex bonuses. (+10d6 to the die roll is nothing to sneeze at. :)) Add into that the special abilities associated with the class, and I find it hard pressed to say that the rogue class sucks in 3.x. Sandeman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : weasel fierce Date : 08-01-06 11:07 PM The difference here is that in 3.x, you have the ability to increase your stats every fourth level. Even if you started out with an 8 in STR, theoretically you could build up your STR to be 11 by level 12. That is better than a kick in the arse like 2e, where failing a magical item or wish (and with wish, the higher level stats took multiples to go up one), you were pretty much stuck with what you had in the beginning. That is true, but unless you plan out everything 12 levels in advance, realizing that the class or feat that would make total sense in the overall story and campaign, you have to wait 4 or 8 levels for (easily a few months of regular gameplay) rather sucks. It gets even worse if you try to pull off certain multiclass options. Hopefully, once they do 4th edition, they'll get rid of that, and take a line from more modern games. And I also take exception to the theif being useless in 3.x. Can you say sneak damage? By 20th level, the theif really does not need a high Str score to dish out damage, he needs to only hit while the opponent is denied Dex bonuses. (+10d6 to the die roll is nothing to sneeze at. :)) Add into that the special abilities associated with the class, and I find it hard pressed to say that the rogue class sucks in 3.x. Sandeman You misunderstood, or I wasnt clear. I dont think thieves suck. I said that if the DM makes an adventure where there's nothing for a thief to do, then playing a thief is going to suck. Same thing in AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : kintire Date : 08-02-06 08:50 AM Try playing a character with average stats in 3.x, and realize that almost every cool feat and thus prestige class is not available to you. True, but 3.x is better for several reasons, most notably that stats matter more at lower levels. Feat requirements tend to be at the 13s or so, and on one stat, and bonuses kick in at 12. In ADnD such things kicked in at fifteen or more. Also of course, we have point buy systems at last! As far as a thief being useless, thats the problem of the DM making an adventure where thieves are useless. Not the game in itself. That wasn't my experience at all. I just couldn't really do anything. I could sneak ahead and scout I guess, but I had to make regular hide n sneak rolls, and my percentages were low enough that they would fail on a reasonably regular basis. And I just couldn't afford that: with a poor armour class and low hits I was lunchmeat if caught alone. The whole locks and chests thing was similar; I had to find traps disarm them and open locks, and again my skills were low enough that one of these would probably fail. With the first two, we then moved directly on to the "your saves aren't great" problem. And then of course there was backstab; oh yes. If I spent several rounds sneaking about, and if all the enemies were unaware of me, and if I was directly behind them (ie the enemies were between me and my allies) I gained almost as great a chance to hit as the paladin always had, and did almost as much damage too! woo. Then I was a high ac low hp character right next to the enemy, of course, but at least I could die knowing I had been almost approaching semi useful! :P I just had no role. I could perform no reliably useful function in any concievable circumstance. Of course, once my percentages skills crept up I could at least do something, but by that time area effect spells had arrived, and my days were numbered (ooo... fireballs do 5d6 damage do they? thats a familar total. Oh yes thats right... its also my hit dice. Ouch.) No. Class balance is a wonderful, vital thing, and it is the main thing that 3.x does better than ADnD -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : weasel fierce Date : 08-02-06 12:59 PM True, but 3.x is better for several reasons, most notably that stats matter more at lower levels. Feat requirements tend to be at the 13s or so, and on one stat, and bonuses kick in at 12. In ADnD such things kicked in at fifteen or more. Also of course, we have point buy systems at last! There's been points buy systems in AD&D too, both in the DMG, and in Skills&powers. As far as bonuses go, yeah, D20 characters will be more powerfull with the same stats. I prefer the classic basic/expert D&D, where bonuses start at 13, and use a unified chart (its where they took the idea of the stat bonuses for D20 from) That wasn't my experience at all. I just couldn't really do anything. I could sneak ahead and scout I guess, but I had to make regular hide n sneak rolls, and my percentages were low enough that they would fail on a reasonably regular basis. And I just couldn't afford that: with a poor armour class and low hits I was lunchmeat if caught alone. The whole locks and chests thing was similar; I had to find traps disarm them and open locks, and again my skills were low enough that one of these would probably fail. With the first two, we then moved directly on to the "your saves aren't great" problem. And then of course there was backstab; oh yes. If I spent several rounds sneaking about, and if all the enemies were unaware of me, and if I was directly behind them (ie the enemies were between me and my allies) I gained almost as great a chance to hit as the paladin always had, and did almost as much damage too! woo. Then I was a high ac low hp character right next to the enemy, of course, but at least I could die knowing I had been almost approaching semi useful! :P I just had no role. I could perform no reliably useful function in any concievable circumstance. Of course, once my percentages skills crept up I could at least do something, but by that time area effect spells had arrived, and my days were numbered (ooo... fireballs do 5d6 damage do they? thats a familar total. Oh yes thats right... its also my hit dice. Ouch.) No. Class balance is a wonderful, vital thing, and it is the main thing that 3.x does better than ADnD So basically the GM were running a combat heavy game, and the problem was that the non-combat character couldn't do much ? Go figure. Its not a nescesity in a roleplaying game that every character, regardless of concept, is a killing machine in combat. Of course, if the goal was a thieving combat character, you could have made a multiclassed fighter/thief, or similar. As far as thief skills, you said you were playing 2nd edition, where you get to allocate the points yourself, so you had the option of having a few skills at high levels. Of course, there'll be a chance of failure, its a game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : oralpain Date : 08-02-06 11:04 PM There is also such a thing as skill modifiers. Any character who doesn't act to stack odds in his/her favor is a fool. Same can be said, imo, of a DM who doesn't apply a bit of logic to the numbers. I do not, however, feel that it is the DMs job to go out of his/her way to work in things for the various classes to do. It's the player's job to apply the skills of their characters creatively. And the bladesinger not being that good? You're kidding, right? Not at all. To be quite honest, I feel they are at considerable disadvantage to the base class. The ability to cast spells and to have a weapon that you get a bonus on before any magical enhancements? Keep in mind this is before stacking rules. A bladesinger that devoted 3 WP slots, had a +3 weapon with Bless Weapon would get a total of +7 to hit. By that time, the THAC0 of the bladesinger followed the fighter tree, so by fourth level, with that sword, you would have to roll an 8 or less to miss a creature with AC0. The penalties? Oh... you must die for the cause? How would that happen when you are a fighting/spellcasting machine? Oh, you get a penalty if you use another weapon? So? Why would I use anything other than my magical bladesinging sword? I don't see where you are getting these numbers for the bladesinger bonus. Bladesingers are fighter/mages and btb cannot achive specialization or mastery with a weapon. The bladesinger bonus is +1/+1 (hit/damage), with the elf bonus that is +2/+1. This is far from impressive. It would also be extremely difficult for a 4th level character to obtain, or retain, a +3 enchanted weapon, in my games. Those that have them tend to be tough. If a 4th level party managed to get their hands on one, they would be likely to have it stolen from them, or be killed by some far more powerful being/group who wanted it. Regardless, there has been the occasional 4th level PC warrior with a very low modified THAC0. It's a big help, but it doesn't make one invincible, not by a long shot. The biggest benifit bladesingers get is not being utterly helpless while casting a spell. The bonus to special weapon manuvers can also be quite useful The restrictions, as written, are utterly crippling in my games. Being limited to a single weapon, or even single kind of weapon, is a serious crimp on versatiliy/adaptability that can, and will, come up. Disarms, various protective spell, offensive magic/powers (rust monsters, telekinesis, failed item saving throws), resistant beings, environmental considerations (good luck trying to swing a longsword underwater, or in a 3 foot wide tunnel), and countless other situations make being competent with more than one weapon crucial. Bladesingers are plainly inferor to a single class fighter when it comes to physical combat. Having to aid any elf in need, regardless of danger, is outright suicidal, in the long run. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : protonik Date : 08-03-06 02:02 AM In 3.x, if you get yourself a magical item (like the headband of intellect), then the feats or prestige classes associated with them are now available to you. These things existed in previous editions ya know? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : Regularguy Date : 08-03-06 11:56 AM I don't see where you are getting these numbers for the bladesinger bonus. Bladesingers are fighter/mages and btb cannot achive specialization or mastery with a weapon. The bladesinger bonus is +1/+1 (hit/damage), with the elf bonus that is +2/+1. This is far from impressive. They even spell that out; the Bladesinger "gains an automatic +1 to attack rolls as well as a +1 for damage. This is in addition to the normal elven +1 for use of the long or short sword (if applicable). Despite any additional, further training, this is as high as the bonus can be." You don't get to spend additional WP slots for extra bonuses, just like you don't get to specialize in the "two-weapon" or "weapon and shield" style to pick up an extra attack every round (and with no penalties, even). Being limited to a single weapon, or even single kind of weapon, is a serious crimp on versatiliy/adaptability that can, and will, come up. A lot of people will shoot you, for one thing. But even if we grant for the sake of argument that melee superspecialists are teh roxxors, there's the problem of high-level Fighters who've applied continuing specialization to boxing: if they mimic the Bladesinger's focus, except for fists wrapped in cesti, then they've got like a +7 to hit and a +7 to damage going on -- not to mention that they deal out more attacks per round, don't miss even on a natural 1, won't get disarmed, have a 10%-25% chance for KO with each strike -- and that's all on top of whatever Fighter kit they took. (And even a guy with that much focus doesn't take a penalty if wielding some other weapon; heck, he could still specialize with a bow or crossbow, even.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : oralpain Date : 08-03-06 12:56 PM Even with specalization, there is no mention of a cestus being able to bypass the weapons in defense rule. Also, as previously mentioned, spending so many slots on one type of combat has pitfalls. Personally, I don't use the PHB/CFH system for unarmed combat. The chart, while it works considering the abstract nature of the game, still seems a bit foolish to me. I'm not really fond of flat percentages of knockouts regardless of other factors is a very large flaw in my opinion. A lot of people will shoot you, for one thing. Yep, that's a given. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : Regularguy Date : 08-03-06 07:35 PM Even with specalization, there is no mention of a cestus being able to bypass the weapons in defense rule. I'm not sure it needs to? It's a weapon, it's listed in the same standard way as the entries for "Chain" and "Club" right under it: type of damage, speed factor, weight, all the usual stuff. Failing that, of course, there's always the Pugilist kit from Skills and Powers -- though if we go that route, there's Combat and Tactics opening up options for single-class fighters to avoid attacks of opportunity (and even inflict 'em on barehanded assailants as if armed) through martial-art Specialization unto Mastery. Still, if I'm wrong, then I guess we could compare a Bladesinger's bonuses with a longsword to a fighter who just takes weapon specialization in longsword and wields one in each hand -- with an AC boost from the Swashbuckler kit, or maybe an extra bonus to hit and damage from the Amazon kit or the Berserker kit, or whatever. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : weasel fierce Date : 08-03-06 09:44 PM These things existed in previous editions ya know? I thought you couldn't use stat increasing items to qualify for stuff, in AD&D OR in 3.whatever ? If you can, what happens when you take the item off ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : kalmarjan Date : 08-03-06 10:33 PM You could not use the stat increase to gain something in previous versions. In 3.x, the stat increase will make you qualify for the feat/prestige class, but if you take off the item, then you lose access to those powers. Also, even if the bladesinger did not have a +3 sword at 4th level, then he would only have to roll an 11 or less to miss an AC of 0. Probable level for a +3 sword? About 12ish... Now the character has a Thac0 of 8. With the specializations.... it is now 5. With the sword +3, it is now 2. So this bladesinger, who is not any better than the core classes, misses on a roll of 1. (For AC0). Hmmmm.... And he can cast spells too? Jeeze. I can see how the other classes look better. Lets see, at 12th level, he has access to 6th level spells, right? So now he is able to throw out the fire power, and walk in to clean up the mess. Even if he did not have the magical sword, (and in your campaign, I would not either) he could just cast magic weapon, and he would only miss AC0 on a roll of 3 or less. Maybe I would make it a short sword, and have a bag of holding with about 10 spare ones, so in case you felt the need to continuosly disarm me, I would not be hindered. (I mean, you got to be prepared, right?) Seriously though, the bladesinger was known to be the most unbalanced class in AD&D 2nd edition. Sandeman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : Bertuccio Date : 08-03-06 11:13 PM While I agree the bladesigner is very powerful, the example Kaljarman presents isn't entirly fair. Remember the Bladesigner is multiclassed, so to be a level 12 fighter, as the elf in the example, requires 1,000,000exp. This means there is ANOTHER 1,000,000 exp in mage, resulting a level 12 mage (just under lvl 13). His human companions, on the other hand, with 2 million exp in once class. are already level 16 fighters and level 15 wizards. So our level 16 human fighter, has a base thac0 of 5, with the same sword +3, has the same attack roll as the elf, can wear heavier armour, and this is before we consider grand mastery with his chosen weapon, a much more deadly opponent in a sword fight, but lacking magic. Note also, that for an elf to advance beyond level 12 as a fighter, nominally requires the optional "Slow Advancement" rule. The wizard, on the other hand, at level 15 has 8th level magic, to the elf's 6th. So while they are very powerful, and should be considered carefully before use, I don't think they're as bad as have been made out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : weasel fierce Date : 08-03-06 11:55 PM Regardless of rules squabbling, fun as that can be, I think its safe to say that the "old school" approach and mindset is still alive, well and thoroughly enjoyed. If you peer around at forums, there's still plenty of love for AD&D, and (in particular), the classic Rules cyclopedia. Even the people that buried AD&D, still revisit the modules that its all built upon. There's new games out like Castles & Crusades, and modules like the Dungeoncrawl classics. I've seen at least 2 different versions of using the OGL to basically revive and rewrite AD&D and basic/expert D&D, respectively. Old school is alive and well :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : oralpain Date : 08-04-06 12:32 AM You could not use the stat increase to gain something in previous versions. In 3.x, the stat increase will make you qualify for the feat/prestige class, but if you take off the item, then you lose access to those powers. Also, even if the bladesinger did not have a +3 sword at 4th level, then he would only have to roll an 11 or less to miss an AC of 0. Probable level for a +3 sword? About 12ish... Now the character has a Thac0 of 8. With the specializations.... it is now 5. With the sword +3, it is now 2. So this bladesinger, who is not any better than the core classes, misses on a roll of 1. (For AC0). Hmmmm.... And he can cast spells too? Jeeze. I can see how the other classes look better. Lets see, at 12th level, he has access to 6th level spells, right? So now he is able to throw out the fire power, and walk in to clean up the mess. Even if he did not have the magical sword, (and in your campaign, I would not either) he could just cast magic weapon, and he would only miss AC0 on a roll of 3 or less. Maybe I would make it a short sword, and have a bag of holding with about 10 spare ones, so in case you felt the need to continuosly disarm me, I would not be hindered. (I mean, you got to be prepared, right?) Seriously though, the bladesinger was known to be the most unbalanced class in AD&D 2nd edition. Sandeman Umm, the same class, without the baldesinger kit, is of comparable, or greater power. Very nearly same everything that matters ability wise, and a tough penalty. Regardless of what the bladesinger is known as, it's far from being unbalanced to the player's advantage; unless the DM ignores the hindrances. Probable THAC0 for a 4th level bladesinger with his favorite weapon, is a 14 (fourteen). 17 (base) - 1 (elf) - 1 (bladesinger) - 1 (exceptional quality, or enchanted, weapon) = 14. This is still rather nice for level 4. It's quite rare for a multi-classed fighter/mage to have a 17 or greater strength in my games. Also, I as the DM would not feel the need to continually disarm such a character. However, the character's opponents certainly will, if he/she demonstrates unusual skill. If a character goes around pulling goodies out of a bag of holding frequently, foes are going to concentrate on that bag of holding. Having to stop and dig through it, in combat, would be very tricky as well. And good luck obtaining ten enchanted short swords. A 12th level bladesinger, without a very high strength, with a +3 weapon, is probably going to have a 4 THAC0. A 2 modified THAC0 is well within the realm of plausibility though. In my campaign, if you survived to level 12, I suspect you would have a potent magical weapon. This would be totaly up to the actions of your character however. If you can find a way to grab and hold a +5 sword at level 1, I as a DM, will not use implausible or underhanded methods to take it from you. In the end, the powers of a bladesinger do not go much beyond those of any other fighter/mage. The fighter/mage is, and always has been a potent combination, but it's never been invincible. Too many major mistakes will get any character killed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : kintire Date : 08-04-06 07:07 AM So basically the GM were running a combat heavy game, and the problem was that the non-combat character couldn't do much ? No. That is not the problem. The problem is that an already weak character in starting stats was made much weaker, relatively speaking, because access to the stronger classes is given to those who are already strong. And also, its all very well being a non combat character, but I couldn't do anything much out of combat either. The roleplaying was fun, but any action portion of the game was mostly a snooze. As far as thief skills, you said you were playing 2nd edition, where you get to allocate the points yourself, so you had the option of having a few skills at high levels. Indeed, and my sneaking skills were certainly more likely to succeed than fail. But they only really had to fail once... I do not, however, feel that it is the DMs job to go out of his/her way to work in things for the various classes to do. It's the player's job to apply the skills of their characters creatively. Assuming, of course, that they have any. But when there is no situation in which your character shines at all, it does become a little tedious. Of course, if the goal was a thieving combat character, you could have made a multiclassed fighter/thief, or similar. I think you have missed my point. And, in fact made it for me. Yes, a fighter/thief would have been better, had I had the strength necessary to qualify. Regardless of rules squabbling, fun as that can be, I think its safe to say that the "old school" approach and mindset is still alive, well and thoroughly enjoyed. Indeed, and many of the world backgrounds are still well supported and popular, and far better (IMHO) than anything supported today. Nor were all of the rules changes for the better: ADnD handled clerical magic extremely well. I appreciate the spontaneous healing rule, but really really really miss the spheres system. There just isn't enough difference between clerics any more. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : kalmarjan Date : 08-04-06 03:49 PM Umm, the same class, without the baldesinger kit, is of comparable, or greater power. Very nearly same everything that matters ability wise, and a tough penalty. Regardless of what the bladesinger is known as, it's far from being unbalanced to the player's advantage; unless the DM ignores the hindrances. Probable THAC0 for a 4th level bladesinger with his favorite weapon, is a 14 (fourteen). 17 (base) - 1 (elf) - 1 (bladesinger) - 1 (exceptional quality, or enchanted, weapon) = 14. This is still rather nice for level 4. It's quite rare for a multi-classed fighter/mage to have a 17 or greater strength in my games. Also, I as the DM would not feel the need to continually disarm such a character. However, the character's opponents certainly will, if he/she demonstrates unusual skill. If a character goes around pulling goodies out of a bag of holding frequently, foes are going to concentrate on that bag of holding. Having to stop and dig through it, in combat, would be very tricky as well. And good luck obtaining ten enchanted short swords. A 12th level bladesinger, without a very high strength, with a +3 weapon, is probably going to have a 4 THAC0. A 2 modified THAC0 is well within the realm of plausibility though. In my campaign, if you survived to level 12, I suspect you would have a potent magical weapon. This would be totaly up to the actions of your character however. If you can find a way to grab and hold a +5 sword at level 1, I as a DM, will not use implausible or underhanded methods to take it from you. In the end, the powers of a bladesinger do not go much beyond those of any other fighter/mage. The fighter/mage is, and always has been a potent combination, but it's never been invincible. Too many major mistakes will get any character killed. Such is the intensive training of the Bladesinger that he gains an automatic +1 to attack rolls as well as a +1 for damage. This is in addition to the normal elven +1 for use of the long or short sword (if applicable). Despite any additional, further training, this is as high as the bonus can be. 2. Bladesingers receive a special bonus when they wish to try an unusual maneuver with their blade. This bonus is equal to +1 for every four levels the Bladesinger has attained. The bonus only serves to cancel the penalties normally applied for such a maneuver. All other penalties and bonuses still apply. Okay, having the 17 Str is not so uncommon. If a person wants to play a Bladesinger, chances are their Str, Con and Dex scores are going to be high. I'll bite this one. Lets say it is a simple longsword +1. Now you are looking at a character with a base THAC0 of 16. WIth the bonuses to attacks, (+1 bladesinging, +1 elf, +1 sword), now the "real" THAC0 is 13. Meaning the character would have to roll an 12 or less to hit AC0 creature. If the character had a 17 Str, then it would only be 11 or less. To make things worse, a Bladesinger gets a bonus to attack when doing special manuvers, (like the called shot or disarm) of +1. A called shot is -4 in 2e, so if the blade singer makes a called shot, they effectively erase the penalty for that maneuver. (Like they are getting it for free.) The unbalance comes in partly with the attack options of this class, but it is moreso with the defese portion of this class. They recieve a bonus of half their level +1 (rounded down), just because. And they are only allowed to wear up to studded leather and down, or elven chain. So the base AC for this one is going to be (assuming at 4th, they have aquired elven chain) (-3 [bladesinger], -1 [dex], -4 [+1 Elven Chain].) So now we have a 4th level character with an AC of 2. And his armor does not restrict him in casting. Also, he can cast all spells with one hand, by only addin +2 to the casting time. His restrictions? He has to have 1 detect magic memorized. He has to defend another elf at all costs, but he also has the right to decide whether the elf in question needs help or not. I can see how this class has some HUGE restrictions. Later on, it gets worse. At 12th level, it is safe to assume that this character has at least found +3 Elven Chainmail. Now his AC is -4 [-7 (bladesinging), -6, (+3 elven chain), -1 (dex)] The bladesinger is getting that just from class abilities and +3 elven chain. Add in the ring of protection, mage armor, cloak of displacement, and you now have a character that is next to impossible to hit. Compare that with the fighter/mage, and there is no comparison. Anyway, I never really looked back after 3.0 came out. I was there when 2e came out, and bought all the books. I stopped playing because of RL concerns (college) and really did not miss it. 3e returned my enthusiam for the game, and I really would not want to go back. Some critics have said that 3.x is too rules heavy. So was 2e. There was so much cross checking, and math that did not make sense, (strength tables anyone?) that sometimes a battle was a chore. You had to remember a lot of things as a DM, and sometimes the whole logic of things really sucked. Also, trying to keep up with the "complete" series of books was not so fun as well. I eventually banned all of them, because I literally did not have time to read them all. Sandeman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : oralpain Date : 08-04-06 07:40 PM Meaning the character would have to roll an 12 or less to hit AC0 creature. You mean 13 or higher. a Bladesinger gets a bonus to attack when doing special manuvers, (like the called shot or disarm) of +1. A called shot is -4 in 2e, so if the blade singer makes a called shot, they effectively erase the penalty for that maneuver. (Like they are getting it for free.) Yeah, if the bladesinger is level 16 or higher, and is using that one kind of weapon he/she can bladesing with. The unbalance comes in partly with the attack options of this class, but it is moreso with the defese portion of this class. They recieve a bonus of half their level +1 (rounded down), just because. And they are only allowed to wear up to studded leather and down, or elven chain. So the base AC for this one is going to be (assuming at 4th, they have aquired elven chain) (-3 [bladesinger], -1 [dex], -4 [+1 Elven Chain].) So now we have a 4th level character with an AC of 2. And his armor does not restrict him in casting. Actually, in that example the AC while bladesinging/casting would be 0 (+1 elven chain is ac 4), which is quite nice at level 4 and indeed a useful advantage, in those rare cases where a spell would need to be cast while in melee. Still, magical elven chain is not easy to come by, even for an elf, even for a bladesinger. His restrictions? He has to have 1 detect magic memorized. He has to defend another elf at all costs, but he also has the right to decide whether the elf in question needs help or not. Having to come to the need of any elf, regardless of danger, is quite severe. Later on, it gets worse. At 12th level, it is safe to assume that this character has at least found +3 Elven Chainmail. Now his AC is -4 [-7 (bladesinging), -6, (+3 elven chain), -1 (dex)] The bladesinger is getting that just from class abilities and +3 elven chain. Add in the ring of protection, mage armor, cloak of displacement, and you now have a character that is next to impossible to hit. Compare that with the fighter/mage, and there is no comparison. Rings of protection do not stack with magical armor. No armor or related spell does either. Bladesinging only grants the AC bonus while spell casting is taking place. The bladesinging AC bonus does not apply to rear or missile attacks. Comparing this with a fighter/mage, I find that only the bladesinging bonus is lacking, and that bonus only applies to melee attacks, while casting spells. There are superior protections available to any wizard, and other fighter/mages are perfectly capable of using shields. Anyway, I never really looked back after 3.0 came out. I was there when 2e came out, and bought all the books. I stopped playing because of RL concerns (college) and really did not miss it. 3e returned my enthusiam for the game, and I really would not want to go back. Some critics have said that 3.x is too rules heavy. So was 2e. There was so much cross checking, and math that did not make sense, (strength tables anyone?) that sometimes a battle was a chore. You had to remember a lot of things as a DM, and sometimes the whole logic of things really sucked. Also, trying to keep up with the "complete" series of books was not so fun as well. I eventually banned all of them, because I literally did not have time to read them all. Sandeman All in all, I don't find such an enormous difference. It's mostly perception. They can both be rules heavy or rules light. Both editions have absurd ammounts of extraneous rule books. both editions have a lot that must be memorized. There are pros and cons to both, imo, but these are easily house ruled. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : weasel fierce Date : 08-04-06 10:02 PM No. That is not the problem. The problem is that an already weak character in starting stats was made much weaker, relatively speaking, because access to the stronger classes is given to those who are already strong. And also, its all very well being a non combat character, but I couldn't do anything much out of combat either. The roleplaying was fun, but any action portion of the game was mostly a snooze. We never found that big a difference in the classes. Someone always wound up running the plain fighter in any event. But I do see the point. What Im wondering though, would that same character, with weaker stats than the rest of the party, be any more playable ? How many people would play a str 8 fighter, or int 10 wizard these days ? Assuming, of course, that they have any. But when there is no situation in which your character shines at all, it does become a little tedious. True I think you have missed my point. And, in fact made it for me. Yes, a fighter/thief would have been better, had I had the strength necessary to qualify. Well, with a strength lower than 9, you'd be a sucky combatant in any version of the rules. Indeed, and many of the world backgrounds are still well supported and popular, and far better (IMHO) than anything supported today. Nor were all of the rules changes for the better: ADnD handled clerical magic extremely well. I appreciate the spontaneous healing rule, but really really really miss the spheres system. There just isn't enough difference between clerics any more. I think the campaign worlds were really the big thing. So many diverse things, and ultimately, tying it all together in Planescape. I always preferred AD&D1 and the basic/expert game to AD&D2, but when you wave around Birthright or Planescape, its hard to argue :) I generally didnt like the class changes in 3.x. I dont mind some progress. Look at a game like Castles&Crusades, for my "ideal" AD&D, really. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : kalmarjan Date : 08-04-06 10:36 PM Actually, in that example the AC while bladesinging/casting would be 0 (+1 elven chain is ac 4), which is quite nice at level 4 and indeed a useful advantage, in those rare cases where a spell would need to be cast while in melee. Still, magical elven chain is not easy to come by, even for an elf, even for a bladesinger. Hmm... Got my versions mixed up. You are right. As for only when casting a spell, that is the whole point. With an AC of 0, the bladesinger would be harder to hit than the Mage. (Keep in mind that he is 4th level.) In 2e, a hit nullified the spell. Yeah, if the bladesinger is level 16 or higher, and is using that one kind of weapon he/she can bladesing with. Uh, no. A 4th level bladesinger gets +1 to preform the manuover, +1 for bladesinging, and +1 to be an elf carrying a longsword. Chances are at 4th level he will have a +1 longsword, so now you have nullified the -4 penalty for a called shot, not even taking in account for Str bonuses. As for limited quantities of magical weapons matching the Bladesinger's requirement? Not likely, as they are supposed to use a short sword or a longsword, and by the treasure tables, those are the two weapons most likely to be magical. If you choose to nerf those weapons, the other fighters in the party suffer. As for the restriction of coming to the aid of an elf... taken straight from the source: Special Hindrances. To offset their abilities, Bladesingers suffer some severe penalties. Not only must they attempt to advance the cause of elvendom somehow at all times, they must also lend aid to any elf in need. Unless the elf is proven to be an enemy of the elven way of life, the Bladesinger must sacrifice life and limb to save that elf's life. Of course, the Bladesinger is free to determine whether there is, in fact, an elf in danger. Too many times other races have tried to eliminate the Bladesinger menace through illusion and trickery. The Bladesingers have grown wary and have, unfortunately, allowed fellow elves to perish while trying to determine the truth of the threat. Thus, most Bladesingers carry at least one detect magic spell in order to avoid possible errors. So, if I was the player in question here, and the DM had a habit of throwing elves in distress at me, the game would go something like this: DM:Your elf brother ahead looks as if he is in distress fighting the great red wyrm. me: I disbelive. DM: He is still there. The dragon is putting him through the paces. The elf yells out "Help me brother!" Me: I disbelieve. DM: You can't disbelieve! He is getting killed right in front of you! You have to go help! It is in your kit. Me: Hmmm... Something does not seem right here. Am I sure it is real? DM: YES!!!! Me: I better be sure, I cast detect magic. I need to concentrate for one round for it to take effect. DM: Grr!!!! The beast is not an illusion, or magical, but everything the dragon is sitting on glows. (Not sure the DM would do this, but I am for the sake of argument, saying the DM would rule that the spell would set off the magical items in the horde...) Me: Hmmm... I think that this is an illusion.. I concentrate on the items that are glowing to see if they are from the illusion school. DM: Damnit! The elf is dead! You just let a brother die! Me: I have seen this trickery before! You cannot be too careful! I mourn the loss of my elven brother. Sure, it seems far fetched, and the DM would probably kill me, or take away the class, but on the other hand, if he was screwing with me constantly to "punish" me for taking the broken class, I wouldn't play it anyways. Sandeman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Author : oralpain Date : 08-05-06 02:22 AM In 2e, a hit nullified the spell. Not only that, but I allow anyone facing the wizard in melee rage a free attack of opportunity against a wizard casting a spell. I would nullify this in the case of a bladesinger. Uh, no. A 4th level bladesinger gets +1 to preform the manuover, +1 for bladesinging, and +1 to be an elf carrying a longsword. Chances are at 4th level he will have a +1 longsword, so now you have nullified the -4 penalty for a called shot, not even taking in account for Str bonuses. As for limited quantities of magical weapons matching the Bladesinger's requirement? Not likely, as they are supposed to use a short sword or a longsword, and by the treasure tables, those are the two weapons most likely to be magical. If you choose to nerf those weapons, the other fighters in the party suffer. I was counting only the bonus granted by that specific bladesinger ability, as it is the only one that specifically applies to such manuvers. All the other bonuses are universal and duplicated through other means. I was not advocating the "nerfing" of anything. As for the restriction of coming to the aid of an elf... So, if I was the player in question here, and the DM had a habit of throwing elves in distress at me, the game would go something like this: Sure, it seems far fetched, and the DM would probably kill me, or take away the class, but on the other hand, if he was screwing with me constantly to "punish" me for taking the broken class, I wouldn't play it anyways. The DM in your example seems far too keen on taking sides. Also, even though I make heavy use of illusion magic in my games, I have virtually never had a player simply say "I disbelieve!", out of no where. Disebelieving puts one at the absolute mercy of whatever is going on, if it is not, in fact, an illusion. Also, it generally fails automatically, unless there is good reason to be suspicious. Lastly, I would not stick elves in destress into the game just to prey on the hindrance of a PC. The world does not revolve around the PCs. However, chances are that in a world where elves are reasonably common, the party would come across some in distress. It is also likely, esp at low levels, that whatever is distressing to these elves would be quite hazardous to the PCs. I don't pull encounters that are beyond the abilities of the party to directly confront. If the PCs are outmatched and negotiation is not an option, they can even the odds, flee, or die. Something as simple as a band of elves being chased by an orc war party could easily draw a low or mid-level bladesinger to his/her death. Where other PCs would be able to retreat, if outmatched, or be willing to sacrifice a few elves if it meant victory, such compromises would not go down well with a bladesinger. A bladesinger who was repeatedly too hesitant about aiding his (or her) fellows, or who disregarded his/her oaths/duties, would eventually find himself at the wrong end of his fellows swords, if word ever got out. Bladesinging is a carefuly guarded racial secret. If an elf can take such training and use it for no benifit but his own, it is not inconcievable that he may sell, or be persuaded to reveal, the secrets of such training to non-elves. This would be plainly unacceptable to the rest of the bladesingers. Also, experience point awards would likely be docked for crappy role-playing, unless such a transition from an elite elven defender, to a paranoid, selfish, mercenary, was plausible. The kit is not broken. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-24-06 08:30 PM Thread Title : Whatever happened to 2nd Ed I'll try this again. I've tried twice to post something like this, and it always seems to not go through. I learned D&D on First Ed. AD&D. That was in the late '70s after I had sold it in hobby stores for a couple of years. I am very competitive and it was a game I could play for fun because you were part of a team and jointly worked against a common enemy. I was, admittedly, a little resistant when 2nd Ed. came out, but tried it and eventually embraced it fully. I still think it is what D&D is really about. At the end of a session of 2nd Ed. I feel happy and pleasantly exilerated, whether I DM or play. It is a joy to play and makes wonderful sense to me. Then 3rd Ed came out. I tried playing 3rd Ed. twice, with two different DMs, one not very experienced and the other with a lot of DMing experience. Both times the game sessions ended with me feeling like I wanted to punch something in the real world. I was just furious, and I don't get mad easily.I sold my 3rd Ed PH and happily went back to 2nd Ed. I always felt Basic D&D was for kids and sold it that way. AD&D was for adults. 3rd Ed felt like something made for the "Nintendo Generation", quick success, little or no subsstance and a system that impeded roleplaying at every turn. Very much like Basic. I have been running the same campaign for over 20 years. During that time I must have run 30 teams through it. It has great depth, I am told, and I am, in fact, writing a novel based on it.I started a new group through it at a local gaming store about two years ago and I thought it was interesting that I soon had more players that it could accomodate while 3rd Ed games in the same facility seemed to shrink week by week. It could be a statement on my abilities as a DM but I think it is also a statement about the systems. If you want to play 3rd or 3.5 or whatever, by all means, do! Just don't try to get me to and don't try to represent it as D&D. Whatever the name is, it is really some other RPG. Some of the comments have tried to say that the system has nothing to do with the tone of the game, and I, obviously, couldn't disagree more. My degree is in Archaeology/Anthropology and when I am in an adventure, I look for the feel of the people and the culture. EVERY AD&D campaign I have played in or created have that aspect about them. Neither of the two 3rd Ed campaigns I tried did, and from talking to others who do 3rd Ed or 3.5, I don't see it there either. As for the restrictions on what class you can play, these are just and only parameters set to help you roleplay the character. As part of a team, you can't very well play every position. An interior lineman doesn't have the same skill set as a quarterback and a defensive back isn't usually a kicker. Dwarves aren't magic users because their society is focused on other things to the detriment of the arcane arts. That's totally consistant with the way cultures work. I truely believe that the reason TSR didn't continue to succeed (remember, their D&D product outsold the entire history of Monopoly in it's first 10 years) was that they failed to continue to produce low level adventures for the beginners to sink their teeth into and become inspired. At the hobby/game store I used to own, we gamed after hours 6 days a week and had as many as 4-5 homegrown low level campaigns going every week. I ran two myself.During that time the modules that came out were all high level. Nowhere for beginners to start. I currently run two campaigns in 2nd Ed and play in a third. My 15 year old daughter plays in two of them and it's great to have something to do together. She also paints minis, as do I. One thing I agree on, anything that keeps you up 'til 3 AM has it's merits, whatever system it is. Enah, Wedjah, Seneb [Live, Be Happy, Be Safe and Sound] Horemheb,Priest of Djwety (Thoth) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 114] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 08-27-06 12:34 AM Great post Horem. I agree with many of your observations. I am also a fan of cultural aspects being up front and a driving force in a campaign. I almost majored in Archaeology in college before realizing it had nothing to do with bullwhips, fedoras or rabid Nazis. ;) I was a huge 2e player and the transfer to 3e was horrible. I prefer not to play 3e now. I will but really would like C&C, BECMI D&D or 1e/2e instead. My daughters are almost the right age to introduce Basic D&D. I can't wait! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 115] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-27-06 09:25 AM Thread Title : Reply Thanks for the kind words, Zaxon. My daughter has been watching me play AD&D since she was eye level to the table. She really likes it, and now that she plays, she is doing a great job. I feel AD&D, contrary to what some of the Religious Reich say, promotes the best qualities we hope for in our kids. Teamwork, Problem Solving, Strategy, Tactics, Creativity...the list goes on and on. In my store, I found out gaming caused kids grades to go up. The brain is like any other muscle. The more you use it, the better it gets. I thought your quote from Weasel Fierce was interesting. I don't agree at all. When I explain AD&D to people, it goes like this: "Imagine yourself miraculosly transported to another world. Everything there is the same as this one, except for two things. Magic works and because it does, the monsters are real." This tennant underlies all the games I write or play in. Hope your daughters enjoy the "tour" as much as mine has. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 116] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 08-27-06 05:01 PM To each his own my friend. I want to play in a world that suspends my belief system for a while. The quote derived from a thread that weasel and I took part in a year or two ago. The whole thread was centered around the question of realism - as in scientific truth - in D&D. Having gamed with a group of polymer science doctoral candidates in college I know first hand about making D&D a little too real. An argument insued around the table one night because three players disagreed about the proper combustible materials needed to burn eternally thus creating the elemental plane of fire. I believe D&D should have that fairy tale quality about it. It just exists, no need for heavy explanations. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 117] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-27-06 06:45 PM Thread Title : Response Sorry, I didn't mean to come on so strong about it. I do think a healthy dose of realism intertwined with magic that breaks the realism mold amplifies the perception of the magic. My minors are Geology and Museum Science. One of the 3rd Ed DMs sent the party down a "cave" she said was in a lava flow. I know about lava tubes. When, after we had been in it for awhile, I asked her if there was a breeze and if so, what direction it was coming from, looking for the direction of an exit. She said it was coming from both directions at once. Needless to say, that resulted in a discussion similar to the one you mention, because she said there was no magic involved. Sometimes we, as players, just can't seem to escape the knowledge we have as persons, and it "bleeds into" our characters.:teach: I still use my knowledge of Geology to draw maps for my campaign, it helps me keep things together. I use Archaeology for ancient archetecture, weapons, armor and tactics.I use Mythology as there are Greek, Egyptian and Celtic pantheons in my campaign. All this adds to the flavor. But, ultimately, I agree with you to an extent. It may just be the proportions of realism to magic we are talking about.:bow: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 118] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 08-27-06 09:01 PM Thread Title : Horemheb Cool. No problem. I didn't mean to come off abrasive on the subject. There has to be a bit of realism in any good fantasy. My degree is in English and so I'm more concerned with the focus of the story and how to arc it to favor the characters as much as possible. For some odd reason I firmly believe that was accomplished easier in 2e/1e. Why? Because the focus was not on feats and skills and how can I add this prestige class to my character. IMHO too much crap has been released that has taken away from the soul of the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 119] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-28-06 12:15 AM Thread Title : Whatever happened to 2nd Ed continued Couldn't agree more. I just came from a session where my daughter and I get to play together instead of me DMing. We both have very cool characters and we were discussing in the car how we "become" the character in the game. That's what I haven't seen in 3rd, either in the games I played in or in the ones being run around me when we gamed at the now defunct local game store. Sometimes people, and companies, get all the right information and make just the wrong decision from it. Though they will never admit it, I think WotC made an error when they stopped 2nd Ed. I know they are making money with 3rd Ed, and maybe it is just a generational thing, but they are so different in tone and mechanics, they could both be supported, to the general acclimation of all. Whatever happened to 2nd Ed.? WotC and/or 3rd Ed. happened.:rimshot: I think there is still room for both. The people who like 3rd can certainly continue to play, but there are legions of us who still prefere the earlier editions. How about a little support here?:ayyyy!: I'd be glad to participate in getting some new modules out, if the company is up for it.I'm positive there are others of a like mind. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 120] Author : rpgrich Date : 08-28-06 09:46 AM I always point out to people Im describing the game, or my campaign, to the difference between realistic and believable. Face it, there's nothing realistic about a game or setting with magic, elves, dragons, etc. However, a talented author or DM can create a world with all those things that is believable, at least to folks with a modicum of imagination. Since building that believability plays directly on the imagination, however, overly complex and technical mathematical mechanics related to the effects of wounds in combat are going grind suspension of disbelief to a halt. That's what I thought when I saw the quote from WF the first time, and I agree with the quote 100% -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 121] Author : Cennedi Date : 08-28-06 05:18 PM good thread. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 122] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-28-06 06:35 PM Thread Title : reply to rpgrich Thanks for the reply. My own style of DMing, as I have indicated, is one where you take them through the familiar to arrive at the fantastic, making the fantastic more so because of the difference. It's one of the reasons I've never played Planescape and generally don't like extraplanar adventures unless it is as a portal to a different world. A DM that used to play with us in Boulder, when I lived there, came up with a tesseract (sp?) dungeon that was ingenious. At one point we had opened a door on the far side of a room, and one of the party had stepped through, when we looked across the room we were entering to see the backs of our party just leaving that room. When we looked back over our shoulders, we were looking at ourselves looking over our shoulders at something. It took us forever to get out of that place and the consensus was that it was such an aggrivation that it stopped being fun long before we escaped. I understand the suspension of belief. I also do theater and my experience there is the same. The more you know about your character, the better you play it, and the better the audience believes it. There is an old scifi book called "A Voyage to Arcturus". I can't remember the authors name but it was the only thing he wrote and he died soon after it was published, It has the only really alien thoughts I have ever encountered in a novel. They were so effective because he used the realities we know to explain the fantastic we didn't. The sun was a double star, for example, and generated a different spectrum because of it, the one we know and another one with two differint PRIMARY colors. He described them so well that when he says somethings color is a mixture of ulfire and blue, you have a feeling you know what it is like. That's the tact I take. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 123] Author : kintire Date : 08-29-06 09:39 AM AD&D was for adults. 3rd Ed felt like something made for the "Nintendo Generation", quick success, little or no subsstance and a system that impeded roleplaying at every turn. Very much like Basic. You see, its this sort of thing that gets me peeved. You prefer 2nd edition. fine. Is there any particular reason to gratuitously insult everyone who likes 3.x? really? 3rd Edition is easier to use, since it has a single central system. Quick success? little or no substance? what are you talking about? Impedes roleplaying? Nonsense. don't try to represent it as D&D. Whatever the name is, it is really some other RPG. Some of the comments have tried to say that the system has nothing to do with the tone of the game, and I, obviously, couldn't disagree more. It is DnD. It has most of the same basic assumptions, the same class system, hit points, and so on and so on. There have been some changes. You don't like them. Boo hoo. I don't like quite a few of them either, but I don't go round calling the people who do "the Nintendo generation". My degree is in Archaeology/Anthropology and when I am in an adventure, I look for the feel of the people and the culture. EVERY AD&D campaign I have played in or created have that aspect about them. Neither of the two 3rd Ed campaigns I tried did, and from talking to others who do 3rd Ed or 3.5, I don't see it there either. The system has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the background material. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. I suspect that the GMs of the ADnD games were experienced, and the d20 gms fairly new. As for the restrictions on what class you can play, these are just and only parameters set to help you roleplay the character. As part of a team, you can't very well play every position. An interior lineman doesn't have the same skill set as a quarterback and a defensive back isn't usually a kicker. Interesting example. I can see it as a good argument for the class based system. How does it apply to class restrictions again? Dwarves aren't magic users because their society is focused on other things to the detriment of the arcane arts. That's totally consistant with the way cultures work. well, thats interesting. Dwarves aren't magic users eh? Except, of course, in the Norse myths, in Tolkein and in the folk tales of Europe; in short, where the concept of Dwarves comes from. D20 allows you to model any of these; ADnD rams you down one route. That's fine if that is the route you want to go, but what if it isn't? The problem you seem to have with d20 is that it isn't ADnD. Well, thats fine; I like ADnD too. I play both ADnD and d20, and they both have their points. Its a matter of taste, however, nothing more. And there is no reason to be rude about it! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 124] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 08-29-06 04:47 PM Dwarves aren't magic users eh? Except, of course, in the Norse myths, in Tolkein and in the folk tales of Europe; Were there dwarven wizards in Tolkien? I know they crafted wondrous items but where did it say they could cast spells? And no, I'm not looking for a fight, I'm asking for real. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 125] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-29-06 05:17 PM Thread Title : Whatever happened to 2nd Ed response All right, Kintire, I appologize. I just got a little hot under the collar. If you look at some of the comments about players of 2nd Ed on these boards, you will see why. Add into that the fact we now have to scramble to get even out of print products for our gaming. In addition, it seems people are always trying to convert 2nd Ed players to 3rd Ed. I feel I gave 3rd Ed a fair trial and IN MY OPINION it was as stated. Easier!? Where? I found it much more complex and in a way that distracted from roleplay. Of the two DMs I played with, one was new and the other was VERY experienced. Neither experience was fun for me at all, and isn't that what we play for? You and I are just going to disagree on some points. You get peeved when I do. I could say "boo hoo" to that but I respect your right to a conflicting opinion. What I hate is that folks keep on trying to get me to play a system I can't stand and makes me angry to play, all the while claiming it is superior. If you look at my view of dwarves, it is consistant with Tolkien. I have read the Trilogy and the Hobbit several times, though it's been awhile, and I can't remember a single instance of a dwarven magicuser.Tolkien is the derivation of D&D. The other cultural examples of dwarven MUs are only partially valid as a lot of those blur together what we would call elves and dwarves into one general "race". That being said, I am very open ended as a DM in 2dn Ed. I could see a dwarf with a high intel. being raised in a dwarven community going out to adventure as a fighter,cleric or thief and encountering a MU in his adventuring who becomes a friend and who, seeing his potential, could start to train him, first as a novelty and later as a class (dual classing). At that point, the dwarf would start to loose their anti-magic bonus as he would become more attuned to the arcane. I just wouldn't allow a dwarf character to start as a MU. The level restrictions on races I have always pretty much ignored. As they say in the DMG, "These are not rules, they are guidlines." So, if I equate the speed at which 3rd Ed characters go up, and the way they are "tailored" to be a certain "thing" like in a video game, that's just how I see it. I truely know very few older gamers who like 3rd Ed and a lot of younger people who like 2nd Ed a lot.The term I used, "the Nintendo Generation" wasn't meant to be anything other than descriptive. There have been a lot of RPG games and aids that used the same classes, in general, as D&D and didn't call themselves that, so that is no criteria for asserting 3rd Ed is D&D. Using those other games (TFT, Tunnels and Trolls,several of the live scale RPGs, etc.) as an example, with different names, I still contend that 3rd Ed is not D&D but another of that group because the tone of the game is so different. I really don't see the smooth transition from the Chainmail/small book D&D to Basic to 1st Ed to 2nd Ed as continuing. There is an obvious, to me, break there at 3rd Ed. All in all, I wish you happy, satisfying gaming, as I do to all of us. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 126] Author : kintire Date : 08-30-06 06:28 AM You and I are just going to disagree on some points. You get peeved when I do I don't at all. Well, it depends exactly what about, of course, but as far as ADnD goes I have no more time for insulting people who like 2nd edition than I do for insulting people who like 3rd. Easier!? Where? I found it much more complex and in a way that distracted from roleplay It is easier. It has a single, central mechanic; d20 plus bonus over difficulty, which covers everything. Learn that, you've learnt the system. ADnD has a dozen different conventions you have to know. Bear in mind that the playing field isn't level; you know ADnD like the back of your hand, but 3rd edition is new to you. If you look at my view of dwarves, it is consistant with Tolkien. I have read the Trilogy and the Hobbit several times, though it's been awhile, and I can't remember a single instance of a dwarven magicuser Dwarves use magic all the time. They write script that can only be seen by moonlight, build doors that are invisible except once a year, guard hidden treasure recovered from trolls by setting warding spells on the rock they bury it under, produce toys for 111th birthday parties that are "obviously magical", etcetera etcetera. They don't have wizards using Vancian magic, but then neither do humans or elves. So, if I equate the speed at which 3rd Ed characters go up, and the way they are "tailored" to be a certain "thing" like in a video game, that's just how I see it. But ADnD characters are also tailored to to be a certain thing. The only difference is that in ADnD they are tailored largely by the books, whereas in 3rd Edition they are tailored to a greater extent by the player. As for the speed which they go up... just alter the XP. Why is an awkward rule in ADnD "just a guideline" whereas a similar problem in d20 is a critical disaster? that is no criteria for asserting 3rd Ed is D&D I think you have a chip on your shoulder. I don't remember any clerics in Tunnels and Trolls, or memorised spells that vanish when you cast them, or armour class, or scaling attack bonuses by level (yes, d20 is exactly the same as THAC0 except it counts up from 0 instead of down from 20), or hit dice, or 20 sided dice if it comes to that. I truely know very few older gamers who like 3rd Ed and a lot of younger people who like 2nd Ed a lot. Well, I dont know exactly what you mean by "older" but I was playing Tunnels and Trolls in 1983, and I can handle D20 just fine. I am very open ended as a DM in 2dn Ed You call that open ended? yikes... The thing is that ADnD is very good at running games in an ADnD world with ADnD assumptions. d20 tries to be more generic; and that isn't wrong. Dwarves are a classic example; you say you can have dwarf wizards as if that's a bad thing. Dwarves don't use magic? Well, in Greyhawk I daresay they don't, but what if I want to run a game in a world where they do? ADnD assumptions are not laws of physics. Why can't a dwarf start as an MU? I still contend that 3rd Ed is not D&D but another of that group because the tone of the game is so different. I contend that d20 doesnt really have a tone. Its all in how you run it. After all, there's nothing to stop you banning dwarf magic users in a d20 game; or banning humans from multi classing, or banning elves from paladinhood or anything. Its not rammed down your throat, but you can still do it, and more power to you if you do. However, other people can do other things... and thats fine too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 127] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-30-06 07:46 AM Thread Title : Whatever happened to 2nd Ed response cont. Well, Kintire, here we go again. Once again you demonstrate your belief that everyone has the right to your opinion. What I have been stating have been my opinions. I have tried to explaine why I have them, as if I need to justify them to you. I don't. Quote: "It is easier. It has a single, central mechanic; d20 plus bonus over difficulty, which covers everything. Learn that, you've learnt the system. ADnD has a dozen different conventions you have to know. Bear in mind that the playing field isn't level; you know ADnD like the back of your hand, but 3rd edition is new to you." This is NOT a fact. it is your opinion. If I find it more difficult, with the pretty high IQ I have, then that's how I find it. My impression of what this thread is about is that it is for folks who are saddened, as I am, that there are no longer any new 2nd Ed products coming out. The reason they are not, I believe , is 3rd Ed. And, in MY opinion, that is not an improvement. Maybe I thought this would be a forum for other players and DMs in 2nd Ed.where we could swap ideas we had about our mutual situation? Maybe, I hoped we might get together and jointly come up with something like a new and different module we could all use? I didn't expect to be taken to task for my opinions on the subject. So, Kintire, you just go ahead and play your 3rd Ed. You are more than welcome to it. All I ask is that I be allowed to play my preferred edition without having to defend it at every turn and without being constantly pressured to change to a system I hate. And to those who have been following this mutual rant, I appologize, and I hope we can get together and do some of the things I had hoped for. It may take another thread, entirely, but I'd like to think something positive could come out of all this. Does anyone think we could do something like use this to make up an adventure in 2nd Ed we could all use? With all the good minds I see out there, evidenced by the postings, I think we could come up with something great. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 128] Author : kintire Date : 08-30-06 09:46 AM Well, Kintire, here we go again. Once again you demonstrate your belief that everyone has the right to your opinion. Rubbish. I have my opinion, you have yours. Notice how I am not insulting you for holding yours. My impression of what this thread is about is that it is for folks who are saddened, as I am, that there are no longer any new 2nd Ed products coming out. Yes it is. That would be why I'm here. Maybe I thought this would be a forum for other players and DMs in 2nd Ed.where we could swap ideas we had about our mutual situation? Maybe, I hoped we might get together and jointly come up with something like a new and different module we could all use? I didn't expect to be taken to task for my opinions on the subject. You are not. You are being disagreed with, and taken to task for belittling people who disagree with you. So, Kintire, you just go ahead and play your 3rd Ed. You are more than welcome to it. Well, thats very VERY kind of you. Can I play 2nd Edition too? please? You see, here's the shocker. The world is not actually divided into 2nd Edition hating D20ers constantly seeking to convert the die hard oldsters on the one hand, and the D20 loathing ADnD purists on the other. There are those of us who...gasp.. like them BOTH. May sound like heresy to you, but hey... that would be an ecumenical matter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 129] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-30-06 10:48 AM Thread Title : Whatever happened to 2nd Ed You know, I even know and play with people who play both, but they are always trying to get me to convert. I do think it's obvious I am being taken to task for my opinions, while you seem to hold yours as sacrosanct. I'm sorry if you think you haven't been insulting towards me in your responses. At this point, I'd just like to go on to something else. I could pick apart your arguements all day but I'm less and less inclined to do so. Frankly, I'd rather talk to some folks about the substantive things we might do to revive 2nd Ed, even if it's only on a case by case basis. So, kintire, I wish you success in any gaming you aspire to. I'd still like to see all of us get together and create something other than animosity. Could we do that? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 130] Author : kintire Date : 08-30-06 11:24 AM I do think it's obvious I am being taken to task for my opinions, while you seem to hold yours as sacrosanct Well, I do believe they are correct, otherwise I wouldn't hold them :P I'm sorry if you think you haven't been insulting towards me in your responses. My apologies if you think I have. I have disagreed with you, while giving my reasons, and have tried to avoid insults. My last post slipped a little into sarcasm, for which I apologise. I'd still like to see all of us get together and create something other than animosity. Could we do that? Certainly. Onwards and upwards! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 131] Author : weasel fierce Date : 08-30-06 01:04 PM The thing is, people bring up the open ended nature of D20, as a selling point, and for me at least, it doesnt really work. For open ended, GURPS has D20 beat like a three armed step child, and for being "D&D", it cant compete with AD&D or C&C, as those are how "D&D" should feel, to me. A friend of mine, who is heavily invested into 3.x D&D keeps attempting to convert me, figuring that somehow, I'll "see the light". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 132] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-30-06 04:27 PM Thread Title : Whatever happened to 2nd Ed So, WF, I see you on here a lot and you seem to be a stalwart on these boards. I obviously agree with you. What do you think about the proposal that we create something for AD&D here? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 133] Author : weasel fierce Date : 08-30-06 04:42 PM What do you have in mind ? Im always up for projects, particularly if its something old school in nature :) If you have interest in AD&D, you'll want to visit Dragonsfoot as well. Just google it -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 134] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-30-06 07:07 PM Thread Title : Something new in AD&D How about we look at the maps of the Forgotten Realms, for example, and pick out a place that hasn't been described yet? With all of us, we should be able to generate some thorough background info and then see if we could arrive at a consensus on a plot-line, or a series of them. Then we could start generating encounters to apply to the plot-line, kind of like Robert Asperin did in the "Thieves World" novels where guest authors wrote short stories around the world he had created.:lightbulb We could then organize them into a coherent whole and post it so our fellows could utilize it in their own groups.I could probably do that since I am effectively retired and have way too much time on my hands, anyway. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 135] Author : kintire Date : 08-31-06 04:53 AM The thing is, people bring up the open ended nature of D20, as a selling point, and for me at least, it doesnt really work. Well, it doesn't. Never mind open ended, Its pretty much broken down by level 15 as far as I can see... How about we look at the maps of the Forgotten Realms, for example, and pick out a place that hasn't been described yet? Its an interesting idea, although it could be a good idea to try for an area that might fit in several settings. There must be similar areas in FR and Greyhawk and Mystara so that a campaign in any setting could use them. Dark Sun and Al Qadim are probably too different, but you can't have everything! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 136] Author : Agathokles Date : 08-31-06 05:25 AM Its an interesting idea, although it could be a good idea to try for an area that might fit in several settings. There must be similar areas in FR and Greyhawk and Mystara so that a campaign in any setting could use them. Dark Sun and Al Qadim are probably too different, but you can't have everything! Dark Sun, Planescape and Spelljammer focus on specific themes, so it's really difficult to create material for them that fits in other campaigns. OTOH, if you take a desertic, pseudo-arabic area in Mystara (i.e., Ylaruam), it's not that different from Al Qadim (sure, there are differences, but nothing that cannot be overcome). Ravenloft also has an area with similar cultures (Amber Wastes) and so Forgotten Realms (Anauroch, IIRC) and Birthright (the Khinasi lands). I don't know about Greyhawk. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 137] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-31-06 05:55 AM Thread Title : Something new in AD&D So, do I get the idea we'd like to do a desert setting? Though I personally like more temperate settings, my area of focus in Archaeology was/is Ancient Egypt. If we wanted to do something with that, I could sure be in my element. I already have hieroglyphic tranlations for incants and spells from a live scale RPG I have played. There are some other traditions and customs that could be interesting. I have worked on a tomb adventure more like the Valley of the Kings than a pyramid, too.:teach: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 138] Author : kintire Date : 08-31-06 08:07 AM I don't know about Greyhawk. There's an Arabian area off to the west of the main map called the Caliphate of Ekbir and the Sultanate of Zeif, though I know little about them beyind the names. So, do I get the idea we'd like to do a desert setting? Sounds like a good start! Although if you have a yen for temperate, that can be fitted into all the above worlds except Al Qadim. And to be honest, you could probably slip it into that. It isn't all desert! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 139] Author : Agathokles Date : 08-31-06 08:50 AM Sounds like a good start! Although if you have a yen for temperate, that can be fitted into all the above worlds except Al Qadim. And to be honest, you could probably slip it into that. It isn't all desert! Of course, there are also jungle areas and archipelagoes (though tropical rather than temperate). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 140] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-31-06 04:56 PM Thread Title : Whatever happened to 2nd Ed continued If we were to use Greyhawk, those areas or the deserts listed under "Wastelands" on pgs. 60 & 61 of the "Fantasy Setting" book would also suffice. There is also rudimentary lore for those regions, as you may see. Or, we could do something less specific as Kintire suggested, and set it to plug into any of the settings/worlds. How about this? A Calif has heard of the potent magic of the Paynim (people outside his group/area) and contacts a School of Magic in the more well known lands. The Calif, Makmood ibn Za'a, sends the invitation written on a sheet of gold foil, to vouchsafe his seriousness. He asks that the school suggest or send a recent graduate and the low level MU in the group has the invitation forwarded by the School. The School suggests that, if they have travelling companions, not going alone would be wise as the area is little known. If the party agrees, they could procure passage to the area, possibly with the help of the School. This could set up secondary (experience generating) adventures on the overland or sea trip to the Caliphate. The reason for the invitation could be that the local magic users (could call them Sha'kir or Fa'kir, something like that) all use what is called "Artifice Magic".They all have some device, usually a small brass plate where they put components, to allow them to cast their spells. The Paynim are said to use "Open Handed Magic" without the need for the Artifice, knowledge of which has never made it this far into the "hinterland". This is what they want to learn. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 141] Author : kintire Date : 09-01-06 06:23 AM If we were to use Greyhawk, those areas or the deserts listed under "Wastelands" on pgs. 60 & 61 of the "Fantasy Setting" book would also suffice. There is also rudimentary lore for those regions, as you may see. Or, we could do something less specific as Kintire suggested, and set it to plug into any of the settings/worlds. Generic settings are sometimes less flavourful. Perhaps we should pick a setting, but keep the others in mind and make sure to use elements that can fit in them all? So we might get something like: The Calif of Ekbir has heard of the potent magic of the Paynim (people outside his group/area) and contacts a School of Magic in Keoland. The Calif, Makmood ibn Za'a, sends the invitation written on a sheet of gold foil, to vouchsafe his seriousness. He asks that the school suggest or send a recent graduate and the low level MU in the group has the invitation forwarded by the School. The School suggests that, if they have travelling companions, not going alone would be wise as the area is little known. If the party agrees, they could procure passage to the area, possibly with the help of the School. This could set up secondary (experience generating) adventures on the overland or sea trip to the Caliphate. If the game is being run in the forgotten realms, the Caliph might be of one of the Calishite descended realms around the Lake of Steam, and the school might be in Tethyr or Calimshan itself. In Mystara [etc]. Then we have a flavourful base adventure with transfer notes, and don't have to keep being vague in the flavour text. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 142] Author : Agathokles Date : 09-01-06 09:24 AM Generic settings are sometimes less flavourful. Perhaps we should pick a setting, but keep the others in mind and make sure to use elements that can fit in them all? It should not be too difficult to have flavorful adaptations for the various settings, once the key ideas are laid out. The abovementioned adventure plot can be summed up as: the ruler of an exotic land has heard about the schools of magic of the land where the characters live. He sends an invitation to one such school, which sends the MU PC to the ruler's court, with the other characters as escort. In Mystara, the ruler might be the Mohammed Al Kalim, Caliph of Ylaruam, or Chandra ul-Nervi, Rajahdhirajah of Sind. The magic school might be the Collegium Arcanum of Thyatis, the Great School of Magic of Glantri, or an Alphatian or Herathian school. In Al Qadim, the ruler could be the Caliph of Zakhara, and the school of magic be in any outlander nation. In Birthright, the ruler might be the Queen of Binsada, and the school could be the Temple of Rilni, or Imperial College of Anuire. Same for monsters -- once the nature (humanoid, extraplanar, non-humanoid), power level, intelligence and attitude (may choose to deal with the character or won't do so, etc.) are chosen, and the setting is defined, it would be easy to find replacements where needed (e.g., Mystara doesn't have illithids -- but brain collectors or kopru or evil aranea could be used instead, depending on the area). The flavor text can be rewritten for the specific campaign. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 143] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 09-01-06 01:24 PM Thread Title : AD&D adventure, continued If we were to use specific settings, perhaps we could list alternative set-ups for the adventure by their initials, and do them all. FR, G, M, R,AQ, B,for Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Mystara, Al Qadim,Ravenloft, and Birthright. Since I know FR and G pretty well, R and AQ less well and M and B virtually not at all, I would be able to do things for the first few but not the last. Since we have others who are into those, they could focus on those. Then, at some point, they all refine down to a single plot-line, and it becomes virtually the same adventure. The major NPCs would probably be tied to the originating settings, but the specific NPCs could be common to all. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 144] Author : Agathokles Date : 09-01-06 01:55 PM If we were to use specific settings, perhaps we could list alternative set-ups for the adventure by their initials, and do them all. FR, G, M, R,AQ, B,for Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Mystara, Al Qadim,Ravenloft, and Birthright. Since I know FR and G pretty well, R and AQ less well and M and B virtually not at all, I would be able to do things for the first few but not the last. Since we have others who are into those, they could focus on those. Then, at some point, they all refine down to a single plot-line, and it becomes virtually the same adventure. I know Mystara, Birthright and Ravenloft very well, and Al Qadim to some extent, but know near to nothing about Greyhawk and FR, so I could handle "ports"/alternative setups to the former. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 145] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 09-01-06 05:44 PM Thread Title : AD&D adventure, continued Good, Agathokles! Let's proceed with this, then. Since AQ is actually part of the FR, do we need two settings there or do you all want to have one that starts in AQ proper and another that could arrive there from the more familiar parts of FR? I could work on Greyhawk. There are actually several Arabian type countries in the western side of the map of Greyhawk beside the Caliphate and the Sultanate. If we do the individual setups for each setting, I think the place to coalesce would be after the party leaves the familiar setting and has traveled several days to the site of the adventure, per se. From then on, we could all work jointly to complete the adventure.(I think that, within this part, if there are references made to the Major NPCs for each setting, we could include the initials for that setting and the pertinant NPC so the DM/storyteller could supply the correct reference.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 146] Author : QuiteDominator Date : 09-02-06 12:10 AM Thread Title : D&D 3.5 vs. 3.0 and before - plus answering skeptics I do not know if this is the correct place to put this or not but here goes. My two sons have been playing D&D for years since they were about 6 and 9. They both love the game. They are now 27 and 30. One is a mathematician and one is a Cable repair man for Cox Cable. So quite frankly I think they are well adjusted people. By the way they still play and use 3.5. They agree the new rules make for a better game. They think 3.5 makes things more realistic. Any way my question is how do I answer people who think D&D is the Devils work. I have two women who work with me and they are convinced there is something wrong with the game. One said when her son tried the game he woke up and nights and was unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality of the game. She said she had to throw the books away. The other said her son thought the game taught violence and killing and threw the books away. In my opinion the only kids who have these problems are the ones who are a bit mentally unstable in the first place. I did not tell her this for fear it would offend her. How do I say this with out offending her. I do not play role playing D&D. I play the miniatures version of the game. I have played the role playing game and I think it teaches that good will defeat evil but evil is not defenseless and if you are not careful of what you are doing you can loose from time to time to evil. I believe the game fuels the imagination of the well adjusted child and adult. Besides people should remember it is only a game and should be treated as such. It is fun and can get very involving but it is still just a game. I think immaturity will show through no matter what a child or adult does and immaturity can show it self at any age. The fact that it shows itself in a game should be no surprise. Like I said I just need to know what to say to these people. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 147] Author : weasel fierce Date : 09-02-06 12:44 AM I think it might be easier, and more fullfilling to maybe do something like generic adventure locations, dungeons, villages, evil temples and whatnot, that could be slotted into different settings and games. Maybe put in notes of how it can be worked into different campaign worlds. (i.e. in Greyhawk, we suggest that the evil temple overfiend follows [insert deity of choice]) As far as gaming and peoples heads, its no different than video games, rock music, black tshirts and being gay. People look for a scapegoat, preferably something that doesn't lead back to their own parental abilities or deficiencies -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 148] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 09-02-06 02:49 AM Thread Title : response to demonic tie in Dear Quiet Dominator I have had this discussion before, when I had my own hobby/gaming store and a lady came in with the same assertion. Here's what I told her: There is a game which teaches and fosters teamwork, improvisational theater, strategy, tactics, that evil is to be confronted, courage is rewarded, everyone has a part to play and encourages truth, honor and justice and the study of history, anthropology, archaeology, military history, comparitive religions and promotes reading. There is another game that encourages players to economically destroy anyone who isn't them, to run others out of the game, avarice, greed, and a "devil take the hindmost" attitude about others. The first game is Dungeon and Dragons...the second one is Monopoly. Think about it. Do you encourage your children to play one over the other? Which one? I also coach little league football and softball. The ideals I teach my players are much more like D&D than Monopoly...to never quit, to have each others backs, to study the situation and react to it in a positive way, within the rules. There have been many accusations concerning D&D over the years...that kids have killed each other over it (every case refuted) that they have dropped out of reality (few if any do, and as you noted, they have other problems). I game with my 15 year old daughter...because of the values D&D represent. We only do 1st/2nd Ed but it is a great thing to do together. Plus, in my store, I had an old highschool classmate living nearby. Her two sons, 5th and 7th grade,I think, were not doing well in school. She approached me with a concern for them spending as much time as they had in the store with gaming. I told her to watch the report cards. If they started to get worse grades, I would back her in reducing their time. Guess what? Their grades improved...substantialy.When I closed the store due to family matters (as opposed to business), she was very saddened, not only for the great neighborhood hangout that was lost to the kids, but their grades went back down. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 149] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 09-02-06 03:07 AM Thread Title : AD&D adventure, continued WF, we could do that, too. Let the set up be tied to a specific world or setting, then, from the "jumping off point" for the actual adventure, it is a standalone.I think we can still do both, if everyone is up for it. Seriously, do we need to start a separate thread for this? I'm pretty new to this message board stuff, as evidenced by my limited use of abbreviations, probably. I haven't ever started a thread, but this might be a likely candidate. What do the rest of you think?:confused: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 150] Author : Agathokles Date : 09-02-06 05:25 AM In my opinion the only kids who have these problems are the ones who are a bit mentally unstable in the first place. I did not tell her this for fear it would offend her. How do I say this with out offending her. You don't -- I mean, probably these people are just scared of the social stigma associated with their kids being "mentally unstable", so they try to say "it's not my kid who can't distringuish reality from fantasy, it's D&D's fault". And D&D is a pretty easy target, because it's unfamiliar to these people (it's easier to fear or blame things you don't know or aren't directly interested in) and it's not mainstream (so people may actually believe you). Therefore, they would put up a great deal of resistance to the idea that D&D is not "evil" -- since, for them, it means that there's something "wrong" with their kids. So, there's really no way (at least for someone who's not a professional psychologist) to deal with this issue, IMHO. I have played the role playing game and I think it teaches that good will defeat evil but evil is not defenseless and if you are not careful of what you are doing you can loose from time to time to evil. I believe the game fuels the imagination of the well adjusted child and adult. Besides people should remember it is only a game and should be treated as such. It is fun and can get very involving but it is still just a game. Roleplaying games are games, not treatises of ethics nor replacements for a kid's parents. Moreover, since roleplaying games have little structure and the actual gameplay is strongly dependent on the players themselves, they can highlight widely different things -- from "good wins over evil" (if you play in the classic white hats vs black hats style) to "sometimes things are not as they appear" (a group of PC goblins facing the "good", civilized humans) to "cooperation makes the group stronger", etc. Nothing actually prevents people from playing a group of evil characters -- it's matter of personal tastes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 151] Author : Agathokles Date : 09-02-06 05:28 AM WF, we could do that, too. Let the set up be tied to a specific world or setting, then, from the "jumping off point" for the actual adventure, it is a standalone.I think we can still do both, if everyone is up for it. I think these options are not exclusive -- anyway, we first need the adventure, we can talk of the setting specific details once the plot is complete. Seriously, do we need to start a separate thread for this? I'm pretty new to this message board stuff, as evidenced by my limited use of abbreviations, probably. I haven't ever started a thread, but this might be a likely candidate. What do the rest of you think?:confused: Definitely -- we're off topic here, and this thread is already quite long. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 152] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 09-02-06 05:46 AM Thread Title : starting new thread OK, is there a WizO out there who can direct me toward establishing a new thread...? Or maybe one of the "old hands" can do this with a link from here to the new thread? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 153] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 09-02-06 05:57 AM Thread Title : Whatever happened to 2nd Ed Before I leave this thread, if we can get a new one. To those of you who play 3rd, if I have been hard on you , I appologize. I, personally, just don't want to play that variety. It, literally, makes me angry when I try and I have no fun.At the same time, I really don't want to have people who do like it constantly try to convert me, as if I were just misguided or incorrect. I have made my choice in D&D and AD&D is it for me. I'm very happy with it, enjoy it thoroughly and so do the people I DM. That said, game on everyone!:surrender -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 154] Author : Agathokles Date : 09-02-06 07:14 AM OK, is there a WizO out there who can direct me toward establishing a new thread...? Or maybe one of the "old hands" can do this with a link from here to the new thread? Done, here is the new thread: http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=695644 For reference, there's a "New Thread" button at the beginning of each topic index page (in our case, here: http://boards.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54 ) ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 155] Author : sgt_d Date : 09-07-06 08:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Whatever happened to 2nd Ed Before I leave this thread, if we can get a new one. To those of you who play 3rd, if I have been hard on you , I appologize. I, personally, just don't want to play that variety. It, literally, makes me angry when I try and I have no fun.At the same time, I really don't want to have people who do like it constantly try to convert me, as if I were just misguided or incorrect. I have made my choice in D&D and AD&D is it for me. I'm very happy with it, enjoy it thoroughly and so do the people I DM. That said, game on everyone!:surrender Very well said! Hey, as long as we all leave the table with smiles, who cares what edition we play? :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 156] Author : Moraser_the_Magnificent Date : 09-12-06 09:20 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I tried converting my 2 1st/2nd edition characters to 3rd edition, 8 days later & nearly 31 scrapped character sheets, untold amount of retries I realized it was flat out impossible. One I had played for my entire career generally 2 times a week and the other 1 time a week for the same time. The 2 time a week was a 18/36 fighter/mage and the 1 time a week was 21st Mage/Fighter/Thief. This was over about a 12 year stint. Our Homebrew 1st/2nd bastardization was dang fun & I'm hoping to recapture just a -touch- of that with 3.5. **goes back to patiently waiting the delivery of his 1st edition Cthuhlu/Melnibone Deities & Demigods from Ebay.** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 157] Author : Anung_Un_Rama Date : 09-20-06 09:23 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I've only played D&D for about three or four years, but I've made it a point to play all the editions, after starting in 2E. Currently, while I prefer 1E (with Unearthed Arcana, of course) I'm more than content to play 3.5. I've seen things I love in all the editions. I'm in love with Basic, because there aren't tons of options to bog down neofite players. But I love 3.5 because of the complexity. Of course, there are things I hate about some of the systems. For one, I've never been a big fan of the Player's Option books, because they make things to clunky in my opinion. But here's what I do- I just don't use them. In the end, I feel that while it's very nice to find lots of supplements available for the current system, all you really need to make the game work, no matter the system, are the core rules and a positive opinion. And there are tons of fan sites that put out some great material of retired editions. Dragonsfoot it my favorite, with new items, monsters, adventures, etc. for all the old editions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 158] Author : Wyrmbane Date : 10-02-06 10:22 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I haven't played 3e, don't really have a desire to since I have 20+ years and all the material for 1e and 2e. I didn't think either 1e or 2e was broken since the rules weren't set in stone and both editions meshed pretty good. Having said that, lots of the younger gamers with less playing time might find it enjoyable. More power to them, the point is to have fun. I only make one request of them: Can I have your 2e stuff? One other thing, I like reliving my youth. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 159] Author : Realmsmaster Date : 10-08-06 01:33 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Couldn't agree more, there are many book that are unnecesary, in fact all that is needed is the core. Some of these books are ok, but some others look as if they had been done in a rush and also have poor art (like complete arcane!!!). So basically, i'd say what i like is the system, not the "pen and paper video game" they created. ok but who are you to say whats unnecesary? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 160] Author : Solaris Date : 10-09-06 02:30 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. ok but who are you to say whats unnecesary? :rolleyes: Well, you could always consult a dictionary if you're having trouble with the word. He said the non-core books are not necessary, and he's right: they're not required in order to play. Even WotC would agree. Or you could just realize that "who he is" is "who you are" or who any of us is -- someone with his own opinions on what's necessary for his game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 161] Author : Vampirelord Date : 10-09-06 03:40 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. :rolleyes: Well, you could always consult a dictionary if you're having trouble with the word. He said the non-core books are not necessary, and he's right: they're not required in order to play. Even WotC would agree. I've been wondering for a while, what books counts as the core books? Some people says it's just the PHB and the DMG, others would add the Mounstrous Manual, I've even heard people who says there are 4 core books. Is there an official statement on this? I think I would agree with those that think it's just the PHB and the DMG, cause it even says on the Mounstrous Manual that it's an accessory. On second thought, it would be quite hard to play without the Mounstrous Manual. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 162] Author : SamualT Barronsword Date : 10-09-06 04:46 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Don't know where it was ever officially stated which books were the "core" rule books in editions prior to 3.0 (where they started printing "Core Rulebook 1" on the PHB, "Core Rulebook II" on the DMG, and "Core Rulebook III" on the Monster Manual). However, it seems logical to me the PHB, DMG, and 1st printed Monster Manual of the 1E and 2E editions would be the core rulebooks for those editions as well. At least whenever anyone says they are interested in the core rules only, the rules from those three books are the one I reference. By the way, my Monstrous Manual for 2E doesn't say "accessory" on it, that I can find. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 163] Author : Vampirelord Date : 10-09-06 05:07 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. By the way, my Monstrous Manual for 2E doesn't say "accessory" on it, that I can find. You might have the black one then, the white one has the text "Game Accessory" printed on the front cover. But thx for your answer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 164] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 10-09-06 05:45 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. You know, back in the day, we used to say all you really needed to play was a pencil and paper, some dice and an imagination. In our 2nd Ed groups there are 5 PHBs that make the rounds for 5-7 players and a DM (me). That's pretty much how it's always been. It's great if every player has a PHB and that's the only real "core" book for anyone but the DM, who I always felt needed that, plus the DMG + the Monster Manuel. Anything beyond that was optional.IMHO.:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 165] Author : theunknownreturns Date : 10-10-06 02:11 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Wow, so many posts . I liked 2e for sure but there were serious probs. I didn't like that non-humans were so limited and the multi class idea stunk. In '94 (nineth grade) I made up totem ninjas so our elven theives could keep leveling up (kinda like FF). Now they have prestige classes, I should so have been hired by TSR. I didn't like that only rogues could HS, a little kid can do it, but then his mind gets formatted when he's a fighter so he forgets. Having a pool of skills and abilities everyone can use is interesting and useful because now everyone isn't left behind in stealth type scenarios. I hate Mini's, and prefab maps. I don't like that everything has to be rolled, and some skills should be grouped together (as I have in my game). There are so many options that it can take hours just to make the perfect character and most still end up being the same. I despise monks, what other basic class has SR? (not to mention drow, a race of spidermen? How many radioactive spiders are there? Why aren't any other elven races so blessed, don't they have gods, too?) I especially hate commercialism and I only buy books that 'speak' to me. The first page of the book is to tell you all the other books you 'need' to go with this one. I make up so much stuff on my own that I put these guys ideas to shame, and I'm usually ten years ahead. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 166] Author : kintire Date : 10-12-06 09:45 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. It's great if every player has a PHB and that's the only real "core" book for anyone but the DM, who I always felt needed that, plus the DMG + the Monster Manuel. In fact, the only books you actually need to play 3.5 is the PHB, and maybe the Monster Manual. Everything else is optional. ADnD was much the same. I never really used the DMG much in ADnD and I don't use it in 3.5 either. In ADnD you also needed the setting books for the special setting specific rules, but that was usually rolled into the background anyway. One of the things I like about all the iterations of DnD is they keep all the core system in one place. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 167] Author : Realmsmaster Date : 10-13-06 04:47 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. true you only need the core books to play but that doesnt make the other books unnecesary that makes them optional. for some people that option may be necesary and to others not so much. they may have time constraints and need premade locations, monsters, or even just idea's. contrary to popular opinon about gamers we arent all 14-18 year olds living with mom or dad and working at mcdonalds. Some of us are adults with 50+ hour work weeks, colloge, and children. you know so it might be very nesecary that wizards makes ohh say a ship and sea focused book like stormwraked or a desert setting like sandstorm. Whereas others may have the time to come up with a billion house rules and well written and balanced locations and monsters some dont. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 168] Author : protonik Date : 10-13-06 06:43 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Optional means unnecessary... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 169] Author : kintire Date : 10-16-06 08:09 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I think you are confusing "unnecessary" with "pointless" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 170] Author : Fulnitus Date : 12-13-06 05:33 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Some posts just have too much potential to die... So, aside form the 'what is core and what is not' discussion, how about a question on what books are core to your campaign? And what books do you like best? Let's say 5 books each, 2nd edition only. For my campaigns those books (in no particular order) would be: Need (core): 1 Players handbook (yeah baby, yeah) 2 Tome of Magic 3 Planescape boxed set 4 Monstrous manual 5 DMG Like: 1 The complete book of necromancers - s(l)ick book! 2 Planescape boxed set - all worlds and campaign ideas you'll ever need 3 the 2nd edition Draconomicon - better 'n council of wyrms, tho that's also good 4 Netheril: empire of magic - history in the flesh 5 Volo's guide to all things magical - for all those nifty little details on gemstones and their uses alone... And then there's woods, metals, spells, items and so much more! Anyways, those are mine... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 171] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-13-06 01:13 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. for 2nd edition ? PLayers handbook, monstrous manual, DMG, a copy of the 1st edition DMG just to have a usefull DM'ing book, and a copy of the Greyhawk campaign setting. Add "complete" books to taste, and use what you find cool -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 172] Author : RobertFisher Date : 12-13-06 02:47 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. So, aside form the 'what is core and what is not' discussion, how about a question on what books are core to your campaign? And what books do you like best? Let's say 5 books each, 2nd edition only. Keeping in mind that I probably know less about 2e than any edition: Need: PHB, DMG, MM Like: L&L and the HR series (I have looked over the tome of magic, players options series, & the complete books; but I'm not crazy about them.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 173] Author : Extempus Date : 12-13-06 05:06 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. The PHB gets the most use of any of my books, followed by the DMG then the MM (rarely). I always keep handy just about every other hardback just in case, including the MMII, FF, Unearthed Arcana, Tome of Magic, Book of Artifacts, Greyhawk Adventures and yes, the original Deities & Demigods as well (the one with the Cthulhu & Melnibonéan mythos), but I use them only once in a great while... whenever my brother plays, I include Oriental Adventures, because of his fighter/ninja... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 174] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 12-13-06 06:13 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. As I said before, there used to be just the most basic of books to start with. I remember the first two or three gaming sessions (there were two couples of us playing, my buddy and his then fiance and that very pretty, redheaded friend of hers... what was her name?). All I started with was a set of red razor dice, pencil and paper and I borrowed Garys PHB ( it was 1st Ed.), as we all did. He had "mysterious" other books he used. After gaming for several years I had acquired a bunch more and when I was hired as a 'side man' playing drums for a band that was going out on the road for 6-8 weeks, I decided to start DMing.(Lots of free time during the day.) I took the PHB, DMG, MM1, MM2, FF and Deities & Demigods, all 1st Ed at that time.I reworked Keep on the Borderlands for AD&D (Never did play basic) and wound up talking about D&D with some of the people at the club we were playing at in Dickinson, ND. They wanted to try it so I ran it and that was my baptism of fire. It was a success because everyone had a good time for two weeks, gaming on the nites we didn't play music, and they were already trying to obtain the books as we were moving on to the next gig. For 2nd Ed., for players: 1) PHB (Black version) 2) Tome of Magic 3) Players book or info from the world they are in (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, whatever.) For DMs: All the above plus DMG (Black version) DM info from the world Monsterous Compendium or Equivalent Pretty much all the rest are optional, IMO. By the way, I ran into a used bookstore that was going out of business and made him a deal on all the D&D stuff he had, which he accepted. Included in it was several items for Planescape (two different boxed sets, two books including one on the monsters). Since neither I nor any of the groups I game with are interested in Planescape, I thought I'd see if any of you are interested?:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 175] Author : Therese404 Date : 12-19-06 07:29 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 1st or 2nd ed. While D&D 3.5 has the bling & bravado it really lacks the personality & simplicity common man/woman approach of classic first or even 2nd edition. DND 3rd Edt is not only a show pony but also about walking the middle road in order to appeal to the wider gaming comunity and sell more products. And is the most modular of any version with books & meterials a plenty to purchase. There is good & bad with both 1st 2nd & 3.5 Edt. To a novice 3.5 looks, feels and smells like the real deal. Why I don't know. But I prefer Classic First Edt, partly because its what I learnt on with my husband, but mostly because its the real deal. A Compact, simple set of grity & raw rules that say here are the keys-you create the kindom. A game created by gamers for gamers. Therese -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 176] Author : Therese404 Date : 12-19-06 07:43 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 1st or 2nd ed. You know, back in the day, we used to say all you really needed to play was a pencil and paper, some dice and an imagination.IMHO.:rimshot: Yes, its kind of sad, really. I'm playing in a PTOLUS campaign every Fortnight at the moment with my husband as Director/DM and the front entryway to our house looks like a airport luggage bay with each player bringing at least 20 books, compaired to the other campaign that I currently run in Hackmaster on the following weekend where players just bring their players HB & Charactersheets. Therese -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 177] Author : Extempus Date : 12-19-06 08:05 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I have literally dozens of 1e & 2e books & modules compared to 5 (yes, that's right, five) 3e hardbacks, 3 hardbacks from Swords & Sorcery Studios, 1 from Penumbra, and the LGG, the original Gazeteer, and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. I have only two 3.5 hardbacks, the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic, plus Swords & Sorcery's Hyperconscious, and that's it. Other than the psionic stuff (I really like the updated mechanics for psionics), the 3e and 3.5e don't see any use. We still play 1e with some ideas from 2e (I don't really see them as being all that different anyway)... I figure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 178] Author : Therese404 Date : 12-20-06 12:05 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I have a lot of DND3.5 Books, some how I just got hooked on purchassing and collecting. I have around 30. This includes Players & DMG 1 & 2, MM 1-4, FF, A stack of Realms & Eberon stuff and several Complete class Books. I also have Frostburn, Sandstorm & Stormwreck. Yes I'm hopeless. I'm sorry to say I have no 2nd Edt Books at all. The only first edt I have are Hackmaster. My Husband owns most of the first edt originals purchassed new, but only a very small amount of 2nd Edt. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 179] Author : Extempus Date : 12-20-06 12:26 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I was tempted to collect all the 3e stuff as it came out, but after seeing how much $$$ I'd have to fork out twice (the second time for 3.5e), I thought, "I don't think so." They're just in it for the $$$, and it's so alien to 1e and 2e, I didn't see any point. Besides, there's still so much old stuff out there that I haven't got that'll help keep my campaign going for another 25 years... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 180] Author : elondir Date : 12-21-06 02:57 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. For Instance: My 22nd level fighter, is a grand master with two weapon style and longswords. I just can't see to be able to convert him to 3.x. Try the following feats: two-weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, greater two-weapon fighting, perfect two-weapon fighting (from the Epic Level Handbook) if you have the DEX), weapon focus (longsword), weapon specialization (longsword), greater weapon focus (longsword), greater weapon specialization (longsword), melee weapon mastery (slashing) (PHB2), and weapon supremacy (longsword) (PHB2). Take some levels in the tempest prestige class in Complete Warrior, and get power attack, cleave, and great cleave if you have enough feats left over. If my theory is right you will have a very good grand master of two longswords. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 181] Author : Llwch Date : 12-27-06 05:22 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I was tempted to collect all the 3e stuff as it came out, but after seeing how much $$$ I'd have to fork out twice (the second time for 3.5e), I thought, "I don't think so." They're just in it for the $$$, and it's so alien to 1e and 2e, I didn't see any point. Besides, there's still so much old stuff out there that I haven't got that'll help keep my campaign going for another 25 years... I'm in the same boat. I have owned and played three versions of D&D now: the Basic/Expert/Companion and Master D&D Rule sets 1st Edition AD&D (with all the expansion material) 2nd Edition AD&D I did buy the 3e PHB, DMG, Psionics, MM and Manual of the Planes, and didn't mind the system too much (though I find it more like an arcade game in how things increase, than an RPG, but that's just me, I guess). Then, less than 6 months later, I hear that D&D 3.5e is out, and that my books (for the most part) are out of date. So... I sold 3e, and stuck with 2nd edition AD&D. Given that my 2 current gaming groups (1 online, 1 is a tabletop group) use other versions of D&D (the online PBeM uses 2nd Ed. AD&D, and the tabletop one uses the D&D Basic through Master's books & Rules Cyclopedia), I feel I've lost nothing in this decision. Given that the current versions of 3.x D&D have a monstrous amount of accessory material available (even more than AD&D 2nd Edition), I think my wallet (and my wife) are happier for that decision too. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 182] Author : Extempus Date : 12-27-06 01:37 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I have no idea how many 3.5e books are out, but everytime I go to the bookstore, I check them out and note that they all seem to be $29.95. They look really nice, topnotch artwork etc, but with so many to get... I may have a lot of discretionary income, but I'm not rich (I got the 1e MMII in 1983 or 84 from Toys'R'Us for $8.94, and I thought that was expensive! The only reason I mention that is because it's the only book I have that still has the sticker on it)! LOL You're right about the arcade game feel to it as well... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 183] Author : havard Date : 12-27-06 04:26 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I have no idea how many 3.5e books are out, but everytime I go to the bookstore, I check them out and note that they all seem to be $29.95. They look really nice, topnotch artwork etc, but with so many to get... I may have a lot of discretionary income, but I'm not rich (I got the 1e MMII in 1983 or 84 from Toys'R'Us for $8.94, and I thought that was expensive! The only reason I mention that is because it's the only book I have that still has the sticker on it)! LOL You're right about the arcade game feel to it as well... I learned an important lesson from my 2E days: Don't get all the books and even if you get all the books, don't use all of it. This philosophy has carried over well with my 3E campaigns too. I usually restrict myself to the Core Books, plus a few extra items usually whatever seems essential for the setting I'm running at the time. It's been a while since I played 2e, so I'm not sure what I would use for a 2e campaign. Probably Skills & Powers + basic books only, but again it depends on the setting used. I dont see the Arcane feel in 3E, not in the art nor in the rules, though I have learned that color art doesnt neccesarily mean better art. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 184] Author : Extempus Date : 12-28-06 02:00 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I've always used the core books, but over the years, as my discretionary income increased (and as I started haunting bookstores, a local hobby store for used books & modules and now ebay), I started buying a lot of the extra stuff for ideas, but mostly for new spells, monsters and so on, but that was over something like 20 years. Now, I have 2 shelves full of 1e and 2e stuff... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 185] Author : Llwch Date : 12-28-06 03:38 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I've always used the core books, but over the years, as my discretionary income increased (and as I started haunting bookstores, a local hobby store for used books & modules and now ebay), I started buying a lot of the extra stuff for ideas, but mostly for new spells, monsters and so on, but that was over something like 20 years. Now, I have 2 shelves full of 1e and 2e stuff... In the same boat here. I already had a ton of 2e stuff collected from my earlier gaming days (and that I worked in a comic & gaming store from the time 2e came out until the middle of 1992). Now that I'm older, and that my kids are into gaming too, I'm starting to fill in the gaps in my collection - at least, the ones that I feel will be the most useful. Primarily, I'm buying accessories, as they're often more useful. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 186] Author : protonik Date : 12-29-06 01:31 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I find with 2e and 3e that just using the core books solved a lot of problems for my games. It wasn't really an issue in 1e because who really liked the Survival Guides anyway? LOL -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 187] Author : Llwch Date : 12-29-06 02:04 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I find with 2e and 3e that just using the core books solved a lot of problems for my games. It wasn't really an issue in 1e because who really liked the Survival Guides anyway? LOL Actually, I kinda liked the Survival Guides - but then again, my campaigns have never been ones where ya easily go from one location to another... ambushes happened, and trips might take considerable time, so foraging often was the key to long term survival. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 188] Author : Emiril Date : 12-29-06 04:24 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. You Know, I Have PLayed Every Edition Since 2nd And I Definately Prefer 2nd. All The New Rules In 3rd And 3.5 Are Really Confusing. I Like some of the changes in 3rd and 3.5 but i will always, unwaveringly stick to 2nd edition. i'm probably a lot younger than mostof you and i havent had a chance to enjoy 1st ed but i've been gaming since i was knee high to a grasshopper. I really enjoy 2nd ed and only play 3rd and 3.5 occasionally -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 189] Author : protonik Date : 12-31-06 12:19 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Actually, I kinda liked the Survival Guides - but then again, my campaigns have never been ones where ya easily go from one location to another... ambushes happened, and trips might take considerable time, so foraging often was the key to long term survival. Yeah I did that as well but I didn't use the survival guides, there was something off about them. We tried the NWP system and everybody wanted them when they made their characters but never made checks with them or anything of the sort outside of Oriental Adventures where they were kind of integral to the style. I did use the blank hex sheets, still have photocopies in my D&D folders actually... yellow, falling apart copies but have them. :P I also have unused 1e Char Sheets, originals, because we preferred to use 3x5 card and slip them in our PHBs with magic user spells written on additional card with page reference numbers on them in case we forgot how it worked. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 190] Author : protonik Date : 12-31-06 12:21 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. You Know, I Have PLayed Every Edition Since 2nd And I Definately Prefer 2nd. All The New Rules In 3rd And 3.5 Are Really Confusing. I Like some of the changes in 3rd and 3.5 but i will always, unwaveringly stick to 2nd edition. i'm probably a lot younger than mostof you and i havent had a chance to enjoy 1st ed but i've been gaming since i was knee high to a grasshopper. I really enjoy 2nd ed and only play 3rd and 3.5 occasionally Can you explain what is confusing in 3e? I've heard this criticism before and helped another guy out with it (he didn't understand experience) and have found the system to be infinitely more simple than previous editions as far as execution goes, its char gen that is a pain the rump for a DM. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 191] Author : Jungger Date : 12-31-06 02:16 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. The jury is still out on how I feel about 3 vs. 2nd edition. I will say however, that when a 12th Barbarian can dish out 60+ points of damage in three attacks without a crit or the 11th lev Paladin smacks a demon for 60+ points in one attack with a crit or the 14th lev Ranger who rolls badly and only does 47 pts in one round (as in our play session last week), I need to pick up the covers of the books to remind myself again what game I am playing. Lower levels has a good, genuine D&D feel but so far, the upper levels bares little resemblance to the game I have been playing for 20+ years. As I said, these are first impression to upper level play so more testing is needed -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 192] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 12-31-06 02:17 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. That might just be a polite way of saying it just doesn't feel "right". That is certainly the case with me. I've tried it twice with both experienced and inexperienced DM's and it just made me angry, rather than giving me a plesant "lift" like 1 Ed. and 2nd Ed. did and do. This is kind of what I have talked about elsewhere. A lot of us, probably most of the people on this thread, just feel better playing the earlier versions. They are more fun, we don't feel like they were or are "broken" and that is the choice we all have made. The interest in 2nd Ed. is, if anything, growing here, and several 3ed people are playing in it now. If it really is a matter of not understanding, I appologize for jumping in. This is kind of a sore spot with me.:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 193] Author : protonik Date : 12-31-06 02:59 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. The jury is still out on how I feel about 3 vs. 2nd edition. I will say however, that when a 12th Barbarian can dish out 60+ points of damage in three attacks without a crit or the 11th lev Paladin smacks a demon for 60+ points in one attack with a crit or the 14th lev Ranger who rolls badly and only does 47 pts in one round (as in our play session last week), I need to pick up the covers of the books to remind myself again what game I am playing. Lower levels has a good, genuine D&D feel but so far, the upper levels bares little resemblance to the game I have been playing for 20+ years. As I said, these are first impression to upper level play so more testing is needed I get the same feeling myself and often debate on running a 1e or C&C game. A lot of that though is simply in retaliation to the chore that adventure creation has seem to become in 3e. I like 3e as a player but as a DM... meh. Its better in execution but not as much fun to create adventures. I thought 3.0 was much better at capturing the D&D experience than 3.5 (too many nerfed spells and nerfing them missed the point). What keeps me from going back is the unarmed combat rules, psionics being non-optional if you want to use Mind Flayers etc. and with C&C I can't place my finger on it except that my players want 3e. As far as the damage issue, remember monsters have MORE hit points now and if you were still only doing 20 points or so on critical hits, well, it would take FOREVER to kill things and it already takes long enough as it is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 194] Author : protonik Date : 12-31-06 03:02 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. That might just be a polite way of saying it just doesn't feel "right". That is certainly the case with me. I've tried it twice with both experienced and inexperienced DM's and it just made me angry, rather than giving me a plesant "lift" like 1 Ed. and 2nd Ed. did and do. This is kind of what I have talked about elsewhere. A lot of us, probably most of the people on this thread, just feel better playing the earlier versions. They are more fun, we don't feel like they were or are "broken" and that is the choice we all have made. The interest in 2nd Ed. is, if anything, growing here, and several 3ed people are playing in it now. If it really is a matter of not understanding, I appologize for jumping in. This is kind of a sore spot with me.:D Hey, fair enough! I can certainly understand how you feel. I don't get that "warm fuzzy" feeling when I play 3e like I did with 1e or 2e. I think it tackled the classic fantasy feel a bit better than 3e, which is its own game but still D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 195] Author : Llwch Date : 12-31-06 08:44 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. That might just be a polite way of saying it just doesn't feel "right". That is certainly the case with me. I've tried it twice with both experienced and inexperienced DM's and it just made me angry, rather than giving me a plesant "lift" like 1 Ed. and 2nd Ed. did and do. This is kind of what I have talked about elsewhere. A lot of us, probably most of the people on this thread, just feel better playing the earlier versions. They are more fun, we don't feel like they were or are "broken" and that is the choice we all have made. The interest in 2nd Ed. is, if anything, growing here, and several 3ed people are playing in it now. Hear hear! I agree 100%. 3.x D&D is a game that just doesn't fit for me. I (and others I've played with in the past) find it too much like an arcade game. Not that I mind arcade games, but I tend to play RPGs as a more cerebral form of entertainment, like a interactive story. If I want Hack & Slash or other mayhem, I play Dungeon Siege, Unreal Tournament or the like. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 196] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 01-03-07 05:42 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Glad we don't play in the same game. For me, if you don't use a mat or something with accurate measures, it's as good as giving me an AoO any time your guy moves. You don't agree...well you better have some proof more than your word vs. a players...cause players will do anything they think they can get away with. This all depends on what sort of a relationship exists between the players and the DM. In my group, we do not generally use miniatures but there is a strong "give and take" between us all. The players know that I'll act fairly when judgin and describing distance and as a result, I get the same response from them. We have never (in almost ten years of gaming) had an argument based on distance. It is a topic that I've discussed with the party before, but they have all expressed contentment with the status quo. Plenty of other things have been reworked, but never this ideal. As far as 2nd ed vs 3.0/3.5ed goes, I'm afraid my view is tinged with nostalgia. I have far too many happy memories of my teenage years spent in the local gaming store every fortnight playing Forgotten Realms, so you'll excuse me if I have an emotive reason to favour 2nd ed. I found the simplicity of 2nd ed to be its' biggest drawcard, but the d20 system is easier, especially for teaching new players. Roll d20 and add something is far easier that THAC0, but a minor technicality. To me 2nd ed, whilst it had it's flaws, is what I look for in a game. I'm actually considering starting a 1st ed campaign in the near future, just for the experience. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 197] Author : RobertFisher Date : 01-03-07 10:21 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Can you explain what is confusing in 3e? I've heard this criticism before and helped another guy out with it (he didn't understand experience) and have found the system to be infinitely more simple than previous editions as far as execution goes, its char gen that is a pain the rump for a DM. Well, in my experience, some people tend to be more detail-oriented & some more big-picture-oriented. Big-picture people often tend to find the pre-2000 editions easier to boil down to the essentials than post-2000 editions. Not that it can't be done, just that I've seen people who find it more difficult. Perhaps it's just because of the presentation. Perhaps it's because many details seem to permeate more of the system. (e.g. Drop AoOs & a how host of feats become worthless.) Probably a little of both. (For myself, there are so many more reasons why I prefer pre-2000 editions besides simply complexity. [pun unintended, but embraced] e.g. The many changes to spells, like invisibility no longer having an indefinite duration.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 198] Author : exorb Date : 01-04-07 10:31 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. edit double post -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 199] Author : exorb Date : 01-04-07 10:32 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. AD&D both 1st and 2nd ED are better games and more fun to play period. I'll even be one to say the Basic D&D game was good too. The Medieval feel is a big part of it. (it's gone) It's not Lord of the Rings or Excalibur anymore it's Road Warriors and Gama World mixed in with D&D. Restrictions for classes and races are a good thing. They are there for a reason to off set bonus - Making PCs too powerfull is not always a good thing, makes the game less enjoyable. Making classes mesh is not always a good thing. I like a Palladian a class that is "hard" to roll. The thief is gone now(useless in the new version.) - the cyborg/robot/construct is something i'm not sure about. Why even have classes in the first place? if anyone can be anything and duel up or even tripple up? what's the point here? Just don't have classes, that's what you want, is it not? WotC should think about re-publishing the old books. and adding 1st and 2nd ED to the OGL. that's where the $ are to all those gamers lost in lymbo - pure D&D/classic not a book that has had a "hack saw and crowbar" taken to the rules like the HackMaster version or even the 3ED. These games are not bad, they are good, but they are not as good as AD&D. If publishers could legally sell content for the old versions - they would take off, and your blind if you don’t see that. AD&D is alive an well. look around the net. Most played RPG is 3ed - 2nd most played might be a combo of AD&D1&2ED and they are not the same. (there are players that did not embrace 2nd ed either) And i'm one to bet that 2nd or 1st ED makes a strong comeback. witch one? not sure. And further down the road look for 3ED to cycle through again - and combo games of all three. But to ignore the "orignal D&D system" and say it's not any good or even "as good" is plain silly. (it's got a very long track record as being the #1 RPG of all time) The clasics are lost old scrolls only to be found on Ebay and Bookmans. - ____________________________________________________ I like a combo of 1st and 2nd myself -- 3rd i'm not into just yet - it has some cool aspects but i find the others to still be more fun to play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 200] Author : protonik Date : 01-05-07 12:11 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Somebody hasn't heard of OSRIC have they? :P Aside from that, no, people have published material for 1e and it hasn't really taken off. Done better than suspected but not anything near what you seem to expect. Rob Kuntz published a few adventures and will be continuing to do so for the foreseeable future, including his parts of the original Greyhawk campaign. There is a small market for this stuff but Castles & Crusades had pretty much filled that niche with most gamers (it is the no. 3 best selling RPG on the market right now, only being outdone by D&D3 and WOD ). I don't think as many people are playing 1e and 2e as you think, but more are playing Basic than those two. The books aren't as easily accessible (not on the book shelves) and there isn't any new product being produced for those games outside of some print and pdf products. OSRIC is a recreation of the 1e rules using the SRD in case you didn't know and in spite of my statements, old school gaming is experiencing a come back, but it isn't a huge movement right now. Nowhere have I seen WOTC say that 1e and 2e aren't any good or are poor versions of the game. In fact I've seen more old schoolers dissing 3e than I have WOTC or 3e players dissing 1e, though 2e was a bit of a mess anyway. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 201] Author : exorb Date : 01-05-07 01:56 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. thanks for the reply.. great info!! I have seen OSRIC before. Did not look over it too much. I assumed that Wizards of the Coast did not or has not honored this particular license. I see no link to it from Wizards of the Coast nor do I see any “System Reference Documents” For 1st or 2nd ED. Here is the catch if you follow the Open Gaming License you can not reference hardly anything at all, with out system reference documents. Not only that but the books are not being published so there is no feasible way to create content for 1st or 2nd ED with out violating the OGL. The OGL indicates that you can not reference: spells, special abilities, creatures, equipment, dialogue, magical or supernatural abilities or effects – Just to name some of the KEY ones. In other words I see no referenced “Open Game Content” for 1st or 2nd ED. (As posted by WotC) -- with no Core Books in print for these systems – and with out the “Legal Means” to reference anything from classes to equipment to races to basic rules.. and No Use Of the Name Dungeons & Dragons anywhere it’s a dead end for those wanting to do something like this. Am I wrong? Does WotC back OSRIC? Are content writers able to reference old D&D rules? PS: the whole idea of a "good Mod" for a DM is - so they don't have to flip through books. A good mod should have the information readily available as needed per encounter, and what rules apply to it right there! - that is the whole problem! This is also an issue with the D20 source documents as well. (that are not updated anyway) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 202] Author : exorb Date : 01-05-07 02:35 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I think the whole idea behind making D&D “Open Game Content” is a great one. And I think WotC will benifit by doing this - and i can see why they want core books to be referenced - so they can sell them. I just wish they would add AD&D 1st and 2nd ED source documents.. - and re-publish the old core books as needed by demand. This is the first time i've seen D&D basiclay write off any of it's prior EDs. (They kept basic and expert games in there forever, what does it hurt? if they want advanced out of the name that's ok you don't have to burn books or shut down the whole past of evolving D&D rules. -- name them the Archived rule sets) they also need to update the 3ED SDs as well. these documents need to be expanded if the system is to work well. -- all or MOST of the monsters, items, equipment & encounter rules published by D&D needs to be accessable in the SDs for this to take off. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 203] Author : protonik Date : 01-05-07 05:53 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Wizards doesn't have to back OSRIC, they put the license out and these guys creatively recreated 1e, faithfully for the most part, and put it out for free. The OGL allowed them to do such and they did it. WOTC opened a large can of worms with that license and they can't retract it without publishing a new edition of the game with significant enough changes to the system to completely remove it from the OGL. M&M isn't back by WOTC nor is Conan etc. Now you are confusing the D20 System Trademark License with the OGL. The OGL just says "you can use this stuff for your books if you want to with a few minor restrictions (Intellectual Property like proper names etc)" and the SRD is the list of items that can be referenced and used without restriction. The STL says "you can't refer to this, this or this and have to include a note that it requires the PHB or D20 Modern in order to have the D20 Logo on your product". They are two seperate things. And open gaming has ALREADY taken off in a big way and fallen apart already. There was a HUGE market flood and it got some people rich and many people lost their pants because of craptacular product. Nowadays its OGL (not D20) products which is why WOTC have gone to adventure publishing after saying "let them do it". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 204] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 01-05-07 08:38 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. You know, I remember way back when I started (1st Ed.) that the DM was always behind a DM's screen. You rolled your dice and he told you whether or not you hit. After awhile, you got a feel for what you needed to hit. Then, several other companys started producing "generic" adventures that could be used with any RPG system. Somewhere along the line, Mayfair, I believe, started producing adventures with panels on them saying they were compatible with AD&D and using the THAC0 system they had come up with as part of the generic adventures. To Hit Armor Class 0 was a term they used to help fit their adventures into other systems. I found it amazing that TSR picked it up. At about the same time, DM screens changed, too. Soon after, we stopped using screens, mainly because some players thought they were getting a bad shake. [Truth was, I fudged away from killing them more often than not] My point is this, when TSR allowed others to get on board, it resulted in some great products and actually helped the company by helping stimulate overall intrest. The Wizard series of modules, the Harn World, The Citystate of the Invincible Overlord, all became, to me, classics because of their ability to expand on the basic theme. I wonder that WotC couldn't see their way clear to do this with the OOP series and thus allow other people to continue the life of the series they don't want to pursue. As suggested earlier, they could still produce the core books under a "Classic" title or something and cover all the bases. I see comparitively a lot of people around here still playing 2nd Ed. [and none I am aware of doing Basic, sorry], in fact, it seems almost as many as play 3rd. In business, as in poker, if you leave money on the table, it comes back to haunt you. That is what I think WotC is doing. All the discussion here, all the different styles and games and versions all have their proponents, but Basic and AD&D and the people who play them, are in a situation where they make extraordinary efforts to feed their desire for their version, and the people who have the rights to their addiction choose to sit on it and leave "the money on the table". At some point, I hope they will realize this and start to reissue the products in question. At least the "core" books.:rimshot: [I've been a drummer for over 40 years, so that's why I thought the rimshot appropriate] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 205] Author : Llwch Date : 01-05-07 08:51 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I see comparitively a lot of people around here still playing 2nd Ed. [and none I am aware of doing Basic, sorry], Hey! We're playing basic... At least, that's how my kids are learning how to play RPGs. Might move 'em to AD&D once they fully get the hang of it. BECMI D&D is a great way to start. Rules light, and heavy on the fun factor. 2nd Edition AD&D is (obviously) heavier on rules (especially since I use the various option hardbacks and elements of the PHBR line), but equally heavy on the fun. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 206] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 01-05-07 09:32 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything except I don't see it locally, and I include you guys in my suggestion to WotC. I started playing as an adult with 1st Ed. and have never tried it. Went on to 2nd Ed with a little struggle at first but grew to love it and it is my favorite and virtually only RPG now. (I do play old style Mechwarrior.):) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 207] Author : Llwch Date : 01-06-07 12:59 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything except I don't see it locally, and I include you guys in my suggestion to WotC. I started playing as an adult with 1st Ed. and have never tried it. Went on to 2nd Ed with a little struggle at first but grew to love it and it is my favorite and virtually only RPG now. (I do play old style Mechwarrior.):) It's cool man... All is good. I figured Basic was the best way to start, as with proficiencies and what not, AD&D can be a bit daunting to new players. Now that they've played it a few times, my oldest has read my spare PHB a few times. He still doesn't "get it" with the proficiencies, but will probably get his head around it once I'm closer to moving them over to 2nd Edition AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 208] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 01-06-07 12:52 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Good, didn't want to offend. My daughter, who is now 16, plays in one of the groups I DM. She has watched us play since she could see over the table, so she was around the concepts and it was just a matter of getting the actual rule in mind. She used to borrow my monster manuel and draw copies of the creatures she thought were "cool". She has no more problem with 2nd Ed than novice adults do. I coached 7, 8 and 9 year olds in tackle football and we were able to have them understand and use three different offensive formations, 6 different pass routes, and 3 different defenses. We had pulling guards, crossblocking on the line and my 8 year old quarterback called a successful audible on a point after. We ran something like 30 plays and all of the 26 kids but one "got them". You might be supprised at how much your kids will "get" once they start playing in it. Kids are like sponges, they are amazing with what they can pick up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 209] Author : exorb Date : 01-06-07 12:58 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Don't know how you got football into this on play-off day.. too funny-- thanks for the clarification - protonic -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 210] Author : wavelength Date : 03-25-07 10:25 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Just thought I'd fill you guys in with what happened to our semi-homebrew 1e/2e AD&D group. Five of us had been playing since high school (over 25 years ago!) though we had only averaged once a year or so for many years due to families, work commitments, location etc. In the last few years one of our group had started playing in a 3.0 - 3.5 campaign and managed to convince me (the DM) that we should convert the characters and run with the new system - with him and myself sharing the DM'ing to start with as I wasn't upto scratch on the new rules. First we had to convert the characters - this was when I first started feeling "uncomfortable". It seemed that there was no easy way to "port them over" without them gaining a number of new levels, skills and bonuses - especially the multi-classed characters, which really didnt seem to be catered for in the new version(?). I went along with it, not having had the time to read up all the different systems and make my own assessment. Anyway the first session (a few years back) went ok, but being a bit rusty as DM as well as trying to incorporate new combat rules etc. into the game, play dragged on a bit and it was really hard to gauge the characters "new found" power and set a corresponding difficulty to their encounters. After DM'ing to these characters for so long they now seemed a bit "munchkinised" and/or "Monty Haulish" - and I felt their "non-earned" leap in abilities detracted from both their players and my enjoyment of that strength. Second session (6-9 months later) was with my 3e-savvy friend DM'ing. Through no great fault of his own, the game got bogged down in a couple of combats. I know its always difficult for players as well as DM's to learn new rules but it just seemed to take forever to calculate this and that. Anyway our (fairly short, rare and difficult to organise) session was over with very little in the way of storytelling/roleplaying and ..to be honest.. fun. At least compared with what we had "achieved" in the past. :confused: Now I know its not only to do with the ruleset, but we haven't played since that last session. :( Trying to organise dates with busy people was always a struggle, but everybody has seemed less interested in making the effort after the switch to 3e (actually one member has stated that he wasn't interested in playing any more) I'm in a quandry now - do I try to reset all the characters back to 1e/2e (which may seem to be a retrograde step to the players now) to try to rekindle some interest? Or do I try to incorporate more of 1e/2e into 3e whilst removing some of the "weight" of the latter? (Another untested experiment) Has anybody tried a 1e/2e/3e/3.5e hybrid? What did you leave in? What did you take out? Please note - Im not here to bash 3E. It seems that they have made some good additions/changes and streamlined certain things and obviously many seem to enjoy it or even prefer it to older editions. But it does seem to me to be a different "kettle o' fish" - a different game in fact. I think its fair to say it hasn't "replaced" any older editions - just like a new album from your favourite band doesn't "replace" an older one. Something does seem to have been "lost in translation" though... How to get it back?... P.S. Does anybody else here feel that we're "hidden away" in this forum. Like an unwanted gift thats been shoved to the back of the cupboard and tried to be forgotten about? P.P.S. :censored: I've had to retype half of this post coz when I went to preview it said "You are not logged in"... Aaaargh!!! Why does it do that!? :tantrum: Is this a 3rd edition Boards or something? P.P.S.S. Good luck with the excellent suggestion of getting reprints of core material and hopefully supporting the older editions more. If you think about it like the "remastering" of a classic album it seems potentially viable... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 211] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-25-07 10:27 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Buy a copy of Castles&Crusades. It gets some of the advantage of the D20 mechanism, and is almost completely compatible with AD&D adventures -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 212] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 03-26-07 02:33 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. We are still playing 2nd Ed and I am getting ready to bring in some new people from a site called Meetup.com for other gamers in the area. (My daughter is getting ready to go away to school.) I have several people who have told me they also want to play so we just keep plugging along. Note there is a group doing a petition to WotC for reprints of 1st and 2nd Ed and the Basic sets. Looks to have a pretty fair response, too.:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 213] Author : RobertFisher Date : 03-26-07 01:36 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I'm in a quandry now - do I try to reset all the characters back to 1e/2e (which may seem to be a retrograde step to the players now) to try to rekindle some interest? I don't know. My standard advice is never to convert PCs. If you want to try a new system, start new PCs. Conversion can work, but it's not really giving the old campaign or the new system the best odds that they both deserve. Also, the attitude of my groups has always been that the DM gets to choose the system. When someone wants to play 3e enough to DM it, I'm happy to give up the DM chair & make a PC. So, I suspect reverting to the system you're most comfortable with & encouraging someone else start a parallel 3e campaign if they want might be a decent path forward. P.S. Does anybody else here feel that we're "hidden away" in this forum. Like an unwanted gift thats been shoved to the back of the cupboard and tried to be forgotten about? Yes. Although, I do have to give them credit for allowing this space on their servers & for letting resultant PDFs to still be sold despite discontinuing the ESD project. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 214] Author : dontheox Date : 03-27-07 09:45 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. P.S. Does anybody else here feel that we're "hidden away" in this forum. Like an unwanted gift thats been shoved to the back of the cupboard and tried to be forgotten about? In a sense I believe all of us "old school gamers" are looked upon with respect, but also with a little contempt. In any case WoTC do provide this forum for us plus a ton of other freebies so I am not complaining. If you’re like me my main reason for not switching over to third edition is mainly cost, but the few 3.5 games I have played it seemed like I was playing a dumb down version of AD&D. Even though they did make good improvements on the game, I just did not like the "feel" of the game almost as if I did not belong in that particular game. Call me weird but that’s how I felt. In any event if people are used to a certain routine, game, a way of life ect..and all of a sudden it changes, there is always going to be some nay saying about the changes. Others will embrace the change as the new and improved way of doing things and will be happy as a dragon on a pile of gold. I would go back to the good old days and switch the characters back the way they were. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 215] Author : OHPLEASE Date : 04-02-07 10:49 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I still play and prefer 2nd edition. I do like the character level and class level setup very much. I like the d20 rules, ever since i saw Alternity. I don't like WoTC popping out a book every month just for money. I can't stand all the rollplaying i see in 3E. You've seen the charater builds. Your username is hilarious. Sorry guys if I am way off topic. -O.P. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 216] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-06-07 08:01 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Okay, okay let me just say... HI! I'm posting this mainly because i've been gone for ages and just want to say hey to all the old gang (and new gang too). But of course I'll also post my two cents on this subject. What happened to 2nd ed.? Who cares, 2e sucked, 3e sucked 3.5e sucks and i'm sure 4e will suck when it comes out. Long live 1st Edition, WOOOOOT! Okay there's my not so humble, completely unfounded totally (1st Edition) biased opinion. nice to be back, -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 217] Author : Sylban_Quin Date : 06-16-07 09:10 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I run three 2nd Ed. campaigns every week. Some of my players also play 3E, and two of them are 3E DMs whom I have characters with. My players and I often discuss 3.5E as compared to 2nd Ed., and I'm sad to say, most of what is talked about is how much better it used to be. One of the DM players sums it up, "2nd Edition is more complex, but it is more fun, too." First and foremost, 3E made the fantastic mundane. My players feel a sense of wonder when playing 2nd Ed. that just doesn't translate to 3E. I'll explain this throughout. 3rd Edition made the DM a jerk. In 2nd Ed., if a player wanted to play an odd race or a race/class combination that normally wasn't allowed, a kind and generous DM might help him develop a logical reason for such a fantastic and unlikely occurance (following the guidelines in the 2nd Ed. DMG). In 3E, all races can be all classes, unless the DM is a jerk and disallows it. In 2nd Ed., if a player wanted to do a special move in combat (trick shots, attempting to hit more than one target, attempting to knock a potion out of someone's hand without breaking it), the DM could, if he was a kind and generous DM, give him a chance to try this fantastic trick (at a -4 to-hit (at the least), of course). If the character succeeded at it often enough, the DM might consider giving it to him as a proficiency. In 3E, it is automatically assumed that they can do these things, if they bought them, and a DM is a jerk if he disallows it. On the subject of feats: they are a very nice idea that sadly, makes the fantastic mundane. What do I mean? 2nd Ed.: A character finds himself up against 4 skeletons lined up side-by-side. Thinking quickly, the player asks if he can swing his club at the first one's head, hoping to smash one skele into another other, or even hit all of them in one swing. Excitement builds as the DM allows the wild swing, and lo and behold, a 20! The character pulls off the stunt, and has a great story to tell back at the inn. Fantastic! 3E: A character finds himself up against 4 skeletons lined up side-by-side. He declares a Great Cleave action. It succeeds. The player yawns, as he's used that Feat a half-dozen times today alone. Mundane. Even the illustrations in 3E follow this logic. When I look at the horribly imbalanced suits of armor pictured throughout the 3.5E PHB, I figure 'Either that fighter suffers from back pain and nerve damage from carrying those extra 30 pounds on just one shoulder all day, or that suit is magical.' Don't get me wrong, I think the illustrations look fantastic- perfect for high level characters in magical suits of armor. But no, those guys are supposed to be typical for their class. Mundane. Did 3E fix what was broken? No, not really: Yes, 3E did away with the Saving Throw Chart that used seemingly arbitrary numbers coupled with modifiers from their stats, race, and a severity modifier applied to the roll; in favor of one based solely on the character's stats, race, class, level, the relative difficulty of the task (DC), and the luck of a d20 roll. Wait, isn't that almost the same thing? They didn't really change the mechanic, just the explanation of the mechanic! Before, the player looked on a chart for their class, then level, to find a number that seemed pulled out of a hat. This is the save. Then they rolled a d20, adding any modifiers for race, Dex, Con, Wis, or magic-item bonuses that applied to the situation, and subtracting the DM's severity modifier (based on spellcaster level/strength of the poison/whatever the case may be). If their number plus modifiers was greater than or equal to the first number, they win. If their number is less, they lose. Now, the player rolls a d20, adding any bonuses for race, class, level, and magical-type bonuses. The DM then compares it to a somewhat random, arbitrary DC modified by spellcaster level/strength of the poison/whatever the case may be. If the player's number is greater than or equal to the DM's number, the player wins. But I'm ranting again. I can do that for hours when discussing 3E. Needless to say, AD&D 2nd Edition is alive and well in my community. A bit broken, a little more difficult to use, but thriving just the same. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 218] Author : Extempus Date : 06-17-07 04:48 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. In 3E, all races can be all classes, unless the DM is a jerk and disallows it. We can't discriminate now, can we? Even in a fantasy game, we must be PC lest we offend someone... and that is one reason I don't like 3e and 3.5e. Dwarven wizards??? Indeed... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 219] Author : Dexter_Blacktyde Date : 06-17-07 08:21 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. First and foremost, 3E made the fantastic mundane. (...) So you're saying that 2e was a playground for DM fiat, whereas 3e tries to give people rules instead of relying on a DM to make arbitrary decisions. I just don't see how that's supposed to be a bad thing. If something happens more than once, it should have some kind of comprehensible mechanic. ("The other day you allowed Jake to hit four skeletons with one swing, so why don't you allow me to do the same with these goblins?") In 2e the DM has to keep in mind all "out of the ordinary" actions he's allowed or disallowed. In 3e the rules do that for you. This way players don't have to rely on their DM's whim to accomplish something - they "buy" a feat, put it to good use and feel they've accomplished something. If a system expects the DM to govern everything besides hit or miss mechanics, players might feel they've been given a present they haven't earned for any other reason than that the DM was in a good mood. I bend the rules myself to achieve things they normally wouldn't allow for; but from a technical standpoint I can't claim that an arbitrary system that relies as heavily on DM fiat as 2e is a better system than 3e. It just isn't. If I like it better just the same (for sentimental reasons, for example) is another question. DB -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 220] Author : Hugin Date : 06-17-07 02:42 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. We can't discriminate now, can we? Even in a fantasy game, we must be PC lest we offend someone... and that is one reason I don't like 3e and 3.5e. Dwarven wizards??? Indeed... lol. I play 3.5E. And yes, there are no Dwarven Wizards! But there is a setting explanation for why. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 221] Author : Varl Date : 06-17-07 04:22 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. But I'm ranting again. I can do that for hours when discussing 3E. Needless to say, AD&D 2nd Edition is alive and well in my community. A bit broken, a little more difficult to use, but thriving just the same. Some very nice comparisons you made there, Sylban, some of which I hadn't considered between 2e and d20. Well said. If something happens more than once, it should have some kind of comprehensible mechanic. ("The other day you allowed Jake to hit four skeletons with one swing, so why don't you allow me to do the same with these goblins?") That's not the fault of the system; it's the fault of the DM for not noting the rule down and making it official so the next time it came up, he'd know the answer. In 2e the DM has to keep in mind all "out of the ordinary" actions he's allowed or disallowed. This isn't difficult to do. It's what note-taking is for. In 3e the rules do that for you. Everything? You mean to tell me that there's no variation on a ruling that players can ever try that d20 doesn't cover? DMs that run 3e never need to make the rules their own? I can't believe that. This way players don't have to rely on their DM's whim to accomplish something Whim? Why is it the DM's whim when the players are often the ones thinking up these variations? Heh. You know, a whim is only one step away from being a rule, polymorphing into a rule as soon as it's written down. I bend the rules myself to achieve things they normally wouldn't allow for; but from a technical standpoint I can't claim that an arbitrary system that relies as heavily on DM fiat as 2e is a better system than 3e. It just isn't. If I like it better just the same (for sentimental reasons, for example) is another question. Wait a second. It seems it's okay for you to bend the 3e rules to achieve things you want the system to do for you, but if a 2e DM does the same thing, suddenly it's becomes a whim or arbitrarily derived. Nonsense. :twitch: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 222] Author : havard Date : 06-17-07 05:14 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Everything? You mean to tell me that there's no variation on a ruling that players can ever try that d20 doesn't cover? DMs that run 3e never need to make the rules their own? I can't believe that. With 3E/d20 you will always know one thing: If a PC or NPC attempts an action, you will have to roll a d20 and add a bonus. So in that sense the rules cover everything. In OOP D&D the DM might rule that you should use a hit roll using the ThaC0 mechanic, an ability check rolling below your ability score, a saving throw; rolling above your save, a 1d6 where a set number determines a success/failure etc. Some people find using the same mechanic over and over again tedious. Others feel it helps make sense out of the game. Most situations where 2E had no rule, but where almost every DM had a house rule, like killing several with one blow (aka Cleave) and Crits also have an official default rule so you'll have a some idea how these things work when you sit down with a new DM. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 223] Author : Dexter_Blacktyde Date : 06-17-07 05:47 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. That's not the fault of the system; it's the fault of the DM for not noting the rule down and making it official so the next time it came up, he'd know the answer. (...) So it's okay if I write a system that consists of only one sentence - "Do whatever you want" -, and those who cricitize it are just too dumb or too lazy to write everything else themselves? ;) In order to operate an old car with a choke valve you have to get a feel for it - it's not as easy as driving a new car, especially in the middle of winter: How long do I have to warm the engine up, at which temperatures do I have to pull the choke valve lever, and how much, and how long do I have to wait until I've got to push it in again? And so on. Still I can't claim that the old car is just as good as a new car. Maybe I'd never want to trade it in for all the money in the world, maybe I like it with all its deficiencies - but objectively it's not as good as a new one. This isn't difficult to do. It's what note-taking is for. And it doesn't take a genius to predict most novels' or movies' plot - that doesn't mean that we'd be happy with being presented a prologue and coming up with the rest ourselves. That we can predict a movie's plot is still considered a shortcoming - of the movie. Everything? You mean to tell me that there's no variation on a ruling that players can ever try that d20 doesn't cover? DMs that run 3e never need to make the rules their own? I can't believe that. Neither can I - although 3e does its best to give us a mechanic that applies to most situations, as havard was kind enough to point out. Whim? Why is it the DM's whim when the players are often the ones thinking up these variations? Because the DM has to decide whether he allows something or not - without any support by the rules. It's like a soccer match in which one player wants a penalty kick - and the ref decides if he gets it or not without any regulation by the rules. With a thorough ruleset a player has a good idea what his character can and cannot do - he doesn't have to convince the DM of every one of his ideas. Heh. You know, a whim is only one step away from being a rule, polymorphing into a rule as soon as it's written down. Uhm... a whim is more or less the exact opposite of a rule. That's what makes it, you know, a whim. Wait a second. It seems it's okay for you to bend the 3e rules to achieve things you want the system to do for you, but if a 2e DM does the same thing, suddenly it's becomes a whim or arbitrarily derived. Nonsense. :twitch: You might want to reread the paragraph you quoted. DB -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 224] Author : Llwch Date : 06-17-07 10:11 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Most situations where 2E had no rule, but where almost every DM had a house rule, like killing several with one blow (aka Cleave) and Crits also have an official default rule so you'll have a some idea how these things work when you sit down with a new DM. Actually, the "Cleave" feat traces its roots back to 1st Edition AD&D (where it was an established rule for fighters attacking opponents with less than 1 HD). Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't this available as an optional rule for 2nd Edition AD&D. I don't have my PHB immediately handy, but I recall seeing something to that effect. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 225] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 06-18-07 12:15 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I also applaud Sylban's take on the different editions. It is a unique slant on the differences a lot of us have noted in the past, and, I think, quite valid. If I had the inclination and time, I could probably run 2nd Ed adventures every night of the week, and for different groups each time. There is a strong demand for it even in our little city of about 100K people. And, once again, Varl chimes in with timely and pointed comments. Way to go, you guys!:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 226] Author : Varl Date : 06-18-07 01:23 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. So it's okay if I write a system that consists of only one sentence - "Do whatever you want" -, and those who cricitize it are just too dumb or too lazy to write everything else themselves? ;) Huh? You lost me. I'm just saying if one is going to DM any game system, you better be prepared to take notes on things in the event that a player comes up with something outside the rules, so that later, the DM doesn't look like a fool for not writing it down on the initial occurance. Neither can I - although 3e does its best to give us a mechanic that applies to most situations, as havard was kind enough to point out. I won't argue that. The mechanics that run a house rule aren't really relevant anyway, because they'll be run under the system that's preferred. Because the DM has to decide whether he allows something or not - without any support by the rules. While this is true, a wise DM will advise players to inform him of any variations he's thought up or wants to bring in from other game systems before the game begins, because ultimately, it's not his choice to just arbitrarily whip out a new spell, power, action, skill, or NWP just because he thinks it'd be cool to surprise the DM with. I don't know of any DM that would get a kick out of players putting him on the spot like that. If you deny, you end up looking like a jerk. If you accept, and say you'll allow it this time, you'll end up looking like a softie that anyone can attempt new things on, or, you end up having to slow the game down to make note of the improvised player's choice for later debate. My players and I are actually okay with the latter, but I still require them to bring to my attention anything they wish to add to the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 227] Author : Dexter_Blacktyde Date : 06-18-07 10:27 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. (...) So we don't disagree all that much after all. I'm just saying that most of Sylban's complaints boil down to a matter of taste. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. DB -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 228] Author : Treymordin Date : 06-18-07 11:05 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. The Romans said it best, "de guistibus non est disputatum", you cannot dispute taste. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 229] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-19-07 02:20 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. So you're saying that 2e was a playground for DM fiat, whereas 3e tries to give people rules instead of relying on a DM to make arbitrary decisions. I just don't see how that's supposed to be a bad thing. It's bad because: A set of rules that is short enough to be playable is not adequate to handle everything that might come up in the game. Because 90% of what comes up only needs a quick judgement rather than a written rule. Because 90% of the time that you need a rule, a simple 50/50 die roll often works well enough for the purposes of the game. For me. YMMV. It's bad because I game with people who aren't interested in mastering complex rulesets, & they enjoy the game less when we play such. If something happens more than once, it should have some kind of comprehensible mechanic. ("The other day you allowed Jake to hit four skeletons with one swing, so why don't you allow me to do the same with these goblins?") "Because this situation is different in this way..." ...or... "Because when we discussed it afterwards, we all agreed that--in hindsight--that had been a bad ruling." ...or... "Oh, right. Go ahead then." In 2e the DM has to keep in mind all "out of the ordinary" actions he's allowed or disallowed. No he doesn't. Firstly, if the players remember, they can remind the DM. If the players don't remember, does it really matter? But further, each situation should be judged on its own & with all the DM's current knowledge & experience. Rather than reusing a bad decision from a different situation, he should come up with a better decision for the situation at hand. This way players don't have to rely on their DM's whim to accomplish something That word "whim" in these conversations always makes me wonder. It hints at pessimism. At assuming the worst case all the time. In practice, I play with friends & my friends are usually not jerks. It's not always the best case, but it is seldom the worst case. So, "whim" manages just fine. from a technical standpoint I can't claim that an arbitrary system that relies as heavily on DM fiat as 2e is a better system than 3e. It just isn't. If I like it better just the same (for sentimental reasons, for example) is another question. 3e is a technical marvel. I will grant you that. I greatly admire what they've built. But when it comes to actually playing, I'd rather play Dungeon Squad. (A game younger than 3e, so no danger of sentiment being involved.) Hey, I enjoy playing 3e when I do, so I can understand that you enjoy it. I can not accept that 3e is objectively better than other editions of D&D because for me & some of the people I game with, it isn't. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 230] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-19-07 02:22 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. The Romans said it best, "de guistibus non est disputatum", you cannot dispute taste. Yeah, but the Internet has proved them wrong. You can dispute it all you want. (^_^) The truth is, though, I wouldn't bother participating in discussions like these if I hadn't gotten things out of them in the past. My gaming has greatly improved because I've been able to discuss the hobby with people with very different experiences. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 231] Author : Hugin Date : 06-19-07 03:07 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Hey, I enjoy playing 3e when I do, so I can understand that you enjoy it. I can not accept that 3e is objectively better than other editions of D&D because for me & some of the people I game with, it isn't. And with this statement all so-called 'edition wars' should be ended. [not that I'd consider this discussion an 'edition war' but I hope you know what I mean] This comes from someone who really likes the d20 system and has been playing for over 20 years. It really is almost a moot topic in a way because I'm sure most people are like me and just port over whatever element they like from other systems into the system they like the most. On second thought it isn't moot; discussing all the various elements of different systems can potentially improve our own. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 232] Author : Dexter_Blacktyde Date : 06-19-07 03:58 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Oh, the irony of it all... Honestly, Robert, under slightly different circumstances I'd have said what you said in favor of less rules. In fact, in some discussions I have. It's bad because: A set of rules that is short enough to be playable is not adequate to handle everything that might come up in the game. Because 90% of what comes up only needs a quick judgement rather than a written rule. Because 90% of the time that you need a rule, a simple 50/50 die roll often works well enough for the purposes of the game. Although D&D's tactical combat is fun - and this is as tactical as it gets, at least this side of tabletop wargaming -, I'm perfectly happy with coming up with something on the fly instead of having the displeasure of having to browse a dozen rule catalogues. But I tried to be as objective as possible here, and when Sylban "sounded" like he thought 3e is inferior to 2e because it has actual rules for things, well... "Because this situation is different in this way..." (...) Wouldn't you say that logical and plausible rules make life easier for many new GMs? I don't like the superfluous plethora of rules (like determining if a character can urinate in a straight line) WotC churns out like there's no tomorrow either. But objectively a system with a coherent ruleset that actually makes sense and tries to cover the most likely situations is better than an incoherent ruleset that tells the GM "Come up with something. Good luck!" rather often. Then there's the problem of arguments which will arise at many (inexperienced gamers') tables whenever the GM has to make a technical decision without rules to support it. If there's a rule somewhere in the PHB or DMG, players are less likely to object because their character just got screwed. Again, I don't have that problem, but I'm not representative of all gamers. That word "whim" in these conversations always makes me wonder. It hints at pessimism. At assuming the worst case all the time. In practice, I play with friends & my friends are usually not jerks. It's not always the best case, but it is seldom the worst case. So, "whim" manages just fine. My point exactly in another thread not too long ago. Unfortunately the problem of GMs who allow their "power" to go to their head has existed as long as the hobby exists, mostly in the teen bracket. Moreover, becoming a good GM who makes good calls takes time and practice. Good rules allow inexperienced GMs to make better calls than they would without their support, so a system with rules covering the most likely situations is commonly accepted to be better than a system without them. We're talking about the first RPG for the majority of new gamers after all. I can not accept that 3e is objectively better than other editions of D&D because for me & some of the people I game with, it isn't. Neither for me - but that has nothing to do with objectivity, but with subjectivity. D&D isn't my favorite system, and I hate that it does too much of what I'm defending here (providing rules, that is), thereby training beginners to think that illogical dungeons, loot and four encounters per day is all there is to the hobby. If someone interested in taking up roleplaying asked me which system they should buy, I'd never recommend D&D. But that doesn't stop me from arguing that 3e is far superior to 2e from a technical standpoint. That I personally like the 2e material better is another matter entirely. DB -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 233] Author : Varl Date : 06-19-07 07:16 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. But objectively a system with a coherent ruleset that actually makes sense and tries to cover the most likely situations is better than an incoherent ruleset that tells the GM "Come up with something. Good luck!" rather often. This comment intrigued me because how experienced a DM is at running his preferred game is a direct reflection upon how well his ability to "wing it" is. The fact that many DMs (particularly prior edition DMs) prefer a certain degree of abstraction in order to form their own preferred method of running X (i.e. house rules, in which, X has yet to be defined in any meaningful way in the core rules) to having to look up a rule in some rulebook to guarantee you get it right says something to me. It says they're more interested in making sure the game proceeds without any significant rules-lookup delays. No one can be expected to remember every rule, but DMs that run their games a bit more loosely than those dependent upon making sure they make the right call according to the Holy Writ that is official rulebooks, to me are DMs that are experienced and exude confidence in being able to make up something on the fly without worrying about a player inquisition because rules were slightly bent to accommodate fun. This is the plus side of DM improv IMO. Then there's the problem of arguments which will arise at many (inexperienced gamers') tables whenever the GM has to make a technical decision without rules to support it. If there's a rule somewhere in the PHB or DMG, players are less likely to object because their character just got screwed. Again, I don't have that problem, but I'm not representative of all gamers. Experience has always told me that players are going to innately object and think they got screwed at even the most definitive ruling, particularly if it cost them their character's life or a valued trinkets. You could show them the rule directly; but that still doesn't mean they're going to like it or object any less because of it. Why? It's about loss, and it's also about their own personal interpretation on how they'd have the rule work. Each player is going to have their own personal thoughts on how they think a rule should work. Most players are capable of accepting another DM's variation on it. Some are not, and those are the ones that typically think they've been screwed because the DM ruled a certain way, a certain way nonconformist to the official rules that the player might be expecting to be used. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 234] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-20-07 10:07 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Although D&D's tactical combat is fun - and this is as tactical as it gets, at least this side of tabletop wargaming -, I'm perfectly happy with coming up with something on the fly instead of having the displeasure of having to browse a dozen rule catalogues. But I tried to be as objective as possible here, and when Sylban "sounded" like he thought 3e is inferior to 2e because it has actual rules for things, well... But 3e's combat rules don't make the game more "tactical". With a system as simple as classic D&D combat, the participant with the better knowledge of tactics has a better chance of "winning". With a system as complex as 3e combat, the participant with a better knowledge of the rules has the advantage over the participant with a better knowledge of tactics. You don't really need to add anything to classic D&D combat--on the fly or not--to apply tactics to it. Wouldn't you say that logical and plausible rules make life easier for many new GMs? Sure. I find classic D&D's rules very logical & plausible. The things that I find least logical & plausible (such as hp & the complete disconnect between attack roll & damage) have all been retained in 3e. But objectively a system with a coherent ruleset that actually makes sense and tries to cover the most likely situations is better than an incoherent ruleset that tells the GM "Come up with something. Good luck!" rather often. The implication is that the older rules don't make sense & are incoherent. I don't agree with that. The big problem with previous editions is that they didn't do such a good job of explaining the game to me. But I can hardly blame them. Because the limits of the medium. Because the best way to explain the game to me is different from the best way to explain the game to you. Perhaps 3e does a better job of communicating than previous editions, but that's to be expected. It's a tall order, though, & I still have run into plenty of people who get completely lost by text in 3e that seems plain to me. An aside: One of the things that is funny to me is how many 3e advocates (on another site) tend to be so big on the "its the character's skill that should matter, not the player's" when it comes to interpersonal skills; but they're perfectly happy with the player having to decide details of combat that should be subsumed within the character's knowledge/skill/experience. Then there's the problem of arguments which will arise at many (inexperienced gamers') tables whenever the GM has to make a technical decision without rules to support it. If there's a rule somewhere in the PHB or DMG, players are less likely to object because their character just got screwed. What about objections because there was a rule that went unnoticed/unused? Or disagreements over the interpretation of a written rule? These problems cannot be fixed by more rules. (& can be exacerbated by more rules!) They are fixed by maturity, experience, & learning to deal with such conflicts. Good rules allow inexperienced GMs to make better calls than they would without their support, so a system with rules covering the most likely situations is commonly accepted to be better than a system without them. We're talking about the first RPG for the majority of new gamers after all. But what is "good rules"? (^_^) My observation stands: The things I've seen make people better GMs are maturity, experience, & encouragement. I've never seen rules do it. I would love to see numbers on how many people have joined the hobby starting with 3e vs. the Mentzer Basic Set. (Yeah. I won't even make you include the other Basic Sets. (^_^)) Especially if you limited to people who were introduced to the game primarily by the books rather than by friends. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the vast majority of 3e players started with the Mentzer Basic Set. The classic D&D books could have been better. I've got a website filled with how I better understand the game now than by what I gleaned from the text alone. I'm not convinced, however, that 3e is doing that much of a better job. I am convinced that 3e has a much narrower appeal than classic D&D did. But that doesn't stop me from arguing that 3e is far superior to 2e from a technical standpoint. That I personally like the 2e material better is another matter entirely. & I'm not a big fan of 2e myself. Especially once you get beyond the core rules. 3e may have made a little "technical" progress, but mostly I see them trading one set of issues for another. "Far superior"? Not by a long shot. If for no other reason than that they choose to design it to eliminate what is--to me--the fundamental element of an RPG. To "take the DM out of the equation". Yeah, you can put him back in, but that is absolutely the opposite direction that the flagship for the hobby should take. It should be teaching people how to put the DM into the equation. Not leaving them to figure that out for themselves. That particular "good luck on your own" bothers me more than anything I feel previous editions didn't explain enough to me. No one can be expected to remember every rule, but DMs that run their games a bit more loosely than those dependent upon making sure they make the right call according to the Holy Writ that is official rulebooks, to me are DMs that are experienced and exude confidence in being able to make up something on the fly without worrying about a player inquisition because rules were slightly bent to accommodate fun. It's about loss, and it's also about their own personal interpretation on how they'd have the rule work. Whether running classic D&D or 3e, a good DM doesn't try to do it all on his own. He listens to his players. He asks for their input & knowledge. Whether playing classic D&D or 3e, good players give the DM the benefit of the doubt. They acknowledge that he's stepped up to do a tough job. They acknowledge that he's only human. They understand that this is hobby is nothing more than a playground game of make-believe in which the they--the players--have agreed to give the DM the authority to resolve conflicts. So--at a point--arguing with the DM breaks the fundamental contract of the game. Too often I see advocates for a system trying to use these kinds of things are arguments. These things aren't about system. (Hmm...except maybe in Wushu. (^_^)) They can't be fixed by a system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 235] Author : Dexter_Blacktyde Date : 06-20-07 11:28 AM Thread Title : 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues This comment intrigued me because how experienced a DM is at running his preferred game is a direct reflection upon how well his ability to "wing it" is. The fact that many DMs (particularly prior edition DMs) prefer a certain degree of abstraction in order to form their own preferred method of running X (i.e. house rules, in which, X has yet to be defined in any meaningful way in the core rules) to having to look up a rule in some rulebook to guarantee you get it right says something to me. Certainly, there are rules-slaves who think everything written in the Holy Trinity That Is Core is beyond reproach, there are those who don't think they need any rules, and everything in-between. I'm not advocating either extreme; I'm just saying that a coherent ruleset is likely to introduce a new GM to the way of thinking he needs to apply when GMing. A good ruleset will not only teach him how this or that particular mechanic works, but how mechanics in general work, and give him a feel for how to "wing it". In any case I agree with your first paragraph. Experience has always told me that players are going to innately object and think they got screwed at even the most definitive ruling, particularly if it cost them their character's life or a valued trinkets. You could show them the rule directly; but that still doesn't mean they're going to like it or object any less because of it. There's the opposite also: Players who help their GM "screw them" because it's better for the story or spices up roleplaying their character. Anyway, when I think back twenty years, I remember that I as a player - and my players when I GMed - objected to anything negative (regardless of the rules, as you said). But when it could be proven that the GM's whim or a bad call of his wasn't responsible for the unpleasant outcome, but that a rule had determined it, tempers simmered down pretty quickly, and the session could go on without too much mood-breaking interruption. That gamers have to learn when to apply the rules and when to bend or even break them is another question. But 3e's combat rules don't make the game more "tactical". With a system as simple as classic D&D combat, the participant with the better knowledge of tactics has a better chance of "winning". With a system as complex as 3e combat, the participant with a better knowledge of the rules has the advantage over the participant with a better knowledge of tactics. You don't really need to add anything to classic D&D combat--on the fly or not--to apply tactics to it. What I was trying to say is that 3e is as "tactical" in the tabletop wargaming sense of the word as it gets when it comes to RPGs. Of course I don't need many rules to apply tactics to a fight - but that wasn't my point anyway. Sure. I find classic D&D's rules very logical & plausible. The things that I find least logical & plausible (such as hp & the complete disconnect between attack roll & damage) have all been retained in 3e. Sacred cows are bound to get carried over - not necessarily because they make for good rules, but because of brand identity. But HP? In a system as combat-focused as D&D, with a combat subsystem as "tactical" (see above) as the one D&D has, HP are the logical choice - no mechanic of keeping track of damage is easier to understand, and it's very easy to apply. Sure, HP are very unrealistic - but the downside of the "wargamey" way D&D handles combat is that it's unrealistic in itself. And what exactly do you mean when you say "complete disconnect between attack roll & damage"? The implication is that the older rules don't make sense & are incoherent. I don't agree with that. We're entering matter-of-taste territory here ;) Perhaps 3e does a better job of communicating than previous editions, but that's to be expected. It's a tall order, though, & I still have run into plenty of people who get completely lost by text in 3e that seems plain to me. I've found that most of those who get lost get lost in the plethora of optional, expanded and additional rules. As far as conciseness is concerned, I don't know anyone who complained that the system wasn't easy to understand. (Another problem of the system is that it's become a moloch impossible to keep an overview of. The more rules you use, the more unbalanced the patchwork gets.) These problems cannot be fixed by more rules. (& can be exacerbated by more rules!) They are fixed by maturity, experience, & learning to deal with such conflicts. No objection here. But what is "good rules"? (^_^) For newbies? Easy to grasp, easy to apply, easy to extrapolate. My observation stands: The things I've seen make people better GMs are maturity, experience, & encouragement. I've never seen rules do it. Neither have I. But people need to get started. The classic D&D books could have been better. I've got a website filled with how I better understand the game now than by what I gleaned from the text alone. I'm not convinced, however, that 3e is doing that much of a better job. I am convinced that 3e has a much narrower appeal than classic D&D did. A narrower appeal? I'm not sure if I understand you here. 3e may have made a little "technical" progress, but mostly I see them trading one set of issues for another. "Far superior"? Not by a long shot. If for no other reason than that they choose to design it to eliminate what is--to me--the fundamental element of an RPG. To "take the DM out of the equation". I've always said "far superior from a technical standpoint". What you mourn is the logical consequence of highlighting the wargamey combat in order to sell more miniatures. Rest assured, I too have a strong dislike for inflexible "one size fits all" rules that either dumb the game down or are better made up individually by the GM, based on the context. But newbies are better served by a good rules-coverage of most situations. D&D could and should do a better job at explaining that, as they grow in experience, GMs don't have to feel they need to apply all rules as they are written. Then again, if D&D did that, WotC would sell less splatbooks, so... ;) Yeah, you can put him back in, but that is absolutely the opposite direction that the flagship for the hobby should take. It should be teaching people how to put the DM into the equation. Not leaving them to figure that out for themselves. Well spoken. But as far as I'm concerned, the hobby's flagship has always had serious shortcomings that made me dissuade people from picking it as their first RPG, so nothing's really changed. As a flagship, D&D sucks big time - always has, always will. But the majority seems to think different *shrug* Whether playing classic D&D or 3e, good players give the DM the benefit of the doubt. They acknowledge that he's stepped up to do a tough job. They acknowledge that he's only human. They understand that this is hobby is nothing more than a playground game of make-believe in which the they--the players--have agreed to give the DM the authority to resolve conflicts. So--at a point--arguing with the DM breaks the fundamental contract of the game. Preaching to the choir. I've told people exactly that many times. DB -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 236] Author : Hugin Date : 06-20-07 12:34 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. You're a tough one to figure out, RobertFisher. I find myself whole-heartedly agreeing with one statement of yours and then completely confused with the next. But that's ok, it keeps things interesting. I'm just saying that I prefer to emphasize character skill & de-emphasize weapon choice. It's one of those areas in which I'm happy to have the link between the real & fantasy worlds be more tenuous. But 3e's combat rules don't make the game more "tactical". With a system as simple as classic D&D combat, the participant with the better knowledge of tactics has a better chance of "winning". With a system as complex as 3e combat, the participant with a better knowledge of the rules has the advantage over the participant with a better knowledge of tactics. In the first you have given a preference regarding how weapons should be represented in your games; I.E. real world weapon characteristics may not translate to the fantasy world . Nobody can refute this because it's your game, your preference, and I think nobody even has the right to say you are wrong. In the second part however, you say that only real world tactics should apply to a fantasy world. If this is the way you wish your game to be, then all is fine & dandy. But it sounds as though this is a broad statement. The only role of a rules system is to translate interactive concepts into a quantitative and usable mechanism. These may be comprehensively written out or completely made up on the fly by the DM, it makes no difference. Tactics are no different. If real world tactics are to work in a fantasy world, they need to be translated into 'the rules system', even it is only the DM saying "that gives you a +1 to hit" and doesn't offically exist in any written rules. Tactics are only effective if the participants have an understanding of how actions will effect the fantasy world mechanic. If they are tactical according to the RW, but this is not translated into the fantasy world mechanic, the tactic does not exist. Inversely, being tactical according to the fantasy world mechanics is being tactical only according to how that world operates. You said "With a system as simple as classic D&D combat, the participant with the better knowledge of tactics has a better chance of 'winning'", but this will only be true if the DM recognizes the tactical benefit and translates it into the system of how the fantasy world operates. With a more open combat system, it becomes more important that the player and DM have the same opinions on what is and what is not tactical. If a player comes at the side of the opponent in an attempt to flank him, and the DM says 'good tactics, this will help' but does not place it into the game world mechanics (such as +1 to hit) then the so-called tactic doesn't exist. The only reason it can be said that 3E lends itself more easily to tactical combat is because the rules help the DM and players have the same basis of what helps and what hinders in combat. So, as you say, "With a system as complex as 3e combat, the participant with a better knowledge of the rules has the advantage over the participant with a better knowledge of tactics", and this should be true in the sense that understanding the fantasy world mechanics is synonymous with understanding how that fantasy world operates. But that only makes for a better or worse system depending on your preferences. Sorry that got a bit long but I hope I got my point conveyed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 237] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-22-07 09:19 AM Thread Title : Re: 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues What I was trying to say is that 3e is as "tactical" in the tabletop wargaming sense of the word as it gets when it comes to RPGs. Of course I don't need many rules to apply tactics to a fight - but that wasn't my point anyway. My responses are not always directly aimed at a point that inspired them. And what exactly do you mean when you say "complete disconnect between attack roll & damage"? Whether I had a 5% or 95% chance to hit, when I do hit, my chances of inflicting minimum or maximum damage are the same. (3e changes the equation slighty, but criticals have their own problems.) Not that I have a huge problem with this. Just that most of the things that changed in 3e are things that I (at this point) no longer see as fixes, but as fixing things that weren't broken. Yet those things that look the closest to broken in the older editions were left untouched. I've found that most of those who get lost get lost in the plethora of optional, expanded and additional rules. These days, I tend to ignore the plethora of optional, expanded, & additional rules. (I did buy the 3.0e splat books, but they also became the first RPG products I ever sold.) Any issues I may have with 3e have to do with the core rules. If for no other reason that my knowledge of anything beyond that is limited. As far as conciseness is concerned, I don't know anyone who complained that the system wasn't easy to understand. An aside: While concision can improve understanding, it's often counter to it. In communication, redundancy is a feature. One thing I noticed in the mid-1990s was that there were people in my group that weren't having as much fun as the rest of the group because of the complexity of the games we were playing. Did they complain? No! Yet, it was happening nonetheless. When we played simpler games, their enjoyment increased much more than the rest of us missed the extra complexity. So, I decided to save the more complex games for the times when everyone in the group enjoyed the complexity. In practice, I enjoy playing with people who aren't into complexity enough that that seldom happens. For newbies? Easy to grasp, easy to apply, easy to extrapolate. Despite improvements I could make to it, I think the c. 1981 Basic Set passes on these points much better than the 3e PHB & DMG do. Indeed, as I've rediscovered it in the past few years, I've been surprised in how much better it is than I remembered. (But people keep telling me that's just nostalgia.) I'd even hazard that the 2e PHB succeeds at this more than 3e. (As much as I may love 1e... Even as much as my dislikes about 2e stem from ways it differs from 1e... I think it certainly fails in these areas.) Personally, I think there was a point at which I started deciding that rules didn't make sense without enough trying to figure out why the designers & testers thought they made sense. Even then, though, I don't think it was too hard to apply & even extrapolate for earlier editions. I just thought they were "bad" rules, which led to me abandoning (A)D&D as "obsolete". (c. 1990) It took me many years to learn to look at the game with the kind of attitude I had when I first discovered it. (It helped a lot when I discovered "weirdos" who still played those "obsolete" games & had to try to figure out why. (^_^)) Which enabled me to find a whole new appreciation for it. Neither have I. But people need to get started. I can't imagine anyone successfully starting with 3e. Even when I was a 3e advocate, I knew I didn't want to give it to my nephew--who lives too far away for me to mentor--as an introduction to the hobby. With mentors any game can be a good newbie game. & I have seen 3e fail even in that context. A narrower appeal? I'm not sure if I understand you here. 3e appeals to a smaller number of gamers than earlier editions. e.g. Even if someone's favorite game is going to end up being the World of Darkness stuff, they could find enough appeal in classic D&D to get them started. Then they would look around at different systems & discover that the White Wolf stuff appealed to them more. With 3e, that gamer may be turned off enough that they never get to the point of looking for other systems they may like better. I'm not saying that that is fact or that there can't be counterexamples. I'm just saying that my experience makes me believe that that's the big picture. 3e does not appeal to as wide a range of gamers. What you mourn is the logical consequence of highlighting the wargamey combat in order to sell more miniatures. Oh, sure, that's part of it. Although I don't think the effort to emphasize miniatures in order to sell miniatures is that big a factor. The 3.0e designers created the combat system long before Wizards got serious about trying to make a cash cow out of miniatures. Rather, they just implemented what they liked & what the customers they talked to seemed to like. Another aside: I tend to chaff a bit at the "wargame" moniker being applied to 3e combat since most wargames I've played have had simpler & more abstract rules than 3e combat. (^_^) But I know what you mean, & I don't have a better suggestion. But I think my preference for classic D&D goes farther than that. But newbies are better served by a good rules-coverage of most situations. Maybe it would be worth going through some examples. Throw things at me that you thing a good set of rules for a newbie should cover, & I'll tell you how well or how poorly classic D&D addresses them. Maybe it should be a new thread--Classic D&D v. 3e or somesuch--since I can't really play the 2e advocate very well. Although, the "good for newbies" angle is--in the end--a side issue for me. The thing that really matters in these discussions is what's best for me & my group. D&D could and should do a better job at explaining that, as they grow in experience, GMs don't have to feel they need to apply all rules as they are written. Then again, if D&D did that, WotC would sell less splatbooks, so... ;) I don't know that that's true. The splatbooks would still have value. But, on the other hand, I think betting your profitability on RPG products is crazy. Even as much as they try to milk D&D, Wizards isn't that foolish. They have other products that are their cash cows. They'd still be doing fine if they stopped producing D&D supplements. Well spoken. But as far as I'm concerned, the hobby's flagship has always had serious shortcomings that made me dissuade people from picking it as their first RPG, so nothing's really changed. As a flagship, D&D sucks big time - always has, always will. But the majority seems to think different *shrug* Well, I slightly disagree. I think D&D was once a better introduction to the hobby than it is now. Not perfect, but better. Secondly, I'm not convinced the majority disagrees. How many people haven't joined the hobby because Wizards has been doing a poor job of attracting them? How many apostate gamers came back only to assume that 3e is the state of the hobby &--if so--they don't want to be a part of it again? How many people play D&D3e in spite of what it is--simply because they see it as "good enough" or have compromised for other reasons? How many people love 3e but agree that it isn't the best flagship for the hobby or that it (& Wizards' attempts at "entry level" versions) isn't good for newbies? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 238] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-22-07 10:06 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I find myself whole-heartedly agreeing with one statement of yours and then completely confused with the next. But that's ok, it keeps things interesting. Yep! (^_^) Plus, I have a habit of playing the devil's advocate to try to drive discussion. (Though I don't think I've done that in this thread yet.) In the second part however, you say that only real world tactics should apply to a fantasy world. Hmm. I'm not sure that that is an accurate description of my position. I definately use tactics with spells & magic items. On the other hand, I suppose it is true in that I think tactical principles are universal. (Or at least universal enough to cover most RPGs--which all at some level are trying to simulate something with some similarities to the real world.) & one could say that applying tactics to spells & magic items is really not that different than applying tactics to artillery & other bits of technology. These may be comprehensively written out or completely made up on the fly by the DM, it makes no difference. Note: When comparing classic D&D & 3e combat systems, I am usually not considering DM rulings as a part of the comparison. I do prefer to run classic D&D combat in a more freeform way than the book sets out, but when comparing these areas, I try to stick to the RAW. Tactics are no different. If real world tactics are to work in a fantasy world, they need to be translated into 'the rules system', even it is only the DM saying "that gives you a +1 to hit" and doesn't offically exist in any written rules. The support for tactics is, IMHO, typically more indirect. If you look for the book to hand you tactical options, it doesn't do that. You have to look at the rules & then understand how to apply tactics within that framework. Just as playing chess in much, much more than understanding how each piece moves & captures. Thankfully, applying tactics to D&D has always been much easier than applying them to chess. If a player comes at the side of the opponent in an attempt to flank him, and the DM says 'good tactics, this will help' but does not place it into the game world mechanics (such as +1 to hit) then the so-called tactic doesn't exist. Flanking is an effective tactic without a +1 to hit. Flanking is an effective tactic in classic D&D as written. You've made it more difficult--if not impossible--for your foe to maneuver. You've made it a 2-vs-1 fight in your favor & made it likely that any other allies can now join in to tilt the odds even farther in your favor. You've made it more difficult--if not impossible--for your foe to attack your MU ally or to interfere with another mismatch that favors your allies over his. There isn't a "if you flank an opponent you will get these benefits" rule. Yet the rules mean that this is an effective tactic in the proper situation. There's nothing hidden or dependent upon DM fiat here. It's all right there in the open. Let me say it this way: The classic D&D combat system is trivial to master. Therefore, (effectively) all participants have mastered it & the application of tactics becomes more important than mastery of the rules. Because there is not a significant difference in mastery of the rules between participants. Mastery of the 3e combat rules, however, is non-trivial. There are going to be people in my group who never master them. (Not necessarily because they can't, but because they don't want to.) So, they either get regularly trounced by the people who have mastered the rules or have to depend on people who've mastered the rules to help them to a significant degree. Both options are less fun than everyone at the table having a very good understanding of the rules. The only reason it can be said that 3E lends itself more easily to tactical combat is because the rules help the DM and players have the same basis of what helps and what hinders in combat. I'm talking about playing by the book in both systems. 3e makes tactical play more difficult because it obscures to a greater extent what the best option in any given situation is. 3e makes tactical play more difficulty because it introduces a bunch of "subtactical" concerns (that--IMHO--are usually left below the level of abstraction) that distract the player from tactical concerns. Let me carry this a bit further. If there is a continuum of... The outcome depends primarily on numbers on the character sheet (i.e. character skill) The outcome depends primarily on player decisions The outcome depends primarily on the player knowing the rules better than others I'm aiming for the middle. Not that I'm on a holy crusade to stamp out anything that even hints of being closer to the ends. Just that that is generally what I'm aiming for. & in specific cases I may actually aim at another point on the continuum for some reason. So, abusing the Diplomacy skill in the ways some groups seem to falls too close to the top side of the continuum. & a combat system like 3e, Gurps advanced combat (in 3/e, I don't know 4/e that well yet), or even TFT, falls too close to the bottom side. The preference for class-based damage thing... Well, this plays into it, but I think it is at once more complex & more trivial an issue than the combat rules complexity issue. (The more trivial an issue is, the more likely I am to choose an option that may be further from my principles.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 239] Author : Hugin Date : 06-22-07 04:16 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Yep! (^_^) Plus, I have a habit of playing the devil's advocate to try to drive discussion. (Though I don't think I've done that in this thread yet.) That's alright, have a tendency to do the same thing. And just in case it doesn't come across the way I want it to, I'm not trying to argue points such as to say 'this is wrong' or 'this is right', just share viewpoints and discuss them. :) I definately use tactics with spells & magic items. ... & one could say that applying tactics to spells & magic items is really not that different than applying tactics to artillery & other bits of technology. Same here, and agreed. The support for tactics is, IMHO, typically more indirect. If you look for the book to hand you tactical options, it doesn't do that. You have to look at the rules & then understand how to apply tactics within that framework. I know what you mean, but I look at it this way: the rules system explains how things in the fantasy world interact with each other. Therefore, in order to understand how to affect something, you need to understand the language (i.e. rules) that the fantasy world speaks. As you have said: Just as playing chess is much, much more than understanding how each piece moves & captures. is true, but you can't form a strategy (the 'much, much more' part) without tactical maneuvers (the 'understanding of how each piece moves & captures' part. The tactical part is only possible because the rules of interactions are understood. Flanking is an effective tactic without a +1 to hit. Flanking is an effective tactic in classic D&D as written. Alright, lets look at this in the light of how the interactions of the fantasy world are spoken; i.e. through the system of rules. (And I'm not saying that it isn't true). You've made it more difficult--if not impossible--for your foe to maneuver. How?, because a rule of interactions must say that one creature cannot maneuver through the space that another creature occupies. However, he could move around the attacker if nothing else blocks his movement. You've made it a 2-vs-1 fight in your favor & made it likely that any other allies can now join in to tilt the odds even farther in your favor. I was only thinking of a 1-on-1 fight, but that's fine (I was using flank as 'I come at him from the side'). Now, why is this in your favour? It is because a 2-vs-1 fight is no advantage unless the system allows each ally their own attack roll and the opponent is not allowed an attack against each foe against him. You've made it more difficult--if not impossible--for your foe to attack your MU ally or to interfere with another mismatch that favors your allies over his. What makes it more difficult or impossible? The system of rules of interactions. This is an example where 3E's Attacks of Opportunity describes this interaction beyond the basic 'physically blocking direct movement'. There isn't a "if you flank an opponent you will get these benefits" rule. Yet the rules mean that this is an effective tactic in the proper situation. There's nothing hidden or dependent upon DM fiat here. It's all right there in the open. Exactly. You must understand that the opponent cannot move through the area you occupy as is stated in the rules system. "But I just want to slip by him"; this interaction must be translated somehow. It may be the 'AoA' rule in 3E, or some kind of 'rush by him rule' reducing AC, something the DM calls on the fly, or even 'no'. Either way, it must be translated and understood by the participant, even if it is a 'no'. Let me say it this way: The classic D&D combat system is trivial to master. Therefore, (effectively) all participants have mastered it & the application of tactics becomes more important than mastery of the rules. Because there is not a significant difference in mastery of the rules between participants. Using the foundation of 'the rules translate interactions', every action must be translated into the system. As you say, with classic D&D the rules where few and simple, and thus the interactions must be the same; few and simple. Even movement must be represented in the system. If the system only had movement rules and simple attack/defend rules, tactics would be limited to what could be done using those movement and combat rules since these are the only interactions represented. Having 12 fighters surround a single opponent 'tactfully' can only be done insofar as it is described by the system. Mastery of the 3e combat rules, however, is non-trivial. There are going to be people in my group who never master them. (Not necessarily because they can't, but because they don't want to.) Absolutely true. So, they either get regularly trounced by the people who have mastered the rules or have to depend on people who've mastered the rules to help them to a significant degree. Both options are less fun than everyone at the table having a very good understanding of the rules. This is more of a group dynamics issue (see 'rules of real world interactions' ;) ). A rules system such as 3rd edition contains a fairly high degree of interaction concepts. This can be a bad thing if not to your taste. The good news is that it isn't necessary to utilize them all. [I've been so busy at work it took me all day just to get this far! :eek: Point so far: tactics are limited to interactions which must be translated in some manner by system mechanics.] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 240] Author : Dexter_Blacktyde Date : 06-24-07 01:35 PM Thread Title : Re: 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues My responses are not always directly aimed at a point that inspired them. Well, in this case it was a direct response, so I tried to elaborate. Whether I had a 5% or 95% chance to hit, when I do hit, my chances of inflicting minimum or maximum damage are the same. (3e changes the equation slighty, but criticals have their own problems.) Ah, I see. I'd say this is because of the abstract boardgame approach. I think a more realistic and detailed way to deal with attacks and the resulting damage probably wouldn't work too well with the rest of the combat mechanics, but of course that's just me. Despite improvements I could make to it, I think the c. 1981 Basic Set passes on these points much better than the 3e PHB & DMG do. Indeed, as I've rediscovered it in the past few years, I've been surprised in how much better it is than I remembered. (But people keep telling me that's just nostalgia.) Maybe it's a little unfair to point to the usual suspect, but I can't resist: If I had a cent for every single time someone asked someone else to explain THAC0 to them, I'd be a rich man ;) Of course this is the most popular example, but it's so popular because so many people didn't get it. I can't imagine anyone successfully starting with 3e. Even when I was a 3e advocate, I knew I didn't want to give it to my nephew--who lives too far away for me to mentor--as an introduction to the hobby. Now you're mixing up arguments. As I said before, I wouldn't recommend D&D – regardless of its incarnation – to anyone who wants to get into RPGs; but in the part you quoted I've been talking about rules as a starting point for getting a feel how to "wing it". These two have nothing to do with each other. 3e appeals to a smaller number of gamers than earlier editions. (...)3e does not appeal to as wide a range of gamers. My experience is the exact opposite, as long as we're talking about rules. When it gets to setting-specific fluff, WotC's version of D&D pretty much sucks, I give you that. Oh, sure, that's part of it. Although I don't think the effort to emphasize miniatures in order to sell miniatures is that big a factor. The 3.0e designers created the combat system long before Wizards got serious about trying to make a cash cow out of miniatures. What I heard – and yes, I'm aware this is nothing more than hearsay, but to me it makes sense – is that the idea to combine D&D with MtG-like randomized minis has been around from the start. But in order to implement it, they had to see first if their reinvention of D&D would prove successful before investing in something no one's ever tried before. When they saw 3e's success, the wargamey rules were already implemented, and they only needed to produce the minis. Another aside: I tend to chaff a bit at the "wargame" moniker being applied to 3e combat since most wargames I've played have had simpler & more abstract rules than 3e combat. (^_^) But I know what you mean, & I don't have a better suggestion. I'm sure there are easier wargames. But when I compare D&D and Warhammer, I don't see Warhammer being considerably easier. (Besides, D&D expects players to play their "army" in form of a character who starts out simple and slowly gets more complex – which would excuse a little more complexity where the rules are concerned. Moreover, some classes / class combinations are less complicated than others.) Maybe it would be worth going through some examples. Throw things at me that you thing a good set of rules for a newbie should cover, & I'll tell you how well or how poorly classic D&D addresses them. Maybe it should be a new thread--Classic D&D v. 3e or somesuch--since I can't really play the 2e advocate very well. Well, that would be too much work for something that boils down to a matter of taste, wouldn't it? As I said before, I don't like how D&D pretends to try to ease the GM's workload by spelling out everything for him and giving him a rule for everything instead of giving him good parameters in which he can make rules of his own work – so I wouldn't be a good 3e advocate in this regard. What I meant by "good rules-coverage" is that the rules work on an underlying principle that's easy to understand, and that they try to cover the most likely situations. So if a new GM isn't sure what he's supposed to do in any given situation and there's no example in the books, he has at least a rough idea of what he could do. Although, the "good for newbies" angle is--in the end--a side issue for me. The thing that really matters in these discussions is what's best for me & my group. I think that's counter-productive. If I took part in discussions on these boards from the perspective how my group handles this or that, I'd be better off not participating at all. D&D doesn't reflect my group or its style in the slightest, and our D&D differs tremendously from the next guy's D&D. I don't care if they fix this or that rule in 4e – only if I think the rule is generally crappy for everyone, not just for our style of gaming. That's why I often find myself defending things I personally hate – because I try to be objective, at least as far as I'm able to be. Otherwise we wouldn't even have this discussion. I don't know that that's true. The splatbooks would still have value. But, on the other hand, I think betting your profitability on RPG products is crazy. Even as much as they try to milk D&D, Wizards isn't that foolish. They have other products that are their cash cows. They'd still be doing fine if they stopped producing D&D supplements. What does this have to do with anything? WotC want to sell splatbooks. Since they publish mostly core stuff, their splatbooks tend to be mostly dealing with crunch. In order to have new crunch, you have to have new rules. Well, I slightly disagree. I think D&D was once a better introduction to the hobby than it is now. Not perfect, but better. At its core it's the same silly hackfest it's always been, and it gives a crap about good stories, characterization, immersion, a sense of wonder, about anything that cannot be expressed by rules, really, as OD&D. OD&D is excused because it was the first of its kind and just the evolution of wargames; but in this day and age I'm astounded that an RPG that has so very little to do with roleplaying is still considered the roleplaying game number one. Secondly, I'm not convinced the majority disagrees. How many people haven't joined the hobby because Wizards has been doing a poor job of attracting them? Billions – namely everyone who still isn't a roleplayer. I see what you mean, but come on, that's not an argument. How many apostate gamers came back only to assume that 3e is the state of the hobby &--if so--they don't want to be a part of it again? I'd agree, but only because D&D hasn't evolved by an inch where it really matters. It's still all about going into a dungeon, smacking some monsters around and grabbing their treasure – all with a superficial backstory many B movies of the eighties would be ashamed of. That has nothing to do with the actual ruleset. How many people play D&D3e in spite of what it is--simply because they see it as "good enough" or have compromised for other reasons? What's so fundamentally wrong with 3e from a rules-standpoint? I still don't get it. How many people love 3e but agree that it isn't the best flagship for the hobby or that it (& Wizards' attempts at "entry level" versions) isn't good for newbies? At least two, it seems ;) DB -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 241] Author : Varl Date : 06-24-07 02:32 PM Thread Title : Re: 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues Maybe it's a little unfair to point to the usual suspect, but I can't resist: If I had a cent for every single time someone asked someone else to explain THAC0 to them, I'd be a rich man ;) Of course this is the most popular example, but it's so popular because so many people didn't get it. Heh. I think this has so much more to do with society and education today than it does regarding the games we choose to play and the systems they use. What I heard – and yes, I'm aware this is nothing more than hearsay, but to me it makes sense – is that the idea to combine D&D with MtG-like randomized minis has been around from the start. But in order to implement it, they had to see first if their reinvention of D&D would prove successful before investing in something no one's ever tried before. When they saw 3e's success, the wargamey rules were already implemented, and they only needed to produce the minis. This is one of the few areas regarding WotC that I applaud. Not so much the wargaming aspect of the game, or the whole MtG-like tap/move/react/AoO/precision robotic feel to the use of miniatures, but the creation of miniatures themselves. The tactics/actions of miniature combat should be more visceral and unpredictable, instead of the "You can't do that! It says in the book that you have to take an AoO in that scenario!" Feh. Let him try it if he wants. If it works, and he avoids an AoO and saves the day, does it really matter, because I can guarantee everyone will have more fun than if some rules lawyer pores over his open book questioning the officialness of every move or action. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 242] Author : Dexter_Blacktyde Date : 06-24-07 02:42 PM Thread Title : Re: 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues This is one of the few areas regarding WotC that I applaud. Not so much the wargaming aspect of the game, or the whole MtG-like tap/move/react/AoO/precision robotic feel to the use of miniatures, but the creation of miniatures themselves. The tactics/actions of miniature combat should be more visceral and unpredictable, instead of the "You can't do that! It says in the book that you have to take an AoO in that scenario!" Feh. Let him try it if he wants. If it works, and he avoids an AoO and saves the day, does it really matter, because I can guarantee everyone will have more fun than if some rules lawyer pores over his open book questioning the officialness of every move or action. That depends on the group's preference, doesn't it? Some groups prefer a less rules-heavy, more flexible freeform approach, some get enjoyment out of playing within a rather strict ruleset and applying the rules to their advantage (just like in tabletop wargaming), some want a mixture, some like both and alternate between the two. So your guarantee might apply to your group, but hardly to all groups. DB -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 243] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 06-25-07 08:37 AM Thread Title : Re: 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues If I took part in discussions on these boards from the perspective how my group handles this or that, I'd be better off not participating at all. :confused: How other people's groups handle things is precisely why I come to any D&D discussion board. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 244] Author : Dexter_Blacktyde Date : 06-25-07 10:17 AM Thread Title : Re: 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues :confused: How other people's groups handle things is precisely why I come to any D&D discussion board. Please take the context into consideration. When we're talking about the "objective" usefulness of a rule, I can't very well complain that this or that rule sucks just because it doesn't reflect my group's gaming style - it isn't the rule's purpose to reflect my group's gaming style. DB -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 245] Author : Varl Date : 06-25-07 01:47 PM Thread Title : Re: 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues So your guarantee might apply to your group, but hardly to all groups. Fair enough! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 246] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-26-07 08:29 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. is true, but you can't form a strategy (the 'much, much more' part) without tactical maneuvers (the 'understanding of how each piece moves & captures' part. The tactical part is only possible because the rules of interactions are understood. But how the pieces move & capture is not tactics. You don't find tactics in the rules. Tactics is a layer above that. Strategy is yet a layer above tactics. Which is what bugs me when people call 3e "more tactical". The "more" tends to be less tactical. For lack of a better term, I tend to call them "subtactical" concerns. (& to an extent, I have to admit it's a terminology thing for me.) Yet, often the same people who applaud players having to know things that (IMHO) should be subsumed within character skill--things better left below the level of abstraction--also argue that skills like Diplomacy should be nearly all character skill & reject the idea that roleplaying should influence the outcome. Using the foundation of 'the rules translate interactions', every action must be translated into the system. As you say, with classic D&D the rules where few and simple, and thus the interactions must be the same; few and simple. Even movement must be represented in the system. Yes. I agree with your basic premise to an extent. I do think it is a fools errand to try to build rules that are 100% precise. People who do that for a living can't. Language tends to fail us at a certain point. Even mathematics has often discovered that axioms that seemed to serve for years had hidden assumptions that weren't codified. & this is just a game. So, I expect the rules are going to leave some assumptions unwritten. Though this should be stated explicitly. Also, the idea that few & simple rules only results in few & simple results is--in my experience--wrong. I find it a beautiful truth that complex tactics can be build on simple foundations. & I enjoy a game like 3e combat as much as anyone. I've found, however, that people I want to game with don't, & that I can actually have more fun when I'm forced to think at a more tactical than subtactical level, so it ends up being a win-win to play a game with a combat system more like classic D&D. If the system only had movement rules and simple attack/defend rules, tactics would be limited to what could be done using those movement and combat rules since these are the only interactions represented. Not only can complex tactics be applied to a simple combat system, but I think the classic D&D combat system--as simple as it is--covers a lot more than you think it does. For instance, it has zone-of-control rules. They are different than AoOs, but it still has rules that serve the same purpose. This can be a bad thing if not to your taste. The good news is that it isn't necessary to utilize them all. Sure. Any game can be twisted to the your will. But you want to start with a game that is closer to your will. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 247] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-26-07 09:50 AM Thread Title : Re: 2e vs. 3e - the epic battle continues Well, in this case it was a direct response, so I tried to elaborate. I didn't think I was getting your point & just used it as a springboard for my own rant, so it wasn't really meant to be a direct response. But I didn't make that clear. Ah, I see. I'd say this is because of the abstract boardgame approach. I think a more realistic and detailed way to deal with attacks and the resulting damage probably wouldn't work too well with the rest of the combat mechanics, but of course that's just me. You can eliminate this & stay abstract. In fact, eliminating it has the advantage of people not thinking the rules are more concrete than they really are. (The "armor making you harder to hit is stupid" fallacy.) But this is straying into a tangent I'm not interested in following. Maybe it's a little unfair to point to the usual suspect, but I can't resist: If I had a cent for every single time someone asked someone else to explain THAC0 to them, I'd be a rich man ;) Of course this is the most popular example, but it's so popular because so many people didn't get it. Sure. But classic D&D didn't explicitly include THAC0 until very, very late. (& even then, probably only because of AD&D2e.) I don't think it was ever even mentioned in any Basic Set. It may have appeared in a classic D&D module, but THAC0 was always presented as an alternative in classic D&D. It was never meant for anyone who didn't want it. (Too bad AD&D2e didn't either stick with the classic/1e practice here or make the leap to 3e-style.) Even I, who had always kept a lot of respect for my original Basic & Expert booklets, was surprised by how easy to understand & wide the classic D&D rules were when I decided to actually play them again. When I looked at it objectively--& it did take some effort to get past some of the prejudices grown from my former experiences with previous editions--I found it was much better than depicted in recollections--including my own. My experience is the exact opposite, as long as we're talking about rules. When it gets to setting-specific fluff, WotC's version of D&D pretty much sucks, I give you that. I can't really speak to the fluff. Even the D&D fluff that I've bought I don't tend to use. What I meant by "good rules-coverage" is that the rules work on an underlying principle that's easy to understand, and that they try to cover the most likely situations. So if a new GM isn't sure what he's supposed to do in any given situation and there's no example in the books, he has at least a rough idea of what he could do. Under this criterion, I think classic D&D failed in that it didn't explain its underlying principles well enough. I think 3e failed in obscuring its underlying principles with too many, too detailed examples. For me, 3e's is the bigger failing, because I tend to be big-picture rather than detail oriented. Maybe I simply can't be objective about this, but this line of thinking leads me towards neither being objectively better than the other. Billions – namely everyone who still isn't a roleplayer. I see what you mean, but come on, that's not an argument. Just to be clear, it wasn't meant as a argument. It was just a rhetorical question suggesting that the "majority" you spoke of may not be a majority at all. Since I'm not certain you do know what I mean: I was rhetorically asking how many people there are who would enjoy the hobby if they had a better introduction to it. (I reluctantly recognize that there are people who--for some reason--don't enjoy the hobby. I see no need to try to change the hobby to attract them.) I'd agree, but only because D&D hasn't evolved by an inch where it really matters. It's still all about going into a dungeon, smacking some monsters around and grabbing their treasure – all with a superficial backstory many B movies of the eighties would be ashamed of. That has nothing to do with the actual ruleset. I think the really interesting thing here is that, despite any flaws, roleplaying seemed to work its way into previous edition games so often. e.g. Nigh every story I've ever heard about B1 was more about stuff that went on in the keep rather than the stuff that happened in the caves. Yet, I've seen groups that were all about roleplaying turn into little more than a combat squad when playing 3e. Yeah, the system doesn't prevent roleplaying. I know plenty of people manage to roleplay with the system. But I do think it generally tends to make people think more about combat than even its predecessors. What's so fundamentally wrong with 3e from a rules-standpoint? I still don't get it. The question (for me) was whether 3e was objectively a better ruleset than classic D&D. I don't think it is. That does not necessarily mean that it is fundamentally flawed. Although, I think we agree on the one thing that I am most tempted to call a fundamental flaw: Trying to take the DM out of the equation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 248] Author : Hugin Date : 06-26-07 12:37 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. But how the pieces move & capture is not tactics. You don't find tactics in the rules. Tactics is a layer above that. Strategy is yet a layer above tactics. (& to an extent, I have to admit it's a terminology thing for me.) I see it may be just a case of using the term slightly differently. Here is what I'm using, "a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result." I agree 100% that the rules are not the tactics. However, in order to achieve your desired result, you need to understand how things can be affected. You can't plan something out if you don't know what your plan does. There were several aerial 'dog fight' programs on the History Channel last week and one of the themes that I noticed with the winners is that they often had, and applied, knowledge of the capabilities of their opponent's plane. Example: a tactic of the Japanese Zeros, when there was a US Wildcat on their tail, was to climb sharply. They knew the Wildcat could not go vertical for long before they would stall. The Zero could just flip down into a dive for an excellent kill opportunity. In the RW, they didn't need to acknowledge and calculate power-to-weight ratios and gravity equations for this to be reality; these already existed in the 'rules' of the universe and they formed a tactic based on that. The same goes for a game rules system; without the Wildcat's underpowered engine being represented in a system in some form, this tactic could not exist. Which is what bugs me when people call 3e "more tactical". The "more" tends to be less tactical. For lack of a better term, I tend to call them "subtactical" concerns. I'm not sure I'm following you here but I will say this: 3E has the potential to offer more tactical options only insofar as it provides more interactions to be represented in the system. Caveat: this is a generalization that depends on the DM and players. I do think it is a fools errand to try to build rules that are 100% precise. People who do that for a living can't. Language tends to fail us at a certain point. Even mathematics has often discovered that axioms that seemed to serve for years had hidden assumptions that weren't codified. & this is just a game. So, I expect the rules are going to leave some assumptions unwritten. Though this should be stated explicitly. Absolutely. D&D was never meant to be a simulation and shouldn't be played that way. A true simulation would have no need for a DM to adjudicate anything and, IMHO, that would take away a lot of fun. Also, the idea that few & simple rules only results in few & simple results is--in my experience--wrong. I find it a beautiful truth that complex tactics can be build on simple foundations. It was a statement of relativity. If you are able to build complex tactics on a simple foundation then your tactics can become even more rounded on a larger foundation. You can build upward on that foundation but not outward (I.E. you can't involve height advantage tactics if it isn't represented in the system in some fashion). However, the size of the foundation doesn't make for a better or worse game; that is reliant on taste. For instance, it has zone-of-control rules. They are different than AoOs, but it still has rules that serve the same purpose. This is something that I've actually forgotten about. Sure. Any game can be twisted to the your will. But you want to start with a game that is closer to your will. Very true. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 249] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-27-07 08:30 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. There were several aerial 'dog fight' programs on the History Channel last week and one of the themes that I noticed with the winners is that they often had, and applied, knowledge of the capabilities of their opponent's plane. Ah! Another excellent example of how you don't need complications in the combat rules themselves to have tactical options. (^_^) Knowing your opponent's strengths & weaknesses gives you tactical options. & in some cases, monsters also come with special rules, which expands what the rules can represent in a limited & controlled way. Though, there are a lot of weaknesses to be had & that can be exploited within the standard monster stats sans any special rules. Likewise, specific terrain allows lots of tactical options to be built on fairly minimal rules. I'm not sure I'm following you here but I will say this: 3E has the potential to offer more tactical options only insofar as it provides more interactions to be represented in the system. Caveat: this is a generalization that depends on the DM and players. Yeah. Maybe. Perhaps. Making my will save v. my quirk about terminology... The thing is that the majority of the people I've played 3e with don't take advantage of that. They don't want to. So, not only do we end up with too many situations in which a couple people at the table are having a grand time exploring the intricacies of the combat system whilst the rest of the group becomes bored & disconnected from the action; we also have a lot of stuff that isn't really making the game better for the group. I could house-rule things simpler, but it's easier to go with a simpler system. (Especially when there are a lot of other things I prefer about the simpler system.) Then, instead of most of the group's eyes glazing over when combat starts, every keeps contributing & involved in the action, the story, & the tactics. (& one of these days I will likely play a house-ruled-until-I-like-it version of 3e. Though it may be called "True20". (^_^)) Is it group dependent? Sure. If I ever had a group in which everyone enjoyed a detailed skirmish game as much as I do, I'd love it! Over a quarter-century of playing these games, though, I don't have a lot of faith that that will ever happen in practice. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 250] Author : Hugin Date : 06-27-07 12:30 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I don't understand what it is you are trying to point out here. You are saying there is no need for 'complications' in the combat rules to have tactical options, and I have already agreed with this, allowing that that are certain limitations to those tactics. You can have tactics within a basic combat system. I am not trying to suggest otherwise, but I will repeat myself for clarity, the tactics will be limited to the interactions that are represented in the system. Ah! Another excellent example of how you don't need complications in the combat rules themselves to have tactical options. (^_^) Knowing your opponent's strengths & weaknesses gives you tactical options. This is where you have missed a step; knowing is not enough. That knowledge must be applied. Applied to what? The situation; and the situation with all of its interactions is handled with the mechanics of a system ('system' here includes the DM's input such as during roleplaying or situational modifiers). In that example, the opponent's weakness was an underpowered engine. In a 'simplified' system this may not be accounted for and therefore the weakness would not exist in a tactical context. In this case, knowing the Wildcat had an underpowered engine would be useless. I'd be quite interested in how would you apply a tactic based on only the 'knowledge' of the Wildcat's underpowered engine? & in some cases, monsters also come with special rules, which expands what the rules can represent in a limited & controlled way. This is my point entirely! :) Unless represented within the system in some manner, nothing can affect something else or be affected. If movement is not represented, movement cannot affect or be affected. If health is not represented, health cannot affect or be affected. If a creature's strengths and weaknesses are not represented, a creature's strengths and weaknesses cannot affect or be affected. Though, there are a lot of weaknesses to be had & that can be exploited within the standard monster stats sans any special rules. Again, this is exactly what I'm saying. Since the creature's abilities have been represented in this fantasy world's system (in the form of ability scores), they can be used and applied. Example: classic D&D did not give monsters strength scores so a monster's strength had no bearing on anything. A foe would not have to consider this element in a tactical manner. However, their were a few exceptions where the monster is given a strength bonus to damage - now it can be factored in because in has been represented in the system. Likewise, specific terrain allows lots of tactical options to be built on fairly minimal rules. True, yet this changes nothing in regard to the fact that the more variables, the more possibilities. It is a mathematical truth. (But I don't say it's better because that falls into the arena of person taste). Regardless though, the tactical options are limited to what those minimal rules account for. They don't want to. So, not only do we end up with too many situations in which a couple people at the table are having a grand time exploring the intricacies of the combat system whilst the rest of the group becomes bored & disconnected from the action; we also have a lot of stuff that isn't really making the game better for the group. I don't think this is a result of the system so much as it is the result of preference. You are either interested in tactical combat or you aren't. My group just says what they wish to do and then we apply whichever mechanic best represents that action. If you reverse the situation you describe, those that enjoy the intricacies of combat may have a diminished experience in this respect, but this once again all falls in the realm of preference. Then, instead of most of the group's eyes glazing over when combat starts, every keeps contributing & involved in the action, the story, & the tactics. I generally see what it is you're saying but this one I fail to see eye-to-eye on. If someone is interested in tactics they will be interested in tactics regardless of system (more or less). Tactics is merely applying the knowledge of 'cause and effect' and therefore tactics are reliant on a system to reflect that cause and effect. (& one of these days I will likely play a house-ruled-until-I-like-it version of 3e. Though it may be called "True20". (^_^)) I believe this 'house-ruled-until-I-like-it' is the greatest of universal D&D truths! ;) I did it with classic and I've done it with 3E. When I played classic D&D, anything was possible. I just had to say 'this is how/why' (i.e. translated it into terms the system could handle) even though it might be arbitrary and a player may give his case as to why it might be a bit different. Now I play (my version) of 3.5 D&D and anything is possible. I just say 'this is how/why' and sometimes the mechanic is already in place. The one technical advantage is that the foundation of the d20 system is actually basic and consistant. The so-called 'complicated' aspect is merely all the applicable extentions of that foundation. The rules stay the same, but are applied to different situations. This does not negate the possiblility of a player offering their own case though. That is all IMHO, of course, but I believe there to be some truth in there. Summary: Tactics can only exist to the extent that the cause and effect interaction is reflected within a system. I know you say the tactics can get complex within a simple system, but I think maybe we have a different idea of complex. Could you give an example? Although it seems I'm a 3E advocate, it doesn't mean I'm anti-previous editions. I love classic D&D. As a matter of fact, the changes I made to 3E were to give it a classic feel. However, I found it easier to transition from classic to 3E than to AD&D. This is a personal opinion, naturally, but I believe it was because classic and 3E both had relatively basic foundations from which to build (3E obviously expanding much, much more). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 251] Author : C.R.A.F.T. Date : 06-27-07 07:35 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. 3.5 was dumbed down to attract younger players! I learned to game in the last days of 1st edition, but learned to role-play with AD&D and it will always be my favorite. I think another reason for the change was to generate revenue by making everyone buy new books again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 252] Author : Extempus Date : 06-27-07 11:25 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. 3.5 was dumbed down to attract younger players! I think another reason for the change was to generate revenue by making everyone buy new books again. Quite right... I see no other real reason for anything past 1e to exist, except to separate players from their hard-earned $$$... and I agree that 3.5e was dumbed down. For instance, we had "infravision," but now it's called more generically "darkvision," and instead of penalties or modifiers being "cumulative," they "stack"... it might be more complex mechanically, but the simplified terminology appears to have been written with 10 year olds in mind... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 253] Author : Sylban_Quin Date : 06-28-07 01:24 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. What is so hard about THAC0? Warriors add one point for every level, Rogues one point every two levels, Mages one point every three levels, and Priests two points every 3 levels. This looks very similar to 3Es 'Base Attack Bonus', doesn't it? Okay, I know that 'To Hit Armor Class Zero(0) starts at 20 and counts down, not up. THAC0 lowers the effectiveness of an opponent's armor against a character. It just does some of the math for you. A 5th level fighter in 3E with +5 Base Attack Bonus rolls a 15 and hits AC 20 (enough to hit [base 10] full-plate [+8 AC] and shield [+2 AC]). Base Attack Modifier + Die roll = Armor class hit. A 5th level fighter in 2nd Ed has a THAC0 of 15, and his roll of 15 hits AC 0 (enough to hit [base 10] full-plate [9 better than base] and shield [1 better than base]). THAC0 - Die roll = Armor class hit. Is adding easier than subtracting? No, not really. But that's just a matter of preference, as stated above. Did 3E 'fix' something 'broken' in losing THAC0? Yes, AC going backwards seems a little awkward, but that's a matter of taste. Which is better, full-plate or studded-leather? Would you refer to the best as 'Number One'? Or would the worst be considered #1? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 254] Author : havard Date : 06-28-07 06:30 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. 3.5 was dumbed down to attract younger players! I think another reason for the change was to generate revenue by making everyone buy new books again. I dont think anyone would dispute that WotC had economic motivations for launching 3e. That's why it's called the gaming industry. Attracting a bigger market is part of that. I dont agree that it can be called dumbed down though. What I would say is that it is extremely well written. Written by some of the best game designers that were available at the time. For instance, we had "infravision," but now it's called more generically "darkvision," and instead of penalties or modifiers being "cumulative," they "stack"... it might be more complex mechanically, but the simplified terminology appears to have been written with 10 year olds in mind... Stacking is fairly (IMO unneccesarily) complicated in 3e. So it would make sense to use a simpler terminology to make the process easier to understand. Darkvision OTOH is different from infravision. The countless discussions about infravision and ultravision in Dragon magazine and elsewhere is probably why they decided to change it. What is so hard about THAC0? Warriors add one point for every level, Rogues one point every two levels, Mages one point every three levels, and Priests two points every 3 levels. This looks very similar to 3Es 'Base Attack Bonus', doesn't it? Okay, I know that 'To Hit Armor Class Zero(0) starts at 20 and counts down, not up. THAC0 lowers the effectiveness of an opponent's armor against a character. It just does some of the math for you. A 5th level fighter in 3E with +5 Base Attack Bonus rolls a 15 and hits AC 20 (enough to hit [base 10] full-plate [+8 AC] and shield [+2 AC]). Base Attack Modifier + Die roll = Armor class hit. A 5th level fighter in 2nd Ed has a THAC0 of 15, and his roll of 15 hits AC 0 (enough to hit [base 10] full-plate [9 better than base] and shield [1 better than base]). THAC0 - Die roll = Armor class hit. Is adding easier than subtracting? No, not really. But that's just a matter of preference, as stated above. Did 3E 'fix' something 'broken' in losing THAC0? Yes, AC going backwards seems a little awkward, but that's a matter of taste. Which is better, full-plate or studded-leather? Would you refer to the best as 'Number One'? Or would the worst be considered #1? I agree, THAC0 isn't that hard to grasp. However, addition is a little quicker than subtraction. You admit that the revised mechanic does some of the math for you. And making combat as quick as possible is a good idea IMO. Ofcourse for those of us who are used to THAC0 it doesn't matter, but for the Next Generation it does. The biggest advantage of the D20 mechanic IMO isn't that they got rid of THAC0, but that they were able to use the same mechanic not only for attack rolls, but also for Saving Throws and Skills. I once toyed with the idea of using the THAC0 system for skills/NWPs in AD&D for similar reasons. IMO the different editions of (A)D&D each have their own merits. They are suited for people with different tastes and some of us can appreciate more than one edition. My two favorite editions are 3E and Classic D&D. I have never played AD&D1e, but I played 2e for about two decades. Someone who truly loves an edition will probably always dislike the new one. This was certainly true about 1e-ers when 2e came. It will probably also be true about 3e'ers when the fourth edition gets published. Personally I am very happy that we have all the OOP material available for sale as pdfs and ebay to track down hard copies. This was trickier when I was looking for OOP material in the 80s and 90s. :) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 255] Author : Hugin Date : 06-28-07 10:36 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. 3.5 was dumbed down to attract younger players! That seems to be the exact opposite argument I get from other people; i.e. that it appears overly complicated. This is a personal perspective issue to some degree. I learned to game in the last days of 1st edition, but learned to role-play with AD&D and it will always be my favorite. I find this interesting. Do you recall what it was exactly that taught you how to roleplay? It made me try to remember how I learned and I'm really not sure. Maybe it was a case of collecting many small tid-bits of info and ideas from many sources that showed me how. I think practice and experience would probably be big contributers as well. I think another reason for the change was to generate revenue by making everyone buy new books again. Sarcasm? Of course that was part of it. I do think though, that WotC wanted to have a D&D image/brand that was their's and not TSR's, so marketing was likely a factor too. D&D has been a business ever since the first books were sold for money. This happens in every other sector so why not the gaming industry? This isn't a not-for-profit charity. Do you work for free? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 256] Author : Wiseblood Date : 06-29-07 11:48 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I grew up on 1e and 2e those were the days.:D Things are far more complicated in 3.xe than they were back then. Back then your typical list of modifiers was very short now it's included as a glossary. Combat rules were shorter with one notable exception Initiative. If you'll notice 3e has very few initiative modifiers making for faster calculations. AC and attack bonus pile on the modifiers and people are looking for more. The 3.X system was streamlined in some ways. It now tries to simplify things by using a standard. IE conditions and such like sickened. If you know what sickened means good for you. But if you have the monster manual and are reading about X monster. It has a special attack that sickens you and you don't have Sinckened catalogued in your memory verbatim, you have to look it up in what equates to a table. In 2e, while not being internally consistent within the system, this special attack and it's effect would be stated within the monster's own description. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 257] Author : tankschmidt Date : 06-29-07 12:37 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Combat rules were shorter with one notable exception Initiative. Heck, we just rolled a d10 for group initiative and called it a day. You can't do something like that in 3.x without a dozen unforeseen consequences. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 258] Author : Wiseblood Date : 06-29-07 01:58 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Heck, we just rolled a d10 for group initiative and called it a day. You can't do something like that in 3.x without a dozen unforeseen consequences. So did we. Wat I was referring to was the fact that there were like 4 or more pages in the 2e PHB devoted to initiative. Excluding that combat rules took less time to understand and less space. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 259] Author : protonik Date : 06-30-07 04:11 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. 3.5 was dumbed down to attract younger players! I learned to game in the last days of 1st edition, but learned to role-play with AD&D and it will always be my favorite. I think another reason for the change was to generate revenue by making everyone buy new books again. OH NO, a business trying to MAKE MONEY!!! Whatever will we do in this pseudo capitalist market! Of course it was done for money and to get people to buy new books, that is the whole point. You have to keep renewing your product in a market like RPGs otherwise your company goes down the toilet. What better way to get people to buy new books than to make rule changes and TRY (I didn't say succeed, though I am 3e fan) to improve the gameplay experience through those rules rather than reprint books over and over again but with different artwork. RPG companies are hurt more by the law of diminishing returns than regular book dealers because to have a successful long term RPG you have to continuously put out new product on a regular basis. Unlike novels though you can't let your core book go out of print and then reissue it four or five years later. You have to keep it in print but eventually your get to a point where a reprint is no longer profitable and in fact can be a loss. Best option at that point is to release new core books with new options for play, new artwork etc. Don't bag on WOTC for wanting to make money and seperate gamers from their dollars, thats the whole point of the market, selling books. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 260] Author : protonik Date : 06-30-07 04:16 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I have never played AD&D1e, but I played 2e for about two decades. So you are still playing 2e then? 1989-2007 is less than 2 decades... :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 261] Author : Werral Date : 06-30-07 06:52 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. For me the best thing about the AD&D days was the fact that players generally played a wider variety of games. Now most players just play D20 games. Playing AD&D, Warhammer, Pendragon, Ars Magica, GURPS, MERP, Chivalry and Sorcery meant that you thought a little more "outside the box" I'm no real fan of battle grids or "builds" when I see an "archer build" I feel like slapping the little bugger with a vampiric half-fiend advanced tarrasque. But people did that in AD&D or in any system - I remember the -10AC Paladin with the sword +5 Holy Avenger who was basically invincible and that was basically a "holy-warrior build" Regardless of rules system I prefer characters and story to "builds" anyday. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 262] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 06-30-07 07:25 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. 3.5 was dumbed down to attract younger players! I learned to game in the last days of 1st edition, but learned to role-play with AD&D and it will always be my favorite. I think another reason for the change was to generate revenue by making everyone buy new books again. The EXACT same thing was said about 2nd edition. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 263] Author : Hugin Date : 06-30-07 07:30 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I'm no real fan of battle grids or "builds" when I see an "archer build" I feel like slapping the little bugger with a vampiric half-fiend advanced tarrasque. But people did that in AD&D or in any system - I remember the -10AC Paladin with the sword +5 Holy Avenger who was basically invincible and that was basically a "holy-warrior build" Regardless of rules system I prefer characters and story to "builds" anyday. Took the words right out of my mouth. I've really grown to dislike the the term 'build' and its whole ideology. Thankfully it doesn't exist in my group. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 264] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-03-07 09:39 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I don't understand what it is you are trying to point out here. You are saying there is no need for 'complications' in the combat rules to have tactical options, and I have already agreed with this, allowing that that are certain limitations to those tactics. & I have agreed with you. No need to repeat yourself. I'm not really trying to make a point. Just discussing. If you reverse the situation you describe, those that enjoy the intricacies of combat may have a diminished experience in this respect, but this once again all falls in the realm of preference. My point is (OK, maybe I do have a point ^_^) is that my experience shows that a simpler combat system: Provides enough richness to satisfy nigh everyone Makes the game more enjoyable for those people at the table who don't enjoy a complex system Makes the game more enjoyable for everyone because everyone at the table is engaged more i.e. The benefits of the simpler system outweigh the benefits of the more complex system. YMMV, of course. Summary: Tactics can only exist to the extent that the cause and effect interaction is reflected within a system. I know you say the tactics can get complex within a simple system, but I think maybe we have a different idea of complex. Probably "rich" would be a better word that "complex". Years of experience playing all kinds of games has taught be that, as the complexity of the rules increases, the increase in richness of the experience doesn't not keep pace. Another point I have been trying to make is that I have found that the classic D&D combat system is better than I remembered. (Plus, I've probably put a lot more effort into understanding it on its own terms than I did when I was a kid, which likely helps as well.) That seems to be the exact opposite argument I get from other people; i.e. that it appears overly complicated. The key word there is probably "seem". When I look at 3e, I see both simplifications & complications compared to prior editions. (Heck, & right there we run into the problem that I'm not comparing against a single entity. But I'll pretend to ignore that for the moment.) Some of the complications I see as needless, but I also see some of the simplifications as needless too. So, it doesn't surprise me that 3e can be critized for both needless complications & needless simplifications. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 265] Author : shadzar Date : 07-05-07 02:32 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. AD&D 2 is still alive and kicking for many of us. just got to find the old fogeys that want to play it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 266] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 07-05-07 04:29 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Great quote Shadzar. And I am one of the old fogeys (Gaming Geezers ?), but, my 16 year old daughter loves 2nd Ed., thinks 3rd is silly and loves to play. Maybe there is actually a new generation of 2nd Ed. AD&D folks coming...isn't that a thought!:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 267] Author : ZaratheMad Date : 07-05-07 04:38 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Shamless plgueI've got whats most likly to be a 2ed game I looking for paleyrs : thats still up in gmaers wanted session- for anyone whos looking. it says I might do a hybread- but i dont think I will. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 268] Author : Ezell Pike Date : 07-05-07 12:33 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Nothing, it's still here. It's a great game but Arms Races like those found in 3.X and MMORPG's make more money.:weep: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 269] Author : shadzar Date : 07-05-07 03:26 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Great quote Shadzar. And I am one of the old fogeys (Gaming Geezers ?), but, my 16 year old daughter loves 2nd Ed., thinks 3rd is silly and loves to play. Maybe there is actually a new generation of 2nd Ed. AD&D folks coming...isn't that a thought!:rimshot: yay for your daughter! new 2nd players are great to hear about of all ages. if she could only get her friends into AD&D, and they get their ffriends and so on, we could probably extend 2nd back across the country. give 3.x editions a run for its money! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 270] Author : Sylban_Quin Date : 07-06-07 04:11 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. My oldest daughter 'borrowed' one of my copies of the PHB, and later the DMG, and took them with her to middle school, and started gaming with her friends. I couldn't be mad at her, even though she borrowed without asking- they loved it! Christmas came, and a couple of them asked for D&D books. To their dismay, all they got were 3.5 stuff, which they tried and decided they didn't like. Said it was 'too complicated'. Not a sad ending though, because one of them was able to sell his stuff to Half-Price Books and get a near-mint copy of the 2nd Ed PHB (it still creaks when you open it) and a couple of other 'old school' stuff. They played right up until the last day of school, and hope to pick it up again in the fall. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 271] Author : shadzar Date : 07-06-07 07:38 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. have them try ebay for 2nd edition books. it is cluttered with them and i cant find enough time or money to bid on them all myself. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 272] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 07-06-07 11:14 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Great story, Sylban. I'm trying to get the $ together to open up a hobby/gaming store here locally and one of the things I intend to do is buy up 2nd Ed. books as I can for resale in the store for just such situations. And, if WotC hasn't noticed the petition to reprint 2nd Ed books on another thread...heads up!:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 273] Author : not Yoda Date : 07-06-07 12:08 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I asked a friend of mine what he liked about 3.x. He liked a lot of things that I didn't feel were improvements but he did mention one thing that made me think. (please excuse me for leaving out the things I didn't feel were improvements, this is my post after all) He mentioned multiclassing. In 3.x it's easier and not as rigidly structured. I have to agree with that. (IMHO multiclassing in 3.x still leaves a lot to be desired) Freedom to plot and change ones course over a career is a strong lure to play 3.x. Now for the rest of my opinion FWIW. Skills are nice. Opposed rolls are ok. (by ok I mean I could take them or leave them) Combat is a chore. Initiative is one thing I like in 3.x. The laundry list of modifiers for just about every thing you do sucks. Since you have to keep track of sources, things don't stack means far more math than in previous editions. Player skill has a very large role in 3.x decision making during a game is now an excercise in tactical simulation not roleplaying. You need to pick the right feats, skills, spells and so on. With fewer modifiers coming into play in 2e actual class abilities and level made the difference. I also feel that the dynamics of the game changed so much that HP have also changed meaning. Now they are more like vitality or health, in the past they were an abstraction of combat ability now doing hp damage is no longer descriptive enough for players. Now they need to do constitution damage with a feat, spell, manuver or whatnot. HP's have become a super bloated novelty which has caused the fighter to supposedly suck. Heck just look at the MM 2e or 1e great wyrm red dragons had few HP compared to their 3.e counterparts which are at around 700 or so. Iterative attacks add to the clutter. Not to metion nerfing classes that performed fine in earlier editions. I guess my point is that after playing 3.x for about 6 years I've grown tired of it's constant addition of rules and senseless need for "simulation" which just stimulates it's greed for new rules. Sorry for the rant.:embarrass 1e and 2e IMHO are fun. I can see players excited about 4e thinking it will be simple and fun. This makes me sad because 2e already delivers. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 274] Author : Ezram Date : 07-06-07 04:56 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. It is said that what is called the Spirit of an Age is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. In the same way, a single year does not have just spring or summer. A single day, too, is the same. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 275] Author : Wiseblood Date : 07-06-07 05:20 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. It is said that what is called the Spirit of an Age is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. In the same way, a single year does not have just spring or summer. A single day, too, is the same. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. I must disagree. One can return to the spirit of an age, though society might think him mad.:looloo: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 276] Author : shadzar Date : 07-06-07 05:38 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I must disagree. One can return to the spirit of an age, though society might think him mad.:looloo: yes, one, or a few can, but society itself sadly can't just change overnight, because society is afraid of rapid change even when it is for the better. this goes far beyond D&D, but in the aspect of D&D many peope i know don't want to go back for reason that make no sense to me, and i wont discuss in this thread. but 2e provided more freedoms to running the game it seems, and 3.x editions seem more automated so a computer subroutine can be the DM. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 277] Author : Varl Date : 07-06-07 05:46 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. It is said that what is called the Spirit of an Age is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. In the same way, a single year does not have just spring or summer. A single day, too, is the same. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. The spirit of an age? It's a game for crying out loud. There's absolutely nothing preventing players and DMs from choosing an OOP game and reviving its spirit and regaining the passion for D&D again, and if players and DMs can do it, so can game developers. Whether WotC would ever consider such a move (even one that took all the good things about AD&D, and trashed the rest) is very doubtful, however. The bottom line keeps tripping them up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 278] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 07-06-07 08:29 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Well said, Varl! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 279] Author : Ezram Date : 07-07-07 02:48 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I'll put it into clearer terms "They don't make them like they used to" Every generation has said this about the past in some form or another...it's just a reluctance to let what they feel comfortable with go. It's nothing to be ashamed of, rather, it is quite natural. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 280] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 07-07-07 02:35 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Ezram, it's more than that. Someone once said,"Everyone has a great idea that will not work." 3rd Ed was that for me. Just like Coka-Cola with "new Coke" and Stagg Chili puting their chili in boxes to break into the Eastern Market and loosing the West because it changed the taste, WotC changed something that, for me, was just not broken to begin with. The big problem I saw with AD&D, both personally and from owning a hobby/gaming store at the time, was a profound lack of low level, starter adventures to get new blood into the game. I looked like crazy for low level stuff and could find nothing new for the 2 years I had my store (1993-1995). Yet, I was open for gaming, both while the store was open and after hours, for 6 days a week. At one time we had, I think, 9 games going and 6 of them were low level AD&D, all "homegrown". As several have mentioned in this thread, TSR used to keep in print all of D&D Basic, pretty much for the duration of AD&D's existance. I think that's what most of us on these OOP threads would like to see! Just look at the response to the petition on another thread to reprint AD&D and Basic. There is still a big market out there for these versions. I think we could peacefully coexist with the 3rd Ed. people if we could still get the things we need without having to go through eBay or Amazon to get them. As I mentioned before, my 16 year old daughter plays AD&D and loves it. Another of the gamers brought his little brother to game, who is now 15, and he enjoyed it, too, so I don't think it's an "age thing" either. Sometimes a thing is not "new and improved", it is just new.:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 281] Author : shadzar Date : 07-07-07 04:48 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. i think reprinting AD&D core books is out of the question. the last rumor i ever heard was that Hackmaster was created via licensing of AD&D from WotC as a settlement for a lawsuit Kenzer & Co brought against the unauthorized use of thier material in the CD-ROM Dragon Magazine Archives. I have heard this from more than one place, but nothing official. if it in anyway is true, then we are stuck without possiblity of having AD&D 2nd reprinted to keep it alive. Maybe once these licenses expire and things get back under WotC control they will again be able to print AD&D when Kenzer & Co. no longer has it. Sadly by that time i will be too old read the books, and all the good writers for things like Dragonlance will want nothing to do with D&D anymore like Gary save for a little bit of remebering the old days... (the above claims about lawsuits and settlements are unsubstantiated rumors, and presented her as hearsay. any validity is unknown, but is the best guess many people online have come to about the possesion of the intellectual property that used to be AD&D, that know exists emulated in the Hackmaster game.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 282] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 07-07-07 08:40 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. If you are right about the rumors, Shadzar, that is sad news. I, for one, was optomistic about WotC eventually seeing the demand and doing a limited run of reprints for the old stuff. I have no knowledge of Hackmaster, though I had heard it was "like AD&D". Maybe I will have to look there and check it out...and maybe those are the people to talk to about reprinting the OOP stuff while they have it under their control. It does seem odd that WotC can still offer downloads of a lot of the OOP stuff if they don't have the control of it. Maybe the "no charge" part is the loophole. Rules Lawyers to the front! How can we get around this?:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 283] Author : shadzar Date : 07-07-07 10:19 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. it is just the main reason why anyone can figure out why K&C can use the AD&D directly without being tied to the OGL, plus the timing of all the instances seem to be a bit too coincidental for it to not be true. of course being settled out of court would explain why no offical statement was given by either patires. i guess the only way to go is to get electronic versions if they exist, or have a group of friends get the Core Rules 2.0 and just share the HTML of Windows Help version of the books from AD&D 2nd Edition Revised with the splat books included. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 284] Author : protonik Date : 07-08-07 01:25 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. They don't NEED to do reprints. TSR over printed the crap out of just about everything and the core book for 1e and 2e are about as much as a song and dance. I got my 1e core books for a penny a piece on Ebay and my 2e books were about 3-5 dollars apiece. There are always several copies (20+) available at any one time. WOTC doesn't NEED 1e or 2e to be in print, demand or not. The books are out there and readily and cheaply available. Local used book stores also seem to have no shortage and if they don't have the books they can get them easily through an OOP book search. Flea markets also seem to have no shortage of product. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 285] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 07-08-07 01:39 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. They don't NEED to do reprints. TSR over printed the crap out of just about everything and the core book for 1e and 2e are about as much as a song and dance. I got my 1e core books for a penny a piece on Ebay and my 2e books were about 3-5 dollars apiece. There are always several copies (20+) available at any one time. I second the motion. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 286] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 07-08-07 02:10 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. In some ways Protonik is right. I have been able to get 2nd Ed PHBs for my daughter and others off the internet. The problem is knowing for sure the quality you are getting. Hers was OK but I have seen some from the same source with the spine coming off for the same price. I think the point isn't that they are unavailable now, but that in a not too distant future they will become progressivly harder and harder to come by. You already see hard to find box sets going for 3X what they sold for originally and the same is true of modules. For every penny deal you stumble onto, there is a $100 boxed set that sold for $30 new. When TSR was able to keep Basic D&D on the market with some success, a lot of us think WotC could do the same thing. I think we'd like to be able to get the versions we prefere without going to heroic measures to get them. I realize that may never be the case. :raincloud -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 287] Author : shadzar Date : 07-08-07 03:49 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Not to mention that the books age over tie and wear out. so older copies may not have much life left in them. even collectors copies that were never played in some cases are in the ranged of 12-22 years old. so the paper isn't going to last forever. making a special print run of the core books of older editions would have WotC at least acknowledge players of older editions as D&D players unlike when it flat out dropped the older editions when 3.x came out. they may even be surprised at the number of physical copies that sell. but they best not try and sell them for the same price as their current stuff. inflation or not, they don't require to hire new artists for things done years ago. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 288] Author : Varl Date : 07-08-07 07:04 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Protonik is right. We don't need reprints. If there were one product that WotC could bite the bullet for and say, "Okay fine! What one product would you OOP fans desire the most? We'll give it to you." My answer would be a reverse conversion guide to translate their d20 game code back to AD&D. And even if they wouldn't give us that, we as OOP fans should get together on Dragonsfoot or some place and do it ourselves then. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 289] Author : shadzar Date : 07-09-07 01:30 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Protonik is right. We don't need reprints. If there were one product that WotC could bite the bullet for and say, "Okay fine! What one product would you OOP fans desire the most? We'll give it to you." My answer would be a reverse conversion guide to translate their d20 game code back to AD&D. And even if they wouldn't give us that, we as OOP fans should get together on Dragonsfoot or some place and do it ourselves then. I think i will pass on doing anything at Dragonsfoot. :shifty: Steve and Solomoriah would probably want to create the things themselves anyway. but it shouldn't be so hard, just use the conversion manual in reverse, or heaven forbid, throw out the statistical data and use the older monsters and create new NPCs based on the level of adventure the monsters in the area would belong to. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 290] Author : Varl Date : 07-09-07 01:45 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I think i will pass on doing anything at Dragonsfoot. :shifty: Steve and Solomoriah would probably want to create the things themselves anyway. Bad experience? I know they often tend to be mostly OSRIC at DF, but a conversion guide shouldn't be OSRIC-based imo. It should be AD&D-based. but it shouldn't be so hard, just use the conversion manual in reverse, or heaven forbid, throw out the statistical data and use the older monsters and create new NPCs based on the level of adventure the monsters in the area would belong to. I tried reverse engineering the conversion guide once. With no practical 3e experience to draw on, and no frame of reference to based conversion upon, my attempt was tried with one hand tied behind my back. That said, I did manage to create a creature template form for converting d20 creatures back to AD&D, albeit, a crude one that still takes a bit of neurons to get the creatures to feel AD&D-like, but it can be done. NPCs are hopeless. With some of the stat blocks I've seen for them in d20, that's where a bit of help would be helpful from someone with a passing familiarity with d20. The largest hurdle would be the translation of the values between editions, i.e. what would a +35 in climbing or a +41 in arcobatics really mean in AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 291] Author : kintire Date : 07-09-07 10:34 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. NPCs are hopeless. With some of the stat blocks I've seen for them in d20, that's where a bit of help would be helpful from someone with a passing familiarity with d20. The largest hurdle would be the translation of the values between editions, i.e. what would a +35 in climbing or a +41 in arcobatics really mean in AD&D. It would be very difficult: in no area are the editions more different than the skills. I think you would be much better getting a general feel for the npc and what they do, and re-creating them in AD&D from scratch rather than trying to convert. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 292] Author : shadzar Date : 07-09-07 04:33 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Bad experience? I know they often tend to be mostly OSRIC at DF, but a conversion guide shouldn't be OSRIC-based imo. It should be AD&D-based. I tried reverse engineering the conversion guide once. With no practical 3e experience to draw on, and no frame of reference to based conversion upon, my attempt was tried with one hand tied behind my back. That said, I did manage to create a creature template form for converting d20 creatures back to AD&D, albeit, a crude one that still takes a bit of neurons to get the creatures to feel AD&D-like, but it can be done. NPCs are hopeless. With some of the stat blocks I've seen for them in d20, that's where a bit of help would be helpful from someone with a passing familiarity with d20. The largest hurdle would be the translation of the values between editions, i.e. what would a +35 in climbing or a +41 in arcobatics really mean in AD&D. you don't remember me Varl? :confused: well a search for my posts might make it clear there what happened. i have been meaing to take a stab at making the conversion guide backwards compatible, but since it doesn't offer much in the way of converting characters without the 3.0 books, then it shouldn't be that hard, it basically changes a few things to adjust for the new number-crunching system, and forces you to rechoose your abilities since they were all changed. so it would basically be rerolling characters mostly, or reassigning the skills and NWPs from the skill and feats. would there really be a need to reverse engineer the monsters? are there that many new monsters other than Eberron stuff that wasn't in AD&D? seems i once counted over 1200 pages of monsters in my official printed materials MCs, MCAs, modules, etc. the new system gives all classes ranks in skills, meaing you assign points to them like the old theif skills. but anyone can take climbing. every skill point spent gives on level of ranks (+1) so this NPC has 31 ranks in climbing adjusted for armor and such i would assume. so just break out his level and the thief base skills and see how many additional points the thief had to spend in AD&D and see if you can average all the abilities out and give them close to that in the older system. example: 3.x has the following. climbing: +31 find traps: +10 remove traps: +10 (pick pockets) slieght of hand: +40 the rest are nominal or just the minimum level. this means the thief primarily spent the points for his level on those 3 older skills: climbing: 31 find/remove traps: 20 pick pockets: 40 say he is level 4... 31/91 = 34% 20/91 = 22% 40/91 = 44% figure this is how many points per level was spent on those older abilites. just assign base scores to the other and divide the remaing out based on the % of thsoe 3 skills i guess. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 293] Author : Varl Date : 07-09-07 06:46 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. you don't remember me Varl? I do, though I obviously missed the reason why you left DF. i have been meaing to take a stab at making the conversion guide backwards compatible, but since it doesn't offer much in the way of converting characters without the 3.0 books, then it shouldn't be that hard, it basically changes a few things to adjust for the new number-crunching system, and forces you to rechoose your abilities since they were all changed. so it would basically be rerolling characters mostly, or reassigning the skills and NWPs from the skill and feats. As kintire mentioned, I think you're both right. It'd be easier in the end to just approximate an NPC's skills as closely as one can to what they have in d20 and go with that. Those skills that don't translate across, drop. would there really be a need to reverse engineer the monsters? are there that many new monsters other than Eberron stuff that wasn't in AD&D? Heh. The one rare product of d20 that I buy are monster tomes, so trust me when I say, yes. There are plenty of original and unique creatures in d20 that can be reverse engineered. seems i once counted over 1200 pages of monsters in my official printed materials MCs, MCAs, modules, etc. I'm sure there is. But for the self-confessed monster nut like me, it's not enough! :D figure this is how many points per level was spent on those older abilites. just assign base scores to the other and divide the remaing out based on the % of thsoe 3 skills i guess. Thanks Shadzar. That's a good idea. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 294] Author : shadzar Date : 07-09-07 10:40 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Heh. The one rare product of d20 that I buy are monster tomes, so trust me when I say, yes. There are plenty of original and unique creatures in d20 that can be reverse engineered. would that require a program to turn those monsters into 2E compatible, or would a documented manual on the mathematics suffice? i can try, but make no garauntees i wouldn't get sick of doing monsters from 3.x so would try to just find the closest similarities and break down a simple way to revert them to earlier forms based on the existing monsters in all forms of D&D. only when my server is working again (when i get off my lazy butt and turn it back on and repair the thing) would i go into writing programs for doing these things. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 295] Author : Varl Date : 07-10-07 09:50 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. would that require a program to turn those monsters into 2E compatible, or would a documented manual on the mathematics suffice? Heh. Neither actually. I created a creature template I use that is mostly 2e, but has a few bits from d20 (such as ability scores) that I think really fleshes out a creature. The rest of the conversion is fairly easy. Descriptions cross straight over, as does any ecological, habitat/societal, or combat descriptions. The contents of crunch contained within those descriptive blocks are easy enough to translate into 2e terms. Saves get changed to vs. X type, DCs are wiped out, and all of the (ex)/(su) power definitions are simply given 2e-like definitions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 296] Author : shadzar Date : 07-10-07 05:13 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Heh. Neither actually. I created a creature template I use that is mostly 2e, but has a few bits from d20 (such as ability scores) that I think really fleshes out a creature. The rest of the conversion is fairly easy. Descriptions cross straight over, as does any ecological, habitat/societal, or combat descriptions. The contents of crunch contained within those descriptive blocks are easy enough to translate into 2e terms. Saves get changed to vs. X type, DCs are wiped out, and all of the (ex)/(su) power definitions are simply given 2e-like definitions. ok well then my work is done before its started. :rofl: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 297] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-11-07 09:11 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. It is said that what is called the Spirit of an Age is something to which one cannot return. Yeah. I'm happy to be playing out-of-print games in the spirit I am today rather than still in the spirit I did a decade or two ago. (^_^) Protonik is right. We don't need reprints. If there were one product that WotC could bite the bullet for and say, "Okay fine! What one product would you OOP fans desire the most? We'll give it to you." Well, for me, it would be part reprint: The Gary Gygax Annotated Edition of Original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons wherein EGG clarifies things based on how he's seen them misinterpreted over the years & tells us how the way he plays the game diverged from the books. I have little hope of that ever happening even with the perfect alignment of the stars. Mainly because I don't think there's enough money to convince EGG to do it. But if I'm dreaming... Actually, maybe I'd prefer The Gary Gygax Annotated Edition of Original Dungeons & Dragons instead. In any case, we have the next best thing: The Gygax Q&A threads on ENWorld & DF where we can badger him with specific questions until he relents & throws us a crumb. (^_^) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 298] Author : LEMARQUEZ Date : 07-22-07 03:01 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Those readers in this thread who are interested in starting a 2nd Edition campaign may want to check out the following items currently at auction on E-Bay: 2nd Edition Core Rulebooks: http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=4424399&site=0&ver=LCA080805&item= 300133244502&lk=URL Large Lot of 2nd Edition Supplements: http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=4424399&site=0&ver=LCA080805&item= 300133246089&lk=URL L. E. Marquez -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 299] Author : graysonsmith Date : 08-05-07 11:48 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. long live AD&D. shame on wotc for letting us slip into obscurity for the sake of their profit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 300] Author : Matthew_ Date : 08-08-07 10:20 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Well, the OSRIC project is providing an avenue for further support of the system. I still play 1e, 2e and 3e. I prefer to play my own Houseruled version of 2e for long term campaigns though. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 301] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-08-07 12:48 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. What is the OSRIC project? I am not familiar with it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 302] Author : Matthew_ Date : 08-08-07 02:39 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Ah, well, prepare to have your eyes opened: OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/) Basically, it is a reverse engineered version of AD&D using the D20 OGL. You can download the rules for free from the above link. The intention, however, is to provide a legal rules set for publishers to create new material for an AD&D compatable game. If you head over to Knights and Knaves (http://knights-n-knaves.com/) you can find a list of currently available modules and projects relating to OSRIC. It essentially supports 1e AD&D, but since 2e and 1e are backwards compatable, this opens up the field not only for fans of 1e AD&D, but 2e AD&D as well (since most 2e specific rules are optional add ons to a 1e baseline). You might also want to check out Goblinoid Games, who have just released a reverese engineered version of Basic Dungeons & Dragons called Labyrinth Lords (http://goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm). It's all small time stuff, but its nice to have access to. Also, consider checking out Dragon's Foot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/ad/), which currently supplies a number of free PDF Adventures compatable with D&D and AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 303] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-08-07 06:58 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Thanks, Matthew. I knew about Dragonsfoot and have downloaded and printed out one of their adventures. I'm not too sure about the d20 idea. I rather like rolling all the different dice. :rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 304] Author : Matthew_ Date : 08-09-07 03:29 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. No problem. Just in case you're not joking about the D20 aspect (the drum roll suggests you are, but I can be a bit dense soemtimes), OSRIC and Labyrinth Lords (and indeed Basic Fantasy Roleplaying) only make use of the D20 SRD insofar as it allows them to reproduce Basic and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons - so no worries about dice types. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 305] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-10-07 09:15 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Honestly, I'm not sure which version I prefer. There was alot of head scratching and making things up on the fly in 2E. I remember being both and player and DM and saying screw it to alot of questions and just role playing our way through it. 3E "fixes" a ton of those head scratching moments. At the same time its such a mechanical crunchy beast that I sort miss just roleplaying through the problems instead of rule quoting each other. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 306] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-10-07 12:47 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. WizO Sinister, Greetings, I guess that's my problem. I've been DMing for over 20 years and have never had a rules question in 2nd Ed. come up that wasn't easily resolved by visualizing the scenario and ruling accordingly. It's been the same with virtually all of the DM's I've played with. To misquote the Bard, " The play is the thing!". That is, in a nutshell, what all the disagreement between the pro 2nd Ed. and the pro 3rd Ed. folks is about. There was usually very little "head scratching" but quite a bit of seeing where the storyline was going to answer any questions. The purely mechanical "rules questions" were usually very rare, and usually cropped up when newbies were playing. The adventure, the story, drove everything. In my own case, both times I tried to play 3rd Ed., with both an experienced and inexperienced DM, I found the rule was the thing. I just don't care for that. More and more, I am finding two very different kinds of gamers; and, oddly, this came clear when playing Mechwarrior. There are those who are "in the scene" as they say in theater and those who are in "the game". Those "in the scene" are roleplaying their character and "living" the scene, with the rules only equating, in part, to the "stage directions". Those who are "in the game" are looking to what will benefit their score, rather than what their character would do. 2nd Ed. caters more to the first type, 3rd Ed caters more to the second, in my opinion. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 307] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-10-07 01:09 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I've been DMing for over 20 years and have never had a rules question in 2nd Ed. come up that wasn't easily resolved by visualizing the scenario and ruling accordingly. My problem with earlier editions, though, was that they didn't manage to get these differences you cite completely through my thick skull. I took me a lot of time & effort to understand. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 308] Author : Matthew_ Date : 08-10-07 06:49 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. All versions are suited to their times. 3e encourages rules mongering by legislating for many more specific actions, but, as far as I am aware, the 3e DMG advises just going with the DM's ruling at the time and look up the 'actual' or 'advised' rules later. The key difference is that now Players can quote more rules at the DM when they don't agree with the decision, but aside from taking such statements into account, the DM is under no obligation to follow those rules if it doesn't make sense within the scenario. In particular, Circumstance Modifiers allow a DM to completely overule any DC set by the guidelines in a Skill description (and indeed, within Combat to some degree). The examples of their use in the 3e DMG are quite amusing to say the least. I always find it kind of amusing when people 'convert' previous adventures. Seems like a crazy amount of work when you could just play it using the system it was intended for. Still, I imagine such conversions are quite fun. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 309] Author : shadzar Date : 08-10-07 10:04 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Honestly, I'm not sure which version I prefer. There was alot of head scratching and making things up on the fly in 2E. I remember being both and player and DM and saying screw it to alot of questions and just role playing our way through it. 3E "fixes" a ton of those head scratching moments. At the same time its such a mechanical crunchy beast that I sort miss just roleplaying through the problems instead of rule quoting each other. and how do you feel about 3.5? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 310] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-11-07 12:27 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Honestly, I tend to prefer more story centered gaming systems. I don't mean to put 3.5 down. In fact, its a solid set of tactical rules. Generally speaking I like my games to run like a movie and all the rules are jarring to my style. I like "in the moment scenes" where dice and rules are often forgotten and people are suddenly their characters. Not that 3.5 can't accomplish that task it's just alot of work for me to make that happen where there are some other systems that make that easier. And before anyone says it (heh) I don't play white wolf. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 311] Author : Varl Date : 08-12-07 04:29 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I like "in the moment scenes" where dice and rules are often forgotten and people are suddenly their characters. Not that 3.5 can't accomplish that task it's just alot of work for me to make that happen where there are some other systems that make that easier. Well then, welcome back to putting the role back in rollplaying. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 312] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 08-13-07 03:23 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Honestly, I tend to prefer more story centered gaming systems. I don't mean to put 3.5 down. In fact, its a solid set of tactical rules. Generally speaking I like my games to run like a movie and all the rules are jarring to my style. Have you tried the new Star Wars Saga Edition? It uses the d20 system, but a more streamlined, cinematic version. For example iterative attacks and skill ranks have been replaced with a streamlined combat and skill system. It uses the talent tree system from D20 Modern, so the characters are more organic, not cookie-cutter copies. While the system is designed for Star Wars, it could be used for D&D with a bit of work. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 313] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 08:33 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Actually I've been meaning to do this but I'm fighting the players around here. Star Wars players here been playing since WEG first edition which means they have purchased some 4 editions (WEG, WEG REVISED, d20, D20 REVISED) so they are kind of refusing to buy atm. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 314] Author : shadzar Date : 08-15-07 10:37 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Honestly, I tend to prefer more story centered gaming systems. I don't mean to put 3.5 down. In fact, its a solid set of tactical rules. Generally speaking I like my games to run like a movie and all the rules are jarring to my style. I like "in the moment scenes" where dice and rules are often forgotten and people are suddenly their characters. Not that 3.5 can't accomplish that task it's just alot of work for me to make that happen where there are some other systems that make that easier. And before anyone says it (heh) I don't play white wolf. it isn't so much 3.5 or 3.0 but where the players came from because of the targetted markets. coming from video games many people want a system built like a video game. you can't really role play in computer RPGs other than talk to random people and watcht he conversation, or pick between multiple choice responses you want. so these people that were targetted by 3.0 and 3.5 as a player base bring the same thing to D&D that they got from video games. the character maximization over the character interaction. it happend in oder editions also, but now with more people playing form a video game background and the easier access to 3.x then it means that 3.5 gets the shaft. sadly there is nothing in the "rules" that promote roleplaying and people always remember the natural 20 they rolled to kill the whatever instead of the idea they came up with in order to kill it. sad that more people each day put roleplaying on the back burner to simmer while they stress the things they "need" to fight with. if people would only learn that the combat modifiers are there to help with combat, and not only is the game about combat, but there are no way to give rules to tell you how to roleplay. maybe any new edition should have the first chapters of the PHB and DMG or whatever they may be called titled Roleplaying and explain what it is and does. then go into character creation and such for figuring out all those numbers for combat. then people will see the need for roleplaying since it is printed in the books. granted like any "rule" some will throw it out and just get to what they want to read. :( viva la revolucion! may your characters have many personal, political, and emotional conflicts to overcome. (and some physical ones too) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 315] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 08-16-07 11:27 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Actually I've been meaning to do this but I'm fighting the players around here. Star Wars players here been playing since WEG first edition which means they have purchased some 4 editions (WEG, WEG REVISED, d20, D20 REVISED) so they are kind of refusing to buy atm. I'm currently playing in a SECR campaign, albeit one that has been a little house-ruled by the GM. As a player I find that the system is as fast-paced as the 2E WEG used to be, and is much more streamlined than D&D 3.5. It is certainly better IMO than the mess that was the RCR. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 316] Author : Mindie Date : 08-18-07 09:15 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. You know... I "started" with 2nd Ed, back in 1991... then years later, I came over the 1st Ed books (or at least some of them) in a used book shop. And I bought them. What I then did, was of course to make sure I understood the st Ed rules and that my players also had a grasp, by playing "strict" 1st Ed for a few sessions. Then, we took what we liked about the 1st Ed, and used as "house rules" in the 2nd Ed games from then on, sometimes loosing dysfunctional 2nd Ed things (that WE though dysfunctional, that is, not that everyone else found them to be so. We just didn't bother) in favour of the sometimes more cumbersome, but IMO better explained 1st Ed addendums. I'm sure, if I had stayed with that group to start 3rd ed at any point, we would have done the same, taken what was functional from the earlier editions, and used as houserules in the 3rd Ed. I feel, with 2nd Ed, many things were lost when compared to 1st Ed. especially up untill they started the "Complete" series. I've only flipped through a few of the 3rd Ed. books, but it does seem the same, many of the nice things from 2nd Ed's expansionary rules, were left out. I know, I know, much of them to make things more sttreamlined, and of course to make them fit into the two books of main rules. (DMG and PHB) but still..... And frankly: In ALL the TSR publications I've seen, there's this thing called "option/al" which to me means "if it works for you, use it. If not ditch it in favour of some homebrew that works" and that is what (A)D&D has always been about. Official rules or not, if doesn't work the way you want them to work, ditch in favour of something that does. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 317] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-18-07 05:26 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I agree with most of what you say,Mindie. The only thing is, and I'm not trying to start another huge debate here; is, in my opinion, if you look into 3.x Ed you will find it alarmingly incompatable with earlier editions. Some of the discussions on here, at length, have been to convert 2nd Ed. characters or adventures over to 3rd. As you go back over the thread you will see what a chore that can be. (They are also something more properly to be hashed out on a 3rd. Ed site, I think.) Admittedly, I struggled against 2nd Ed when it first came out, having started years before with 1st Ed. around 1979 or so (never have played Basic). By the time the "black book 2nd Ed." came out, I was all for it, but we still used and use some things from 1st Ed. That sort of thing, except for maps and literary discriptions, doesn't seem to work in 3rd Ed. and that's the point. 3rd Ed left the previous editon players behind without continuing to support them after the new edition as had been done in the past editions. That's what this thread is all about, I think. We are our own support and focus group for the earlier editions. Thanks to WotC for allowing us to do so. We could just as easily been forced to go elsewhere for this kind of forum.:rimshot: (PS) I put the rimshot on because I've been a drummer for almost 50 years. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 318] Author : MarkHall Date : 08-19-07 02:25 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. it isn't so much 3.5 or 3.0 but where the players came from because of the targetted markets. coming from video games many people want a system built like a video game. you can't really role play in computer RPGs other than talk to random people and watcht he conversation, or pick between multiple choice responses you want. so these people that were targetted by 3.0 and 3.5 as a player base bring the same thing to D&D that they got from video games. the character maximization over the character interaction. I think there is something to what you're saying, but I also think that the by-level improvements actually tend to distract from the non-mechanical aspects of character development. If I'm thinking about my build, and all the cool things it lets me do, then I'm not paying as much attention to things like what my character is doing, or why. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 319] Author : Mindie Date : 08-19-07 11:00 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I agree with most of what you say,Mindie. The only thing is, and I'm not trying to start another huge debate here; is, in my opinion, if you look into 3.x Ed you will find it alarmingly incompatable with earlier editions. Some of the discussions on here, at length, have been to convert 2nd Ed. characters or adventures over to 3rd. As you go back over the thread you will see what a chore that can be. (They are also something more properly to be hashed out on a 3rd. Ed site, I think.) Admittedly, I struggled against 2nd Ed when it first came out, having started years before with 1st Ed. around 1979 or so (never have played Basic). By the time the "black book 2nd Ed." came out, I was all for it, but we still used and use some things from 1st Ed. That sort of thing, except for maps and literary discriptions, doesn't seem to work in 3rd Ed. and that's the point. 3rd Ed left the previous editon players behind without continuing to support them after the new edition as had been done in the past editions. That's what this thread is all about, I think. We are our own support and focus group for the earlier editions. Thanks to WotC for allowing us to do so. We could just as easily been forced to go elsewhere for this kind of forum.:rimshot: (PS) I put the rimshot on because I've been a drummer for almost 50 years. So basically..... 3rd Ed. isn't really an "update and collection" of the rules like 2nd Ed was to first? More kinda like a whole new game in guise of being the same old? That's just disgusting, in my opinion. I mean... what if MicroSoft suddenly decided that "now Vista is out, we're gonna drop support for programs that run under XP, unless the users do such and such cryptical nonsense"? MicroSoft would literally make themselves bankrupt, by doing so. Now, WotC probably still has M:tG going, yes? and likely earning lots from that.... but still... that's besides the point. In any case, there's nothing in the light of things that see me running a D&D campaign anytime soon anyraods... mostly because I don't have any players anymore, and I don't know enough people who might be a little bit interested in trying. And IF I were to, I'd prolly stick with the rule set I knew 12 years ago, instead of trying something new. At least for the time being. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 320] Author : Varl Date : 08-19-07 12:51 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I mean... what if MicroSoft suddenly decided that "now Vista is out, we're gonna drop support for programs that run under XP, unless the users do such and such cryptical nonsense"? MicroSoft would literally make themselves bankrupt, by doing so. I think it's because of the overhead that would be required by WotC to keep OOP editions alive. That's why they run the business model of "upgrade or obsolescence". For all the overhead they have to pay out, they'd have to charge a fortune for each and every product they released in order to pay the people doing the work keeping OOP products in print or to hire more people that would be required to keep OOP editions in print. I really don't think it's so much about their preference to drop OOP editions as much as it is to stay within budget. I mean, can you imagine any company willfully shooting itself in the foot by alienating (and thus, losing the massive amount of revenue) thousands upon thousands of paying customers that were perfectly happy with a previous edition, just because internally they decided it was time for a new edition? That'd be stupid! The fact that people are lemmings doesn't preclude the fact of all the lost revenue from people that didn't think it was time for an upgrade, which is why they push so hard for you to convert. They don't want to lose your revenue, as I said that'd be stupid, but, they also do not have the manpower or ability to maintain more than one product edition at any one time. You'd think they would be able to, wouldn't you, with the prices they charge? Business is funny like that. Until you know the numbers behind what the public sees, it's a completely different story. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 321] Author : Oxlar Date : 08-19-07 02:24 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. So basically..... 3rd Ed. isn't really an "update and collection" of the rules like 2nd Ed was to first? More kinda like a whole new game in guise of being the same old? That's just disgusting, in my opinion. I mean... what if MicroSoft suddenly decided that "now Vista is out, we're gonna drop support for programs that run under XP, unless the users do such and such cryptical nonsense"? MicroSoft would literally make themselves bankrupt, by doing so. Now, WotC probably still has M:tG going, yes? and likely earning lots from that.... but still... that's besides the point. In any case, there's nothing in the light of things that see me running a D&D campaign anytime soon anyraods... mostly because I don't have any players anymore, and I don't know enough people who might be a little bit interested in trying. And IF I were to, I'd prolly stick with the rule set I knew 12 years ago, instead of trying something new. At least for the time being. Yes it is disgusting. However, I should point out that Microsoft did just that. Except it was with windows 3.11 and windows 95. Microsoft gets away with it because they have much more clout with determining how business will be done. D&D is just an RPG, people can pass on new editions if they so choose. Yes it sucks that new stuff will no longer be comming out. But at least you don't have to be a programmer in order to make your own adventures and change your 'house rules'. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 322] Author : Mindie Date : 08-19-07 06:24 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Yes it is disgusting. However, I should point out that Microsoft did just that. Except it was with windows 3.11 and windows 95. Microsoft gets away with it because they have much more clout with determining how business will be done. D&D is just an RPG, people can pass on new editions if they so choose. Yes it sucks that new stuff will no longer be comming out. But at least you don't have to be a programmer in order to make your own adventures and change your 'house rules'. Not entirely, as you got Win32s for Windows for WorkGroups3.11 which (theoretically) should be able to run many Win95 programs. And MS also wasn't allowed to drop support for any of their 16bit stuff untill 1999. Now... back to topic.... I would have hoped 3rd Ed would be a "compilation" of the 2nd Ed + the Complete series and Players/DM Options, with a more streamlined feel to it, like 2nd Ed. was meant to be for 1st Ed. From what you guys who know 3rd ed. says, that isn't so :( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 323] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 08-19-07 07:47 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Mindie, I get the impression you've only played Dungeons and Dragons and never made the mistake of messing with D20 Fantasy. I envy you that, I really do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 324] Author : Mindie Date : 08-20-07 02:10 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Handsome Stranger, unless I'm completely mistaken, I did say I moved away from my group and never got an excuse to get into a new one just before TSR was bought out by WotC. And if I'm lucky to have never messed with 3rd Ed...... why, I'm suddenly happy I picked up some RoleMaster cheaply a few years back :lol (complete RM with a good few addons and companions, at that. I thought to use some of it to replace the 2nd Ed combat system. But without a grup those books are collecting dust :/ ) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 325] Author : havard Date : 08-20-07 09:01 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I would have hoped 3rd Ed would be a "compilation" of the 2nd Ed + the Complete series and Players/DM Options, with a more streamlined feel to it, like 2nd Ed. was meant to be for 1st Ed. From what you guys who know 3rd ed. says, that isn't so :( That's correct. 3E builds on 2E, but introduces some rather dramatic changes such as the unified mechanic (almost every roll is now made with a d20+bonus>Difficulty=success). Class/Race structures are much less rigid etc. This, in addition to the "Dungeonpunk" style of the artwork has caused alot of people to feel that it is a different game entirely. I don't agree to that, but if 2E works well for you, then there is probably no reason to switch (especially with 4e just around the corner). Fortunately for us fans of OOP D&D, alot of OOP material can still be purchased as pdfs from various companies. :) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 326] Author : Burgundy Lotus Date : 08-20-07 09:02 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Honestly, I'm not sure which version I prefer. There was alot of head scratching and making things up on the fly in 2E. I remember being both and player and DM and saying screw it to alot of questions and just role playing our way through it. 3E "fixes" a ton of those head scratching moments. At the same time its such a mechanical crunchy beast that I sort miss just roleplaying through the problems instead of rule quoting each other. THis is how I feel, though I think I lean towards 3rd a lot more, it cleared things up more then it hurt them IMHO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 327] Author : Oxlar Date : 08-20-07 11:46 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Handsome Stranger, unless I'm completely mistaken, I did say I moved away from my group and never got an excuse to get into a new one just before TSR was bought out by WotC. And if I'm lucky to have never messed with 3rd Ed...... why, I'm suddenly happy I picked up some RoleMaster cheaply a few years back :lol (complete RM with a good few addons and companions, at that. I thought to use some of it to replace the 2nd Ed combat system. But without a grup those books are collecting dust :/ ) Bless you child. My group have been using the rollmaster crits for well over a decade and a half now. They are brilliantly set up. We set the crit class (A, B, C, etc...) to equal a certain damage range. Then when someone rolled a natural 20 they did a corresponding crit according to how much damage their weapon does. You can do the same for spell crits. It has been one of the best modifications we've made to our game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 328] Author : Oxlar Date : 08-20-07 11:53 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. That's correct. 3E builds on 2E, but introduces some rather dramatic changes such as the unified mechanic (almost every roll is now made with a d20+bonus>Difficulty=success). Class/Race structures are much less rigid etc. This, in addition to the "Dungeonpunk" style of the artwork has caused alot of people to feel that it is a different game entirely. I don't agree to that, but if 2E works well for you, then there is probably no reason to switch (especially with 4e just around the corner). Fortunately for us fans of OOP D&D, alot of OOP material can still be purchased as pdfs from various companies. :) Havard Ehhhh, I completely disagree. 3rd is so far different from 2nd. Its not even in the same ballpark. And don't let people tell you its closer to 1st edition either. What a crock of crap that is. Thats just justification for them trying to equate this wretched system to D&D. If its closer to 1st then why can you backwards compatable 2nd with 1st on the fly, but its impossible with 3rd? 1st and 2nd were ROLEplaying games. 3rd is a ROLLplaying game. It is just a combat system, and a min/maxed ADHD one at that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 329] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-20-07 06:46 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Say, Mindie, If you are having trouble getting together a group again, and I don't know how big your particular city is, there is a website called "Meetup.com" that you might want to look at for that. They will give you the option of setting up a "Meeting" for just about any legal purpose you can name and announce it on the calendar they send to interested individuals. And as far as comments on the various versions of the game...I have to agree that 3rd is a totally different game. I feel like it is at least as different as Shadowrun was from AD&D and that had a totally different name. In fact, I feel like the only thing 3rd has in common with the earlier editions is the name. As some of the other people have mentioned, if you like 2nd Ed., then why change to something else? We will be here to offer advise and encouragement. Long live AD&D! :rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 330] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 08-21-07 02:03 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Whatever happened to 3E? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 331] Author : Mindie Date : 08-21-07 03:51 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Say, Mindie, If you are having trouble getting together a group again, and I don't know how big your particular city is, there is a website called "Meetup.com" that you might want to look at for that. They will give you the option of setting up a "Meeting" for just about any legal purpose you can name and announce it on the calendar they send to interested individuals. I live in Manchester, England. And I'm atm enjoyingmy World of Warcraft (The Blizzard version, not the d20 one ;) ) very much, I'm not sure I could be bothered to start up a campaign again :lol Although... if I did.. I'ld probably ditch AD&D rules on combat and spell for a homebrew I've made..... get rid of those blasted hitpoints, for one thing (Sorry, no matter what you say, hitpoints are complete crap no matter what system) and much more and better variation in the sellbooks for another. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 332] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 08-21-07 11:52 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Okay. It was just a suggestion. And just for the record, I don't have a problem with hit points. I've even been involved with several years of Live Scale fantasy games (the IFGS, International Fantasy Gaming Society) and we even used hitpoints there. It's just a way of knowing how much damage you have done or had done to you without REALLY drawing blood. I have changed the magic system to a spell point system that works great. In fact, every AD&D DM I know of who has played in my system ends up using it or something similar. Anyway, enjoy your gaming.:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 333] Author : elondir Date : 08-28-07 11:01 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. What I like about 3e over 2e: The unified mechanic Saving throws Base Attack Bonus one initiative roll per combat stronghold rules What I don't like about 3e: "optional" use of minis that is more like "required" incredibly slow pace of combat skill ranks psionics druids multiclassing prestige classes, especially those to cover up the crappy multiclassing power creep - a CR 17 in 2000 is more like a CR 11 today fly, heal, and harm are nerfed big time the "Christmas Tree effect" of gobs of magic items with obscure bonuses epic level feels like a completely different game from non-epic level What I like about 2e: just about everything (including psionics) except... What I don't like about 2e: THAC0 Saving throws racial class restrictions racial level limits exceptional strength slow xp progression, especially around 8th-9th level -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 334] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 08-30-07 06:48 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Out of curiousity, why don't you like the idea of skill ranks. I've often heard people in my gaming group point to it as the one concept they'd take back to 2nd ed. Just interested to hear your thoughts, Elondir. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 335] Author : elondir Date : 08-30-07 03:37 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. I used to love skill ranks. I got to craft stuff, tumble past five guys to avoid attacks of opportunity, balance on a slippery beam, and be a great short-order cook. I could use Use Magic Device to emulate a caster level of 60 on a staff of holy word. I could make a DC 232 diplomacy check to make balors fanatical followers. The first problem comes with writing up mid-to-high-level NPC stat blocks for complicated builds. You've got, say, 65 skill points to distribute, but the character has dipped into, say four or five classes. It's a pain to figure out what to spend at which level, even with PCGen. Naturally, since the guy is only going to live two rounds, you dump it all in tumble, spot, and listen, and one or two other skills. The second problem comes with players who have min/maxed their skills so that they have +60 to Use Magic Device or a +200 diplomacy check. Nonweapon proficiencies solve this problem. Roll under your stat with a (usually negative) modifier, you succeed. Roll higher and you fail. Easy, simple, and perfect for adventuring. And you get about as many NWPs as you do 3e feats. Feats I'm not particularly fond of because there are so many of them, and I think feats tend towards power creep and min/maxing. Every new rule in 3e has a feat to make a special case of it or negate it. Some feats are cool, essentially like the secret pass system in the Savage Coast CS. But a lot are useless, patches to flaws in the game (like Practiced Spellcaster), or just plain overpowered. Now, some NWPs are skills (spellcraft) and some are feats (blind-fight). But the biggest thing about them is that a skill check is more or less the same difficulty no matter what level, and skill boosting magic items are not a part of the game. My big problem with minis is sixfold: #1 it takes too long to draw the dungeon on the mat (especially since my players love to recon with arcane eye) #2 If you're battling in a three-floor building on all three floors, if you go outside it's awkward to place minis since you usually don't have enough room on the mat for outside as well as inside #3 it puts huge emphasis on tactics, slowing the game down to a crawl as players plan out their assault #4 You have a few choices: lead minis you painstakingly paint yourself, some nice plastic ones in expensive random packages, paying a lot for the ones you want on ebay, or computer printouts of tokens that get blown off of the mat easily from movement (that's what I do). #5 Airborne and underwater combat (anything involving the Z axis, so to speak) is hard to simulate #6 A horse is not ten feet wide It all relates to my preferred style of play, which is the "kick in the door" style without minis. I don't want tactical simulation; I want fast action with a propulsive plot. I want to wade through dungeons, battling ten monsters between rests. I don't want to have to recon, and I don't want to take 20 searching every door for traps. I want to charge into the lair, kick the bad guys' butts, save the damsel in distress, take the bad guys' treasure, go back to the bar, and move on to the next town (with lots of random encounters on the way). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 336] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 09-02-07 09:49 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. What I like about 3e over 2e: The unified mechanic Saving throws Base Attack Bonus one initiative roll per combat stronghold rules What I don't like about 3e: "optional" use of minis that is more like "required" incredibly slow pace of combat skill ranks psionics druids multiclassing prestige classes, especially those to cover up the crappy multiclassing power creep - a CR 17 in 2000 is more like a CR 11 today fly, heal, and harm are nerfed big time the "Christmas Tree effect" of gobs of magic items with obscure bonuses epic level feels like a completely different game from non-epic level What I like about 2e: just about everything (including psionics) except... What I don't like about 2e: THAC0 Saving throws racial class restrictions racial level limits exceptional strength slow xp progression, especially around 8th-9th level I liked racial class restrictions... and level limits don't bother me too much, since an optional rule is to allow characters to exceed them with higher ability scores. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 337] Author : Unknowable Date : 09-04-07 04:13 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. As far as game mechanics go, I think that 3.0 is far superior to 2nd or 1st ed. I have been DMing off and on for about 25 years now. Under 1st and 2nd ed, I always had to make a ton of modifications and house rules. Now all I have to do is just make a setting for us to play in. I have found it to be worlds easier to DM. There are some things I liked better about older editions though. I thought the art in 2nd ed was much better than 3rd ed art. I've never played 3.5 and at this point, I'm just going to wait until 4th ed. I do think that WotC ought to take more time with things though. Since 3.0 came out in about 2000, they should have waited until 2005 to release 3.5 and 2010 to release 4.0. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 338] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 09-05-07 11:41 AM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. As far as game mechanics go, I think that 3.0 is far superior to 2nd or 1st ed. I have been DMing off and on for about 25 years now. Under 1st and 2nd ed, I always had to make a ton of modifications and house rules. Now all I have to do is just make a setting for us to play in. I have found it to be worlds easier to DM. There are some things I liked better about older editions though. I thought the art in 2nd ed was much better than 3rd ed art. I've never played 3.5 and at this point, I'm just going to wait until 4th ed. I do think that WotC ought to take more time with things though. Since 3.0 came out in about 2000, they should have waited until 2005 to release 3.5 and 2010 to release 4.0. Hmmm... I never really needed any house rules in 2nd (just used most of the optional ones), although admittedly character creation night was also house-rule making night for 1st. What house-rules did you think were necessary for 2nd, out of curiosity? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 339] Author : Unknowable Date : 09-05-07 07:51 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. What house-rules did you think were necessary for 2nd, out of curiosity? Oh, hell man, now I have no idea. I haven't played 2nd edition in about 11 years now. I just remember that I had a notebook full of rules that were either modifications on existing rules, invented rules or stuff borrowed from the Basic D&D system (It actually did cover some thing alot better than AD&D 2nd Ed). It wasn't something that I came up with in one night. I had modified the system over a matter of years. I started playing Basic D&D in about 1985 and by 87 was DMing. Sometime around then, I bought one of the first Ed. core books (Don't remember which one it was). Two or three months later the first 2nd Ed. books were released and so I never DMed a straight first edition game. After I bought enough 2nd ed. books, I ended my basic campaign and started a 2nd ed. game set in the Forgotten Realms. Over the next four years, my campaign was pretty constant and my house rules developed. The campaign started falling apart when TSR began flooding the market with FR stuff and Dritz Du'Urden (sp?) became a hero. I kept having munchkins show up at my games wanting to play a Dritz clone. Also, I never bought any of the later FR books because I had developed the world myself for my campaign before that stuff was published. People who'd read the books and the supplements would show up and attempt to Metagame only to find that MY FR was not THE FR. In about 96 or 97 (dont remember now), I folded and got out of D&D for a while. When 3ed came out, I was thrilled with it because the system fixed most of what I thought was broken about 2ed and did it in a system that was much simpler than what I had come up with. I played a 3ed game in 2002 and DMed a 3ed game from 2003 to 2005. The 3ed campaign was the best game I have ever DMed. And it was the easiest. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 340] Author : GingePirate Date : 09-10-07 08:53 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Honestly, I don't know why everyone rips on THAC0. It really wasn't that difficult...and it was much easier than trying to remember all of the different bonuses a high-level 3.x character might have racked up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 341] Author : havard Date : 09-11-07 12:09 PM Thread Title : Re: whatever happened to 2nd ed. Honestly, I don't know why everyone rips on THAC0. It really wasn't that difficult...and it was much easier than trying to remember all of the different bonuses a high-level 3.x character might have racked up. It wasnt that bad, but rolling a die and adding a bonus is much easier. However, as you point out, 3E simplifies some things and makes other things more complicated. So I guess we are pretty much stuck where we are. By the sound of it, the exact same thing is what they're planning to do with 4e. At least someone is making money off it ;) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.