* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : The Best Version of D&D Started at 05-23-07 08:51 AM by Jack Daniel Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=851904 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Jack Daniel Date : 05-23-07 08:51 AM Thread Title : The Best Version of D&D After years and years of playing the 3rd edition of the AD&D game, I just got fed up with all the rules and the number-crunching and the lugging around of a suitcase of tomes and supplements. In one swell foop, I ditched the whole v3.5 product line with one (very heavy) trip to my FLGS to unload a floor-to-ceiling stack of used rulebooks. I just couldn't take it anymore -- all the DM prep time needed to make even one NPC (especially a spellcaster), all the spells, feats, prestige classes, combat rules. Somewhere along the line, 3rd edition ceased to be "my" game -- partly because it felt so bloated with extra material, but also because it's so simulationist. It tries to have a rule for everything. That's great for a lot of play styles, but not for mine. I have a lot of fond memories of 2nd edition, but after going through that old line of books, it became clear that it wasn't what I was looking for either. Sure, it's rules-light and places more emphasis on story and character than any other single version of D&D, but it's also the edition of the game that introduced us to the concept of book-bloat. So some of the same problems that I have with 3e actually began with 2e. This wasn't for me either; at least, not anymore. 1st edition was before my time. I'm not particularly fond of it, but more than that, I realized that I didn't want to play any version of *Advanced* D&D. (And WotC marketing tactics notwithstanding, let's be honest folks: 3e is more "advanced" and rules-heavy than 1e and 2e put together.) I didn't want simulationist; I wanted gamist. Rules that facilitated play at the table over modeling reality, while still leaving room for plenty of story and character. Naturally, that led me to OD&D. Old D&D has a lot of editions as well, even if they're not clearly labeled as such. The 1st edition (brown/white box, with the three little booklets) was definitely not what I was after for a lot of reasons. It's way before my time, it has too much in common with AD&D 1st edition, it's complicated, and kind of incomplete. I often look at the 2nd edition of OD&D (Holmes Basic) the same way. Of the really good versions of the game, there are really only three: Moldovay/Cook Basic/Expert; Frank Mentzer's Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals; and the 1070/Rules Cyclopedia/Wrath of the Immortals version. They're all basically the same game, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of original D&D. The Moldovay/Cook set is nice if you like a game that only goes up to the 14th experience level. I don't, so this one wasn't for me. The Mentzer BECMI game would be great if it were possible to collect all the boxed sets anymore, but that's such a hassle... and a complete game in five boxes is still a bit of a weight to lug around. So really, logically, process of elimination has left us with but one version of the game, and wouldn't you know it, it also happens to be the version that got me into D&D in the first place, since I started playing back in junior high when I played my first game with a friend who DMed using his 1070 boxed set. Now that I have one of those slick 1070 basic set boxes of my own, *and* a Rules Cyclopedia that covers everything you need to play a whole campaign up to 36th level in a single hardcover book, I know that I've found my game. No more lugging stacks of volumes, slogging through piles of rules, or disallowing the newest, shiniest, most unbalanced feats and prestige classes. Just a simple, quick, and astonishingly complete version of D&D with just the right balance between role- and roll-playing. Of course, I've had to come with with some house rules for my setting. The original game has the classes fighter, cleric, mystic, druid, thief, magic-user, elf, dwarf, and halfling. I re-wrote some of the classes here and there to come up with a more flexible system, and the end result was six human classes (warrior, scholar, mage, boxer, expert, and tech) and nine demi-human classes (elf, dwarf, hobbit, gnome, undine, sylph, pixie, faun, and centaur). A few other little tweaks and house-rules here and there (like replacing THAC0 and falling AC with an attack bonus and rising AC, or ditching spell memorization for spontaneous casting), and the game really was starting to become something that I could call mine. But perhaps the most radical change is one that I made most recently, and that is the inclusion of a skill system. You see, I replaced the thief class with an expert class because I wanted a more generic skill based character, but the problem was, the OD&D skill system is a great deal like the 2e non-weapon proficiency system: it's big and unwieldly, but at the same time, it's incomplete because it doesn't even integrate thieving skills. So I had been continuing to use a d20-style skill system, albeit with a much simpler set of rules for skill slots rather than skill points. But one of the great things about OD&D is that it's so simple, you can lift out or patch in whole great-big rules systems (like skills) without impacting other rules much, and just for a lark, I decided to try playing a game using the World of Darkness skill list, lifted right out of Vampire and Hunter, instead of the d20 skill list. Lo and behold, it worked like a charm. I was hooked. (And I love it when game-design breakthroughs happen by accident!) All I took from the White Wolf games was their skill list -- ripped off a character sheet, even, and not out of one of their rulebooks or anything. But it made my game run 100% smoother, since their skill list is much smaller, more succint, and places equal emphasis on knowledge-, athletic-, and social-oriented skills. And I'm still just using the OD&D skill slot system, not White Wolf's dots or ranks or anything -- you either know a skill or you don't. But, man-oh-man, it was one of the best games I'd run in a long, long time! Only three players, a warrior and two experts, but they really, really got into building their characters' skill lists and role-playing the kinds of characters they created! It was *great*! And the best part was, it was still 100% D&D -- completely whiney Anne Rice goth emo vampire free. Roll a d20, whack the orc, earn 15 experience points. And the game's not just in your head -- you have to move your miniature next to that little orc figurine to do it, gosh darn it! :bounce: Old D&D rules. Especially D&D 5th edition! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : RobertFisher Date : 05-23-07 10:04 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Yep. The best version of D&D is the one you make yourself. Yours may be different from mine, & that's OK. For me, Moldvay/Cook/Marsh is the best baseline. You can play as far past 14th level as you want. I prefer rapid improvement to a plateau over stretching things out to 36th level. (Especially since none of my groups has ever made it past about 9th level.) I prefer seeing each class as a really broad skill to trying to codify things like the general skill system. I prefer to treat thief skills as special abilities rather than mundane skills. (i.e. Hiding in Shadows & Moving Silently are different from normal hiding & sneaking.) Any edition of Classic D&D, IMHO, encourages you to make the game your own--& thus the best edition--to a greater extent than 3e...or even AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 05-23-07 10:35 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Maybe it's just because I've been playing so long... I like the 3e, haven't done the 3.5 thing yet. My husband prefers to use the 2e PHB to reference his spells because of the organization. For game mechanics, he prefers 3e because he finds it more straightforward. Rulebooks? I "lug" the PHB and DMG. Anything else I'm going to need is kept either in a small (think little black book) notepad written in my own shorthand, or else on a thumb-drive. (We usually have a computer handy, if not, there's an old laptop in the car.) Oh yeah, and a pocket full of dice becausew we don't trust the computer's randomizers. I don't find 3e rules-heavy at all. What I think they over-emphasize is the prestige classes. I find them pointless. A character whose rogue is going to become an speacialist of any sort is going to craft the character that way through gameplay and doesn't need a bunch of special steps to do it. I keep all of my books handy at home, though, because that's where the heavy-duty stuff rolls around and we invariably have to root through some pretty obscure material for minor details that could make or break an encounter. We just make the real-world search part of the in-game fun. (How much game-time will the enemy need to batter down the door versus how much real-world time it takes the players to find the info, etc.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : mac1dsr Date : 05-24-07 08:49 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I am switching to 3.5 soon after having played 3.0. Before 3.0 it was the OD&D from 1983 to 2000. And my first 3.5 game is going to start in Threshold. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : tankschmidt Date : 05-24-07 10:01 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D The Rules Cyclopedia has got to be one of the best hardcover books ever published by TSR, and it's light-years ahead of anything WoTC has ever put out. It remains a constant source of material for me, especially for things like building strongholds. You might want to take a look at Castles and Crusades by Troll Lord Games. It combines the rules-lite and house-rule-friendliness of older AD&D with the streamlined mechanics of 3.x. If you are looking for something closer to D&D than AD&D, try the Basic Fantasy RPG. The fun of old D&D with (again) a more streamlined mechanic. Both of these games are pretty much instantly compatable with all your pre 3.x material, and the 3.x stuff can be simplified down with little effort as well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Varl Date : 05-24-07 10:35 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I have a lot of fond memories of 2nd edition, but after going through that old line of books, it became clear that it wasn't what I was looking for either. Sure, it's rules-light and places more emphasis on story and character than any other single version of D&D, but it's also the edition of the game that introduced us to the concept of book-bloat. Cool that you've found an edition you like. If everyone did that, there'd be no more edition war threads. There'd only be variant war threads. ;) 2nd edition is where it's at for me. It's the perfect bridge between the simplicity of OD&D and the rules bloat you mention about d20. You're right, however, when you mention that 2nd edition was the start of the official rules-ification of D&D. I just find that its use of the word "optional" is its saving grace, and that there's not many mandatory rules synergies to deal with. I'm quite confident that the entire spectrum of game styles can be ran via 2e, from the ultra-conservative, rules-light campaigns to the rules-heavy, whichever you prefer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : RobertFisher Date : 05-24-07 11:50 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D CI just find that its use of the word "optional" is its saving grace Quite true! From a purely rules stand-point, a 2e with all the options turned off doesn't look so far from my preferred c. 1981 Basic/Expert D&D. I've thought that if I wanted to have race & class separate again, I'd take the PHB.rtf off of my AD&D Core Rules CD, edit out almost everything marked optional, replace the ability score modifiers with the classic D&D ones, & probably add the XP-penalty-instead-of-level-limit-for-demihumans rule from the DMG. Maybe keep the 2e bard & even consider importing the 1e illusionist & druid. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : atlarman Date : 05-25-07 01:22 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D After years and years of playing the 3rd edition of the AD&D game, I just got fed up with all the rules and the number-crunching and the lugging around of a suitcase of tomes and supplements. In one swell foop, I ditched the whole v3.5 product line with one (very heavy) trip to my FLGS to unload a floor-to-ceiling stack of used rulebooks. I just couldn't take it anymore -- all the DM prep time needed to make even one NPC (especially a spellcaster), all the spells, feats, prestige classes, combat rules. Somewhere along the line, 3rd edition ceased to be "my" game -- partly because it felt so bloated with extra material, but also because it's so simulationist. It tries to have a rule for everything. That's great for a lot of play styles, but not for mine. I have a lot of fond memories of 2nd edition, but after going through that old line of books, it became clear that it wasn't what I was looking for either. Sure, it's rules-light and places more emphasis on story and character than any other single version of D&D, but it's also the edition of the game that introduced us to the concept of book-bloat. So some of the same problems that I have with 3e actually began with 2e. This wasn't for me either; at least, not anymore. 1st edition was before my time. I'm not particularly fond of it, but more than that, I realized that I didn't want to play any version of *Advanced* D&D. (And WotC marketing tactics notwithstanding, let's be honest folks: 3e is more "advanced" and rules-heavy than 1e and 2e put together.) I didn't want simulationist; I wanted gamist. Rules that facilitated play at the table over modeling reality, while still leaving room for plenty of story and character. Naturally, that led me to OD&D. Old D&D has a lot of editions as well, even if they're not clearly labeled as such. The 1st edition (brown/white box, with the three little booklets) was definitely not what I was after for a lot of reasons. It's way before my time, it has too much in common with AD&D 1st edition, it's complicated, and kind of incomplete. I often look at the 2nd edition of OD&D (Holmes Basic) the same way. Of the really good versions of the game, there are really only three: Moldovay/Cook Basic/Expert; Frank Mentzer's Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals; and the 1070/Rules Cyclopedia/Wrath of the Immortals version. They're all basically the same game, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of original D&D. The Moldovay/Cook set is nice if you like a game that only goes up to the 14th experience level. I don't, so this one wasn't for me. The Mentzer BECMI game would be great if it were possible to collect all the boxed sets anymore, but that's such a hassle... and a complete game in five boxes is still a bit of a weight to lug around. So really, logically, process of elimination has left us with but one version of the game, and wouldn't you know it, it also happens to be the version that got me into D&D in the first place, since I started playing back in junior high when I played my first game with a friend who DMed using his 1070 boxed set. Now that I have one of those slick 1070 basic set boxes of my own, *and* a Rules Cyclopedia that covers everything you need to play a whole campaign up to 36th level in a single hardcover book, I know that I've found my game. No more lugging stacks of volumes, slogging through piles of rules, or disallowing the newest, shiniest, most unbalanced feats and prestige classes. Just a simple, quick, and astonishingly complete version of D&D with just the right balance between role- and roll-playing. Of course, I've had to come with with some house rules for my setting. The original game has the classes fighter, cleric, mystic, druid, thief, magic-user, elf, dwarf, and halfling. I re-wrote some of the classes here and there to come up with a more flexible system, and the end result was six human classes (warrior, scholar, mage, boxer, expert, and tech) and nine demi-human classes (elf, dwarf, hobbit, gnome, undine, sylph, pixie, faun, and centaur). A few other little tweaks and house-rules here and there (like replacing THAC0 and falling AC with an attack bonus and rising AC, or ditching spell memorization for spontaneous casting), and the game really was starting to become something that I could call mine. But perhaps the most radical change is one that I made most recently, and that is the inclusion of a skill system. You see, I replaced the thief class with an expert class because I wanted a more generic skill based character, but the problem was, the OD&D skill system is a great deal like the 2e non-weapon proficiency system: it's big and unwieldly, but at the same time, it's incomplete because it doesn't even integrate thieving skills. So I had been continuing to use a d20-style skill system, albeit with a much simpler set of rules for skill slots rather than skill points. But one of the great things about OD&D is that it's so simple, you can lift out or patch in whole great-big rules systems (like skills) without impacting other rules much, and just for a lark, I decided to try playing a game using the World of Darkness skill list, lifted right out of Vampire and Hunter, instead of the d20 skill list. Lo and behold, it worked like a charm. I was hooked. (And I love it when game-design breakthroughs happen by accident!) All I took from the White Wolf games was their skill list -- ripped off a character sheet, even, and not out of one of their rulebooks or anything. But it made my game run 100% smoother, since their skill list is much smaller, more succint, and places equal emphasis on knowledge-, athletic-, and social-oriented skills. And I'm still just using the OD&D skill slot system, not White Wolf's dots or ranks or anything -- you either know a skill or you don't. But, man-oh-man, it was one of the best games I'd run in a long, long time! Only three players, a warrior and two experts, but they really, really got into building their characters' skill lists and role-playing the kinds of characters they created! It was *great*! And the best part was, it was still 100% D&D -- completely whiney Anne Rice goth emo vampire free. Roll a d20, whack the orc, earn 15 experience points. And the game's not just in your head -- you have to move your miniature next to that little orc figurine to do it, gosh darn it! :bounce: Old D&D rules. Especially D&D 5th edition! i COULDN'T AGREE MORE... i MISS PAYABILY/CREATIVITY... NOW THEY SEEK balnce THROUGH STRUCTURE NOT COMMON SENSE... WHAT'S REALLY A NIGHTMARE IS WHEN U HAVE A TOTALLY NEW CONCEPT TAKE THE TIME 2 BALANCE IT OUT WITHIN THE RULES ONLY TO HAVE A LATER SUPPLEMENT ATEMPT THE SAME THING AND TOTALLY MESS YOUR MECHANIC UP... & WHEN YOU ASK 4 A CLARIFICATION ON HOW THEY MEANT IT TO WORK 4GET IT! SOMETIME I DO MISS D&D... BUT STILL TRY 2 UNDERSTAND V3.5... GIVE EM TIME IT IS INPROVING (KIND OF) THEY'VE ONLY HAD D&D ABOUT 7 YRS OUT OF 30+ YEARS! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : atlarman Date : 05-25-07 01:37 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D The Rules Cyclopedia has got to be one of the best hardcover books ever published by TSR, and it's light-years ahead of anything WoTC has ever put out. It remains a constant source of material for me, especially for things like building strongholds. You might want to take a look at Castles and Crusades by Troll Lord Games. It combines the rules-lite and house-rule-friendliness of older AD&D with the streamlined mechanics of 3.x. If you are looking for something closer to D&D than AD&D, try the Basic Fantasy RPG. The fun of old D&D with (again) a more streamlined mechanic. Both of these games are pretty much instantly compatable with all your pre 3.x material, and the 3.x stuff can be simplified down with little effort as well. I MISS MY RULES CYCLOPEDIA... SOMETIME I FEEL D&D IS NOT myGAME ANYMORE! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Llwch Date : 05-25-07 04:14 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I MISS MY RULES CYCLOPEDIA... SOMETIME I FEEL D&D IS NOT myGAME ANYMORE! Holy caps, Batman! My eyes are bleeding! :banghead: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 05-25-07 06:28 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D This sounds great, there is no such thing as bad fun in RPGs. I curse the fact that I never laid my hands on my own copy of the Rules Cyclopedia, I always borrowed someone else's copy. I have very fond memories about running D&D with this system - I do remember the streamlined way it dealt with mass combat and how I applied this very successful to a large battle in a 2nd edition Dragonlance campaign. The other thing I liked was that it was a complete game in one book - something that has been sadly lacking in RPGs since then. I'm still looking for a copy on Ebay, but postage is a killer from the States. I'm now considering going the pdf from Paizo option. As for getting rid of the 3.0/3.5 books, the idea has occured to me before. I'm finding the sheer amount of information far exceeds what I'd ever be able to incorporate into a game. It is becoming increasingly difficult to weed out the rubbish. Whilst the same could be said in the last days of 2nd edition, I have already undertaken that process with my collection. I really don't want to have to do it again as it has taken me ten years to reach this point. Enjoy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Llwch Date : 05-25-07 06:51 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D This sounds great, there is no such thing as bad fun in RPGs. I curse the fact that I never laid my hands on my own copy of the Rules Cyclopedia, I always borrowed someone else's copy. I have very fond memories about running D&D with this system - I do remember the streamlined way it dealt with mass combat and how I applied this very successful to a large battle in a 2nd edition Dragonlance campaign. Back in the early 90s, I (rather stupidly) sold my copy of the Rules Cyclopedia. I discovered eBay a while back, but didn't start actually buying stuff until about a year ago. Got my copy of the RC for about $30, with shipping being a reasonable cost on top of that. Eminently worth it, in my opinion. There are others to be found on eBay... Some are going for stupid prices, but a lot are quite reasonable. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-25-07 12:07 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D But one of the great things about OD&D is that it's so simple, you can lift out or patch in whole great-big rules systems (like skills) without impacting other rules much, and just for a lark, I decided to try playing a game using the World of Darkness skill list, lifted right out of Vampire and Hunter, instead of the d20 skill list. Lo and behold, it worked like a charm. I was hooked. (And I love it when game-design breakthroughs happen by accident!) All I took from the White Wolf games was their skill list -- ripped off a character sheet, even, and not out of one of their rulebooks or anything. But it made my game run 100% smoother, since their skill list is much smaller, more succint, and places equal emphasis on knowledge-, athletic-, and social-oriented skills. And I'm still just using the OD&D skill slot system, not White Wolf's dots or ranks or anything -- you either know a skill or you don't. I thought I was the only sick twisted freak that used WoD/Exalted skills! I know what you mean friend, a simple set of skills that cover virtually anything. And yes, I use them with the RC too. I've also used them in a steamlined 3.5 game. Kinda freaked a few people out but so did me dumping about half the core rules and playing off the cuff. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Jack Daniel Date : 05-25-07 04:12 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I thought I was the only sick twisted freak that used WoD/Exalted skills! I know what you mean friend, a simple set of skills that cover virtually anything. And yes, I use them with the RC too. I've also used them in a steamlined 3.5 game. Kinda freaked a few people out but so did me dumping about half the core rules and playing off the cuff. That's just plain frelling awesome. :D Nice to know my friends and I aren't the only ones who don't mind mixing systems! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Tintagel Date : 05-28-07 01:48 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I really don't understand the whole "3.5 is overly complex" thing. The only thing you really need is the SRD. Everything else is optional, and the mechanics are consistent. If I had to list one major complaint about 1st & 2nd ed, it would be inconsistency. Fire resistance sometimes gave 1/2 protection, other times it reduced each die of damage by 1 or 2... Monsters didn't have ability scores, and ogres could hit you for 1 pt (they hit for 1-10 or by weapon) - yet a fighter with gauntlets of ogre power hit for a minimum of 7. 3rd gave consistency to the whole engine. Everything else - all the extra prestige classes, supplements, splatbooks - it's all just optional stuff. Keep it simple - just PHB and DMG, and you will be happy. What's cool about 3rd is that you finally have a bit of framework to make some serious modifications and such. Want a custom class ability of breathing fire, but don't know the DC? Prolly 10+1/2 lvl + ability mod (usually Con for breath weapons). 3.5 has to be my favorite overall, and I've been playing since OD&D. - but I have to wholeheartedly agree that the additional books beyond core 3 are mostly just unneeded fluff. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 05-28-07 07:23 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D To add some fuel to the fire, I've been hearing (from podcasts) and reading on other forums a bit of conspiracy theory - but first check out the basic system for the new D20 Star Wars released in a few weeks (bear with me, it relates to D&D). No skill ranks anymore. Each class has a number of slots (x + int modifier) that are allocated to skills to make them trained. Anyone can attempt any skill check, but there is a bonus to having a trained skill. Next remove all feats from the system that relate to bonuses on skills. The final math is thus: Skill check = (1/2 character level) + Ability Mod + 5 (if a trianed skill) + 5 (if you have Skill Focus - the only skill feat) + 1d20. Second point. No wounds and vitality for life anymore. There are hit points and a threshold rating. When you take enough damage to go over the threshold rating a wound penalty applies (-2, -4, -5 then -10) to all checks. Okay, so what does this have to do with D&D? Scuttlebutt is that Star Wars is used to trial new rules because the SW community are vocal lads about 'their' game. Successful rules (like Action Points) are incorporated into D&D. This year is the 40th Anniversary of GenCon and WotC apparently has something big planned. Speculation names it Fourth Edition. Food for thought; or simply adding to the conspiracy nuts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Tintagel Date : 05-28-07 08:02 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Yep, I read the article on the skills, but nothing else. I kind of like the skill system, because everyone has a certain level of skill at everything. That is, if you are untrained, the check is 1/2 your level + mod. So a 10th level fighter can at least try to jump untrained. I just want to say that I agree about 3.5 having (for some) too many options and supplements, but those are just as optional as all the 2nd Edition class & race handbooks, Player's Option books, castles & crusades book, etc, etc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Jack Daniel Date : 05-28-07 10:29 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D To add some fuel to the fire, I've been hearing (from podcasts) and reading on other forums a bit of conspiracy theory - but first check out the basic system for the new D20 Star Wars released in a few weeks (bear with me, it relates to D&D). No skill ranks anymore. Each class has a number of slots (x + int modifier) that are allocated to skills to make them trained. Anyone can attempt any skill check, but there is a bonus to having a trained skill. Next remove all feats from the system that relate to bonuses on skills. The final math is thus: Skill check = (1/2 character level) + Ability Mod + 5 (if a trianed skill) + 5 (if you have Skill Focus - the only skill feat) + 1d20. Second point. No wounds and vitality for life anymore. There are hit points and a threshold rating. When you take enough damage to go over the threshold rating a wound penalty applies (-2, -4, -5 then -10) to all checks. Okay, so what does this have to do with D&D? Scuttlebutt is that Star Wars is used to trial new rules because the SW community are vocal lads about 'their' game. Successful rules (like Action Points) are incorporated into D&D. This year is the 40th Anniversary of GenCon and WotC apparently has something big planned. Speculation names it Fourth Edition. Food for thought; or simply adding to the conspiracy nuts. Okay, here's the really eerie thing: that's almost exactly how my own take on the skill system works for my OD&D games. I use a system where characters have 4 + Int adj. skill slots (or 10 + Int adj., if you're an Expert) to spend on skills to make them trained. The skill check is 1d20 + ability mod + 6 (if trained) + 1/3 character level (since OD&D goes up to 36th level rather than 20th), and the target of the check is always 18. [As to the reason that 18 is always the DC: in OD&D, a lot of skill-check-like rolls are resolved by rolling 1d6, with the check passing only on a result of natural 1. The closest odds to this when rolling a d20 and aiming high are 18-20, so I made that the baseline needed to pass an un-modified, untrained check for a 0-level human.] I had been using this system with the d20 skill list before; and it works just fine with the WoD skill list too. But the aforementioned eerieness comes from the fact that I cooked it up for my own games only a little bit before they started releasing SWEG previews. Great minds, I guess. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Jack Daniel Date : 05-28-07 10:34 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I really don't understand the whole "3.5 is overly complex" thing. The only thing you really need is the SRD. Everything else is optional, and the mechanics are consistent. If I had to list one major complaint about 1st & 2nd ed, it would be inconsistency. Fire resistance sometimes gave 1/2 protection, other times it reduced each die of damage by 1 or 2... Monsters didn't have ability scores, and ogres could hit you for 1 pt (they hit for 1-10 or by weapon) - yet a fighter with gauntlets of ogre power hit for a minimum of 7. 3rd gave consistency to the whole engine. Everything else - all the extra prestige classes, supplements, splatbooks - it's all just optional stuff. Keep it simple - just PHB and DMG, and you will be happy. What's cool about 3rd is that you finally have a bit of framework to make some serious modifications and such. Want a custom class ability of breathing fire, but don't know the DC? Prolly 10+1/2 lvl + ability mod (usually Con for breath weapons). 3.5 has to be my favorite overall, and I've been playing since OD&D. - but I have to wholeheartedly agree that the additional books beyond core 3 are mostly just unneeded fluff. From my perspective, 3.0 and 3.5 are just more complicated relative to all the versions of OD&D, which are, by comparison, fundamentally incomplete games. 3.0 and 3.5 aren't guidelines -- they're complete, consistent, streamlined gaming engines that absolutely serve to cover every situation in the rules. Which is great, if you want completeness and consistencey and a high page count in your manual(s). OD&D is very incomplete. It is a set of guidelines set forth to teach you how to make your own game to hang on the skeleton it provides. The style just lends itself better to make-it-up-as-you-go rulings. To me, that's much simpler. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Tintagel Date : 05-28-07 11:32 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Very good points, Jack Daniel, and good explanation too. :) I think if I were to go back to OD&D or even AD&D, I would have to bring a few 3.0+ concepts with me, though - like basic consistency of stats & abilities. The fundamentals that I would use (without over complicating things) would have to be ability score mods (all scores have +1 mod per 2 pts above 10) - since this eliminates any need for complicated AD&D tables (percentile strength, anyone?). I would also give monsters stats, so strong monsters are consistent with strong characters. Aside from stats, I would probably implement DCs - 10+1/2 HD or lvl, + abil mod. That's prolly it. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 05-28-07 12:12 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Real quick bit of help for you guys when you're scrambling after old 2e stuff...check Amazon. What I see going for 20 to 50 bucks on eBay I can pick up for about 7 to 12 bucks on Amazon. Search on the title, don't be too picky about condition as long as it's useable, and you can score some sweet deals. I saw the Dark ELf Trilogy for 2 cents a book, 3$ shipping for the set, condition fair. My target is the 2e Drow of the Underdark (unless one of you guys has a spare copy you want to donate...:D). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-28-07 02:38 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D OD&D is very incomplete. It is a set of guidelines set forth to teach you how to make your own game to hang on the skeleton it provides. The style just lends itself better to make-it-up-as-you-go rulings. To me, that's much simpler. Precisely! Look around these boards and you will find threads a dozen pages long arguing over the most minute aspect of 3.5. I'm from a time when the DM (if a reasonably intelligent/mature enough person) was the god of your worthless universe and what the DM said at the table was the golden gospel. All it takes is a vivid imagination, some common sense and simple/flexible game rules, not a DMGII. The rules should never overshadow the purpose of the game. If playing a game is like walking through quicksand, what's the point? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : atlarman Date : 05-29-07 02:46 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D True atlantean said A few posts back that he/she regreted not geting a copy of the RC,hos this for regret...Having and LOSING TWO different copies!!!!(My 1st print copy I got on the very day RC was released,and later GAVE IT 2 my "best friend' when had to leave gaming 4 awhile,only to dicover later HE SOLD IT!!! My second RC was STOLEN years later,in a completely different town) Returning to gaming just 3 years ago,I sadly found that wizards had turned the game I knew WELL & loved on its ear!! Still I sodier on in a game I hardly recognize and now BARELY understand... My best advice to you my friend is get the RC pdf (and the creature catalouge **GREEN COPY** too)go forth,game and be happy... Truly things were much simpler then and sometimes the simplest way is the best!! Will I get rid of 3.5? NO,its taken too long to get what I have now,but the way they organize things now makes me miss the old days...and weep 4 TSR -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : atlarman Date : 05-29-07 02:50 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Precisely! Look around these boards and you will find threads a dozen pages long arguing over the most minute aspect of 3.5. I'm from a time when the DM (if a reasonably intelligent/mature enough person) was the god of your worthless universe and what the DM said at the table was the golden gospel. All it takes is a vivid imagination, some common sense and simple/flexible game rules, not a DMGII. The rules should never overshadow the purpose of the game. If playing a game is like walking through quicksand, what's the point? AMEN!!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : tenacious_kev Date : 05-29-07 03:37 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Thats the good thing about the originals is that what the DM says go's. During a game of 3.5 I had a player that was pretty much cheating because he had the book with all the stats for his class in and I didnt have that book, so he got away with alot of crap he shouldnt of. Another good place to get PDFs is from Ares. Yeah its illegal, but I've got a couple of 3.5 books and AD&D modules of there for free. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Tintagel Date : 05-29-07 08:58 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Warning: Long post I'm having a hard time understanding the problem with 3+. Sure, the "box" is made of iron, and that is a good thing - for players. They have consistent and understandable rules and concepts that apply across the board, like DCs and even AC - which is basically "taking 10" on your defense. What I think some DMs are forgetting is that YOU are still the alpha and the omega. YOU can bend, shape, and cut into that iron box like tin foil. You choose what rules you want to incorporate, and modify them to your heart's content. When I DM'ed 1st and 2nd edition campaigns, sooo long ago, I had a whole notebook of house rules that I had to make in order to bring some sense to the convoluted and often contradictory rules. 1st & 2nd edition had terribly restrictive and unnecessary rules for non-humans, classes, and even things like multi-classing, dual classing, and max-level limitations. Don't even start thinking about weapon type versus armor modifiers. Third Edition, at its core, is about simplifying (yes, simplifying) and streamlining the ruleset that a player has to remember, and getting most of your game under consistent concepts. It's also infinitely easier, in my opinion, to modify and design for while still maintaining a basic level of game balance. Homebrew rules in 1st and 2nd were sometimes insane, and it was harder to ad-hoc abilities or special skills. Now you have feats, and multi-classing allows many players to play the exact kind of character they want without resorting to house rules. Having said all of that, I DO think that 3rd's ease-of-use has attracted more players - and many of the less savory sort. Since the hood of the engine is so transparent (and players know HOW stuff works), they are more likely to fine-tune (min/max) their performance. Also, less mature players are flooding in as the game is so easy to learn now - at least from a numerical standpoint (another problem). That's where we, as DMs, come in. We have a slightly different role in this "new" edition - as guides and arbiters of the game style and atmosphere. This change is not unlike what's happening in education and the work force today. Information and choice is moving to the consumer/student, and the teacher is becoming less of a "sage on stage" and more of a guide and facilitator. You, the DM, have complete control over what goes in your game. Your role in this is more of a designer of the world. Sit your players down, explain the feel of your campaign and where you want it to go. For example, in my 3.5 ToEE (T1-4) campaign, I explained that I wanted an "old-school" feel to the module, and that we would not have any item shops in the world, and that selling items would require role-play and would net variable rates. I also said that most prestige classes would have to be role-played out to join associations, and that players had to run any expansion material by me. Thankfully, most accessory material is arranged in the forms of prestige classes and feats, so the mechanics of that material is easy for me, the DM to determine its impact. Another example: Recently, a player wanted to play a dragon shaman and use the totem that deals damage to attackers. I felt that since we were using the Armor as DR house rule (which means players get hit more for less) and we were fighting lots of shock troops rather than fewer big hitters, this was too strong. Most troops would never swing at a PC after taking 4 damage on their first successful attack (since many have about 8 hp). The method of delivery was a problem, since it would create a roleplaying problem with the bad guys - they just wouldn't attack! So I said No, offered an alternative of a damaging aura each round, and we moved on. In closing, this is still your game, and you are still the FINAL arbiter of what goes on. The game is just much more understandable and transparent now. I simply told my players that certain mobs, like end-bosses, would have abilities that make them ELITE - abilities that PCs don't have (that's why they are the Boss), but balanced for maximum drama and story potential. My players trust me, and I trust them, and we all said, "cool." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Jack Daniel Date : 05-29-07 09:30 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Warning: Long post I'm having a hard time understanding the problem with 3+. Sure, the "box" is made of iron, and that is a good thing - for players. They have consistent and understandable rules and concepts that apply across the board, like DCs and even AC - which is basically "taking 10" on your defense. What I think some DMs are forgetting is that YOU are still the alpha and the omega. YOU can bend, shape, and cut into that iron box like tin foil. You choose what rules you want to incorporate, and modify them to your heart's content. When I DM'ed 1st and 2nd edition campaigns, sooo long ago, I had a whole notebook of house rules that I had to make in order to bring some sense to the convoluted and often contradictory rules. 1st & 2nd edition had terribly restrictive and unnecessary rules for non-humans, classes, and even things like multi-classing, dual classing, and max-level limitations. Don't even start thinking about weapon type versus armor modifiers. Third Edition, at its core, is about simplifying (yes, simplifying) and streamlining the ruleset that a player has to remember, and getting most of your game under consistent concepts. It's also infinitely easier, in my opinion, to modify and design for while still maintaining a basic level of game balance. Homebrew rules in 1st and 2nd were sometimes insane, and it was harder to ad-hoc abilities or special skills. Now you have feats, and multi-classing allows many players to play the exact kind of character they want without resorting to house rules. Having said all of that, I DO think that 3rd's ease-of-use has attracted more players - and many of the less savory sort. Since the hood of the engine is so transparent (and players know HOW stuff works), they are more likely to fine-tune (min/max) their performance. Also, less mature players are flooding in as the game is so easy to learn now - at least from a numerical standpoint (another problem). That's where we, as DMs, come in. We have a slightly different role in this "new" edition - as guides and arbiters of the game style and atmosphere. This change is not unlike what's happening in education and the work force today. Information and choice is moving to the consumer/student, and the teacher is becoming less of a "sage on stage" and more of a guide and facilitator. You, the DM, have complete control over what goes in your game. Your role in this is more of a designer of the world. Sit your players down, explain the feel of your campaign and where you want it to go. For example, in my 3.5 ToEE (T1-4) campaign, I explained that I wanted an "old-school" feel to the module, and that we would not have any item shops in the world, and that selling items would require role-play and would net variable rates. I also said that most prestige classes would have to be role-played out to join associations, and that players had to run any expansion material by me. Thankfully, most accessory material is arranged in the forms of prestige classes and feats, so the mechanics of that material is easy for me, the DM to determine its impact. Another example: Recently, a player wanted to play a dragon shaman and use the totem that deals damage to attackers. I felt that since we were using the Armor as DR house rule (which means players get hit more for less) and we were fighting lots of shock troops rather than fewer big hitters, this was too strong. Most troops would never swing at a PC after taking 4 damage on their first successful attack (since many have about 8 hp). The method of delivery was a problem, since it would create a roleplaying problem with the bad guys - they just wouldn't attack! So I said No, offered an alternative of a damaging aura each round, and we moved on. In closing, this is still your game, and you are still the FINAL arbiter of what goes on. The game is just much more understandable and transparent now. I simply told my players that certain mobs, like end-bosses, would have abilities that make them ELITE - abilities that PCs don't have (that's why they are the Boss), but balanced for maximum drama and story potential. My players trust me, and I trust them, and we all said, "cool." Well first off, the best that I can explain the simplicity/complexity problem RE: v3.5 is that that iron box of yours is pretty immutable. While it is true that AD&D 1e and 2e are very inconsistent and often need a binder-o-house-rules, v3.5 is so fully integrated and streamlined that changing anything has a ripple effect throughout the system. When I was still playing 3e, I didn't have a binder-o-house-rules... I had a book. A literal book, that I had to have printed and bound at a Kino's just to get it to my game table. Now that I think about it, there are actually quite a number of other reasons that 3e stopped being my game. - The aforementioned glut of core material, which players would bring to the table of their own volition. When I finally said, "Hey, enough is enough, I'm the DM, and I don't want to use anything outside of the PHB/DMG/MM!", my players didn't know what to make of such a foreign idea. I made them re-build their characters using core feats and spells only, but I let them keep non-core magic items (since those are supposed to be more unique anyway). Even so, the players were quite miffed that books they had spent money on weren't going to get used in their most heavily-invested campaign anymore. - The fact that I had such a problem bending/altering the rules to fit my setting. When 3.0 first came out, I was extatic because I thought that the new rules were much simpler and more modual than AD&D. I thought that house-rules and lifting out or snapping in whole new rule systems would be a breeze. Now I know that I was just dead wrong. A simple change to one rule, like changing how charging works, dominoes throughout the rest of the combat system and to feats and classes as well. Too much consistency and streamlining can sometimes be a bad thing. - Too much math. When I was DMing 3e, I was cruncing numbers all the time, and it really taxed my ability to run numbers in my head during any given combat. In 3e, a monster can have XdY+Z hit points, and the player characters are always dealing, like 1dXd+Y damage (from strength, magic, feats, and whatever other situational modifiers) where the +Y is so much greater than the die roll that it's the modifier, not the weapon, that matters. Something about that just feels wrong to me. I like how in OD&D, monsters usually just have Xd8 hit points, and modifiers to weapon damage can never exceed +3 from strength and +5 from magic at most. So I also switched back to cut down on the number glut. (And what do you know... without feats and modifiers to worry about, there's less "creative energy" flowing around the table that gets devoted to building powerful characters, and the quality of the roleplaying has improved by 200%. Say what you will, but I honestly belive now that there really is a finite amount of creative energy between the players and the DMs, and you cannot be both a roleplayer and a rollplayer. I can't remember whether it's the Stormwind or Oberoni fallacy that I'm talking about here, but whichever one it is, it's wrong -- yes, Virginia, being a power-gaming min-maxer *does* make you a bad role-player.) RE: the role of the DM, that's part of what I have a problem with. Back when D&D was first invented, it was stressed that the role of the DM was to be above all things, fair. The DM was supposed to be a disinterested referee whose only purpose was to arbitrate the rules so that the players could have fun. And when that was the name of the game, things like plot and story and player-focused characterization just happend on their own. This "feeling" was maintained in the rulebooks throughout the run of OD&D, and up through 2nd edition AD&D (in other words, as long as TSR held the reins). Once WotC took over (this isn't a dig or a jab, just a personal observation), the game became very player focused. It's an admirable marketing strategy, if you want to get lots of books into the hands of players and not just the DM. Players want lots of material, which they "need" to build all the different kinds of characters they want to play. [On a side note, I have been quite litterally ASTOUNDED since switching back to OD&D, how creative my players can be at making unique characters with just six little classes, and no feats, no prestige classes... and most startling of all, no multiclassing! Apparently you don't need complex, "flexible" rules to make whatever sort of character you have in your imagination after all!] Of course, putting that kind of power in the hands of players -- not just character building, but cluing them in to all aspects of the rules (spells, items, even monsters) takes away a lot of the fun for the DM, as well as the mystery and suspense for everyone else. More than that, though, the 3.0 and 3.5 books seem to have been written by a philosophy that says, "You can't put good role-playing in a book, so we're going to focus on rules. Our books have all the crunch -- it's on you guys to provide your own fluff." An admirable sentiment, but it's very flawed. It leaves the books, and thus the game, feeling very soulless compared to, say, a game based on 2e, where much of the book was devoted to flavorful roleplaying advice for players and DMs. In a 3e game, so much time and energy get spent on rules that everything else (read, "the good parts") takes a second seat. Maybe I'm just a lazy DM, but I don't want to have to go through the huge hassle of cooking up new 3e material all the time just to stay one step ahead of my players and then still have to devote time to writing stories and adventuers. I'd rather just use a simple system like OD&D and get right to the goods. And the house-rule document that I'm using now? Four pages, one-sided, and two of those pages are only there to describe my extra character classes. House rules and modular system tweaking are very, *very* easy to deal with in OD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Tintagel Date : 05-29-07 09:57 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Good points all around, especially you, Jack. I guess some of it comes down to play style, players, and such. My players don't mind if I cut out whole sourcebooks for flavor's sake, or make big changes in the way rules work - ripple effects are not that big of an issue for us. You make some very good points, and I can certainly see your perspective, though it doesn't so much fit mine. I'm seriously considering streamlining my game more after reading your views, though. I don't think I will ever go back to OD&D, but I will definitely make my 3E game more "old school" in feel. Thanks for the enlightening discussion. :) Game on! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Varl Date : 05-29-07 06:07 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Perfect post Jack. The thoughts you wrote down are how a lot of OOP fans feel, myself included. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Eatable_Dice Date : 05-29-07 06:41 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I´m making a comeback to 2º ed, which is the best for me, but I had the same problem with skills...although, instead of using WoD skill set, I went for GURPS, and gave extra skill points based on intelligence and untrained check available to everybody. Worked like a charm. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 05-30-07 10:10 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I have to have a good reason for making a skill completely unuseable without training. I base it on my own experiences with lock-picking and piano playing. I got lucky with the lock-picking. I hit the tumblers just right knowing only that there were tumblers to push and make line up. With the piano, it was completely different. I had never sat down at one before to do anything other than smack the keys and make a racket. Then one day I was looking at a baby grand and it was like a switch just turned on. I suddenly knew what keys to hit, which ones would make what sound, etc. It was the strangest experience of my life. It scared me, to tell the truth, it also made me annoyed that I couldn't have suddenly learned how to pick winning lottery numbers, but based on this, I give my characters a chance at either getting lucky with a "trained-only" skill, or on something as mathematically predictable as a piano, picking up the skill as though trained. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-05-07 03:01 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I really don't understand the whole "3.5 is overly complex" thing. The only thing you really need is the SRD. Everything else is optional, and the mechanics are consistent. But the SRD itself is overly complex. It has much, much more than you need. If I had to list one major complaint about 1st & 2nd ed, it would be inconsistency. Fire resistance sometimes gave 1/2 protection, other times it reduced each die of damage by 1 or 2... Monsters didn't have ability scores, and ogres could hit you for 1 pt (they hit for 1-10 or by weapon) - yet a fighter with gauntlets of ogre power hit for a minimum of 7. Such inconsistencies never kept anyone I know from having fun with the game. Rather they enhanced the fun. Making monsters & PCs play by all the same rules unnecessarily complicates things. Having different types of fire resistance act differently adds flavor. After all, in the real world, just because two things are similar doesn't mean they're identical. What's cool about 3rd is that you finally have a bit of framework to make some serious modifications and such. I disagree. The changes I want to make to 3e if I'm going to run it are not easy. e.g. If I retrofit all the spells that I'd rather worked the way they did in previous editions, then I'd have to either change their level or the spells/day progressions for all the casting classes. If I get rid of feats or take away certain feats, then the fighter becomes underpowered, & I have to compensate for that somehow. How do I return the thieves skills to the special ability status they had in previous editions instead of the mundane skills they've become? That's going to take some careful consideration to do in a balanced fashion. There are somethings I like a lot about 3e: Providing consequences instead of limitations. The abstract flanking rule. No pre-declarations of actions in combat. (Though, I have to admit, that once I started using the declaration phase, I began to see how I might like it.) It's a lot easier to import the things I like about 3e into classic D&D than trying to import everything I like about classic D&D into 3e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 06-05-07 03:28 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D It's a lot easier to import the things I like about 3e into classic D&D than trying to import everything I like about classic D&D into 3e. I find it easy to go either way, although I prefer to move things to 3e. I don't find the rules too interlinked to one another, and I still throw out the parts I don't like. My players biggest complaint about 2e was trying to remember whether a low or high roll was successful on something. In everything else, a high number was good. But a high number in AC was bad. So you have to roll over or under the thing's AC? This was a stumbling block for some of them. They love the DCs, and I think they love the Feats just a little too much. I have to get better... For spells, our wizard is disappointed at the 3e spell list. Our ruling on that is that he's free to lift from any RPG spell list he can find. Most translate well into 3e, although we have to do a few on-the-fly rulings from time to time. I would have no problem running or playing in any version of the game. For me, the best version of D&D is the one where afterwards we're all talking about what a great time we had. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-05-07 03:38 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D My players biggest complaint about 2e was trying to remember whether a low or high roll was successful on something. Then congratulations on a very successful game! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Varl Date : 06-05-07 05:45 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D My players biggest complaint about 2e was trying to remember whether a low or high roll was successful on something. But, once you knew, did you ever forget how? Yes, 2nd edition has a lot of oddities like that, but as with Monopoly, once you play it, you always know the game runs clockwise around the board. In everything else, a high number was good. But a high number in AC was bad. So you have to roll over or under the thing's AC? This was a stumbling block for some of them. I can see how that could be. I'm considering using a system, which the players have endorsed btw, which keeps what they need to roll secret from them. That way, they don't metagame dice rolls as much. They just flip them out there and hope they hit, save, succeed, whatever, which if you think about it, is kinda how it should be for the characters. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Optimator Date : 06-12-07 01:06 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I have been playing since AD&D, and I honestly like 3.5 the most. I actually prefer having more rules that are streamlined than fewer rules that are inconsistant and odd. I prefer the structure and I don't find having an abundance of rules intimidating or down-bogging (is that a word?:P It doesn't bog down). I didn't particularly enjoy having so many things just completely up to the DM. Obviously, this comes down to DM skill, but the point still stands. I said this in another thread earlier, but I'll paraphrase: I like knowing just how skilled a character is. No more "You're wearing armor so you can't sneak" or similar fiats. Once again, a DM can obviously adjudicate any factor he deems neccessary for a character's success, but I prefer having a set system to do it in based on personal skill and outside influences (circumstance, items, etc) and less on-the-fly rulings. I don't want to have my characters' success based on the DM's opinion, but how I envision my characters. This is accomplished by allocating skill points as I see fit. Back in the day, my friends and I altered the game to fit our needs and situatons, just like everyone else, but, for some reason, I really prefer using existing WOTC/TSR material. It just leaves out the guess-work and clears up most conflicts. I hope that didn't come off as whining or player-vs-DM mentality, and please consider this all prefaced by a big "IMO". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Hugin Date : 06-12-07 01:42 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D While reading all these various arguements regarding the rules systems, it reminded me of how I viewed AD&D when I first read the books. Up until then I had played only OD&D and loved it. I understood the rules well enough, I just veiwed AD&D as being over-full of unneeded rules and charts. So, my group stayed with OD&D (for about 15 years) using a few elements from advanced that we liked. But the SRD itself is overly complex. It has much, much more than you need. Sounds much the same as what I said regarding AD&D. Need and desire are two different things. Some liked the more than you need and so played advanced while others played basic because that is all they needed. To this we add house rules because even when we have all we need, "enough is never really enough". ;) As for the SRD, I thought it rather concise. Such inconsistencies never kept anyone I know from having fun with the game. Rather they enhanced the fun. Making monsters & PCs play by all the same rules unnecessarily complicates things. Having different types of fire resistance act differently adds flavor. After all, in the real world, just because two things are similar doesn't mean they're identical. So, you find complex fun. That's perfectly fine. I personally like things to be simple, much like what Jack Daniel was talking about. It does confuse me somewhat that you find a system that handles things consistantly, to be complex. But everybody has their own point of view. I disagree. The changes I want to make to 3e if I'm going to run it are not easy. e.g. If I retrofit all the spells that I'd rather worked the way they did in previous editions... I can't help you at all on this other than to say that they are different systems. The easiest way to convert a spell from AD&D to 3E is to alter the spell slightly to fit the spell level of your choice. This is much easier then attempting to alter the entire system around AD&D's magic system (or whatever aspect of whatever system). It's a lot easier to import the things I like about 3e into classic D&D than trying to import everything I like about classic D&D into 3e. I'm just curious as to what you'd like to bring over to 3E. If it's a flavour from OD&D then no problem, but if it is a mechanic, then it needs to be translated. You can't run a PC program on a MAC, but you can find programs with a version for each. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-14-07 02:22 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I'm just curious as to what you'd like to bring over to 3E. If it's a flavour from OD&D then no problem, but if it is a mechanic, then it needs to be translated. You can't run a PC program on a MAC, but you can find programs with a version for each. That's the thing. There are so many things I prefer about classic D&D, I wonder if it is worth trying to list them. But I can try to play along. Race-classes. (Or: Class restrictions by race, different racial special abilities, & a race-based XP penalty for non-humans.) Fewer more general classes. Roughly-doubling of XP/level up to 9th. Flat thereafter. A fixed +X hp past level 9 instead of additional HD. No skills. Thief skills (really special abilities) that are more than the mundane hiding, sneaking, & climbing that everyone can do. No feats. (Actually, I could see having something like feats, but almost none of the d20 feats would be in my system.) Fewer spells/day for all casters. There may not be a single spell for which I do not prefer the classic D&D version over the d20 version. Group initiative. No critical hits. All weapons do 1d6 damage. Simplified (& playtested) monster stats rather than monsters having to be as complex as PCs. ...et cetera... OK. I'm exhausted already. None of these changes are hard, but 100 little changes add up to a head-ache. Plus, all these adaptions of old things to a new context lose the benefit of playtesting. Do any of the changes have unforeseen consequences? Can I just run classic D&D instead? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 06-14-07 02:45 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D All weapons do 1d6? You mean a razor-honed battle axe and a rock do the same damage? I've kept the "group initiative". We just use the highest intiative score and roll against that. "Fewer more general classes", kind confused on this. Fewer general classes or more general classes?:confused: We use the spell lists from all versions of the game that we can lay our hands on. The caster can pick which version to use. I've kept the feats but ditched the prestige classes. My players become such specialists through roleplay and thinking about what they want their PCs to do. This where we follow the number one rule of Dungeons & Dragons: If you don't like a rule, throw it out. (You know, I think it says that in every version of the game except the 3e... Doesn't matter. We've thrown rules out anyway!) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Sylban_Quin Date : 06-17-07 04:07 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D As a DM who runs 2nd Ed exclusively (I have some qualms against 3E) here are some of the things I've changed over the years to the hallowed game: -Adopted and reworked HackMaster's Honor in regards to Ability Scores (utilizing Skills and Powers subabilities). Give each ability (Str, Dex, etc) a percentile roll. When the percent goes above 51, the first subability of the ability increases by one point (Strength:Stamina, Dexterity:Aim, etc.) When the percent goes past 100, the other half improves (Strength:Muscle, Dexterity:Balance, etc.) and the percentile starts over. At each level, a character gets to roll his 'Honor Die' and add the result, in any fashion they like, it to any of his abilities percentiles. This sorta simulates 3E's ability increases in that the average player can raise an ability score in roughly 5 levels. -The above-mentioned Honor system is awarded on a game-by-game basis, and goes up or down depending on how well a player stayed in-character, heroic deeds, using resources, etc. Base score is 10 + their NPC reaction adjustment (Charisma score), and goes up or down rather quickly from game to game. This gives way to the Honor Die, which can be used once-per-game to sway important in-game rolls. Example, if this next attack really has to hit, the player can 'stake his honor on it', rolling it in addition to his to-hit roll. Failure results in a loss of honor, of course, in addition to whatever penalty normally implied. The same mechanic works for saving throws, or can be added to his base scores for NWP checks (a simplified explanation). The Honor Die is a function of a character's relative honor against their relative level, and is anything from a single point to a d20. It uses a chart from the HackMaster Player's Handbook to show this function. The Honor system also integrates the concepts of Dishonor; Great Honor, in which the deities have taken favor/the people see you as a hero; and Too Great Honor, in which the gods see you as potential rivals or 'too big for your britches' and threaten to strike you down. My players LOVE the Honor system. -Reworked the NWP system. It still costs points to take NWPs, and those NWPs are still hard to come by. Intelligence gives a bonus to the number of NWP slots available at creation (Number of languages is now Number of NWP Slots). The chance of success is now 1/2 of their relative ability score, plus whatever skill points they've put into their skill. At each level, the character gets 2 points to put into their NWPs, enabling them to slowly rise over time. Roll your number or lower to succeed. To simulate more difficult tasks, a difficulty die is added to the d20 roll: somewhat challenging tasks add a d4, more complex ones a d6, d8 or even a d10. An impossibly hard task might use a d12 or d20! This replaces 'arbitrary' modifiers or DCs with ranges, giving more to luck and more 'control' to players. They decide their fate. -Damage bonuses for strength-the number of the die indicates the maximum damage bonus for strength. If a 18.00 Strength (+7 damage) fighter uses a dagger (d4), he does +4 damage. He CAN do the full +7, but risks breaking the dagger (save v. crushing blow with a -1 penalty per point above the 'safe max.' This only exception to his rule is when fighting without weapons, in which case 3/4 of all damage is only temporary, but the character's full damage bonus applies. -We use the 'Exceeding Level Limits for Demihuman Characters' thus: a demihuman with a high prime requisite can rise in level based one the chart in the 2nd Ed. DMG. After that point, they must earn twice the experience needed to level; not twice the total, just twice the experience needed. A level 11 fighter (750,000 experience points) needs another 250,000 exp to get to level 12. A demihuman in this case needs another 500,000 instead. -Still mulling over proper fixes to Saving Throws, which seemed arbitrary in 2nd Ed. I actually like the simplified saves of 3E (one of the few things I DO like), Reflex, Willpower, and Fortitude, but don't like arbitrary DCs. Who knows, we might adopt 3E saves, once it gets tweaked a little. -When in doubt, run with it. If the character wants to do something unexpected, let him do it. If a rule comes into question, roll a die and make a decision. Most things we kept, we kept because we liked them and they made sense in our campaign. It may be a little more complex, but it's our baby, and we didn't appreciate it being tossed out in Wizard's bathwater. Long live AD&D 2nd Edition! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-19-07 01:49 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D All weapons do 1d6? You mean a razor-honed battle axe and a rock do the same damage? Yep. You can go into a thing about how a stab wound from a dagger is just as deadly as a stab wound from a two-handed sword... But I don't do that. Because when it comes right down to it, damage & hp in D&D are abstract. They don't really simulate anything. So, if you try to apply logic to it based on analogy to real-life injuries, you're in rocky territory. I like the choice of weapon to be more window-dressing. I prefer a character's skill to count for more than his props. In fact, I really like a good class-based damage house rule: The amount of damage you do depends upon your class. Not that your choice of weapon might have no effect in a game I'm running. Just that those effects may be subtler than damage dice varying by weapon. "Fewer more general classes", kind confused on this. Fewer general classes or more general classes?:confused: Sorry. Two points: (1) More general classes: Paladin & Ranger are too specific for my tastes. I think Cleric or Fighter covers Paladin enough & Fighter or Thief covers Ranger enough. In "modern" terms, I prefer True20 or the 3eUA Generic Classes to the 3ePHB classes. (2) Fewer classes: When classes are more general, you need fewer of them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Hugin Date : 06-19-07 02:51 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D But I don't do that. Because when it comes right down to it, damage & hp in D&D are abstract. They don't really simulate anything. So, if you try to apply logic to it based on analogy to real-life injuries, you're in rocky territory. Is it possible to sort-of agree with you? Damage & hp are certainly abstract concepts for the D&D mechanics to manipulate, but I'd like to think that 'weapon technology' has its own abstract concept for the game mechanics to use. It played such an important role in RW history that I find it hard that it would have nearly no impact in D&D. Armour provides benefits that are processed by the rules system and I think weapons should too. It may not be in the form of hp damage, but should be existent in some way (maybe more effective against armours). Sorry. Two points: (1) More general classes: Paladin & Ranger are too specific for my tastes. I think Cleric or Fighter covers Paladin enough & Fighter or Thief covers Ranger enough. In "modern" terms, I prefer True20 or the 3eUA Generic Classes to the 3ePHB classes. (2) Fewer classes: When classes are more general, you need fewer of them. I have to say that I have the same feelings about this. That's probably why I allow only core classes IMC, and no Prestige Classes. Even then there are more than enough. All these other options that continually pop up could have been achieved using other methods like feats or ability swapping. When in doubt, run with it. If the character wants to do something unexpected, let him do it. If a rule comes into question, roll a die and make a decision. I've read somewhere (might have been a 3E book, not sure) that "nothing is impossible, it is just a matter of difficulty" (or something to that effect). In other words, don't say no to a player, just determine how difficult it is and what the consequences/results can be. This notion has been a long-time tenet of D&D, or at least my D&D games. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 06-19-07 03:01 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D When it comes to damage and differences in weapons, I have to go off my own RW experience. Having a rock bounce off of your head in no way compares to the damage done by a knife in the arm. Been there! That's why I don't see damage as abstract. If it works for you, though, go for it. I refuse to try to tell you how to run your game. I don't use the prestige classes, either. A player who wants his rogue to become an assassin or a Dread Commando will start building his skills and feats in the appropriate direction and will become good at what he does through roleplay without having to sacrifice levels and benefits from his chosen class. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Extempus Date : 06-19-07 04:46 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I'm not familiar with 3.5e (once I saw how quickly 3.5e replaced 3e and how much more $$$ they wanted for their books, I refused to learn about it), but it occurs to me (and I may be wrong) that prestige classes are really the same thing as the 2e kits for the various major classes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Tintagel Date : 06-19-07 05:01 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Not the same. Prestige classes are usually open for many different classes to qualify for. Also, prestige classes usually involve abilities not found in other classes and more narrowly focus on one aspect. Kits were slight modifications of regular classes, not new classes in themselves that you had to qualify for. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : havard Date : 06-19-07 05:32 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Not the same. Prestige classes are usually open for many different classes to qualify for. Also, prestige classes usually involve abilities not found in other classes and more narrowly focus on one aspect. Kits were slight modifications of regular classes, not new classes in themselves that you had to qualify for. Some kits were open for more than one class and you had to qualify for them, but otherwise I guess you are right. Prestige Classes may be seen as a concept derived from Kits and from the High level options of Classic D&D (Paladin, Avenger etc). Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Extempus Date : 06-19-07 09:20 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D From what little I read about them, yes, I knew they were open to any class, but they don't seem all that conceptually different than the 2e kits to me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : Tintagel Date : 06-19-07 10:35 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Some, like Mystic theurge, are wildly different than any 2E class kit they ever dreamed of. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/mysticTheurge.htm -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : tankschmidt Date : 06-20-07 09:37 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D From what little I read about them, yes, I knew they were open to any class, but they don't seem all that conceptually different than the 2e kits to me. That was my impression too, when I first played in a 3x game; I guess it was explained to me that way. In reality it seems that prestige classes allow for players to get new "moves" or "tricks" that they feel distinguish them from stock fighters, magic users, etc. Kits - in my eyes, anyway - were more like subsets of a particular class, and while they often granted new abilities, these were more flavor-oriented than ability-oriented. That's why 3x players often dip into several prestige classes for abilities, while taking more than one kit in 2nd edition was unheard of. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : Hugin Date : 06-20-07 10:17 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D That's why 3x players often dip into several prestige classes for abilities, while taking more than one kit in 2nd edition was unheard of. That's why I disallow prestige classes, and usually even multiclassing. While I don't mind the concept itself, I abhor the idea of 'dipping' into classes for benefits. I would only allow PrCs that are setting-embedded and are committed to by the player. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-20-07 10:26 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Is it possible to sort-of agree with you? Certainly! Damage & hp are certainly abstract concepts for the D&D mechanics to manipulate, but I'd like to think that 'weapon technology' has its own abstract concept for the game mechanics to use. It played such an important role in RW history that I find it hard that it would have nearly no impact in D&D. Armour provides benefits that are processed by the rules system and I think weapons should too. It may not be in the form of hp damage, but should be existent in some way (maybe more effective against armours). 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. & perhaps where I like the link between the game world & the worlds of myth, literature, & film to be stronger. &, like I said, the choice of weapon may indeed have an impact in games I run. It will just be more subtle. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Bolithio Date : 06-27-07 01:27 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I think ,eh-hem, that D&D, and AD&D should not be compared to 3ED&D. Simply because "third edition" is very misleading. In the previous "editions", the game concept remains consistent throughout the versions, and the actual mechanics stay relatively static as well (especially considering AD&D). Third edition on the other hand, while the concept is the same, it is a completely different rule system; with different language and terms, class development, experience progression, magic system, even just the fact that its d20. So - 3rd stands out on its own - because when you think about it, it is not really a new "version" of D&D - it is a different Game. I think thats why there are people who like the D20 system, and the new faster leveling mechanics of 3E - while holdouts prefer the system they have always played. [my group who still players 2E, all prefer to play the D&D we know, because why learn a whole new rule system for a game we already play, when there are so many other games out there!?] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : havard Date : 06-27-07 06:03 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D So - 3rd stands out on its own - because when you think about it, it is not really a new "version" of D&D - it is a different Game. I think thats why there are people who like the D20 system, and the new faster leveling mechanics of 3E - while holdouts prefer the system they have always played. [my group who still players 2E, all prefer to play the D&D we know, because why learn a whole new rule system for a game we already play, when there are so many other games out there!?] I disagree. Certainly there were big changes. Definately the biggest leap from one edition to the next was between 2e and 3.0. However, the difference between the 1978 OD&D and AD&D2e+Players Options is probably even greater. The biggest change is that AC goes up from 10 rather than down and the fact that the skill system and saving throws now also use the same mechanic. Compared to other RPGS these are minor changes. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-27-07 08:37 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D So - 3rd stands out on its own - because when you think about it, it is not really a new "version" of D&D - it is a different Game. I agree, but I'm tired of that debate. (^_^) & I don't think that invalidates comparisons. I find comparisons between D&D, Rolemaster, Gurps, BRP, d20, &c., &c. worthwhile. A lot more worthwhile than the "Is 3e a different game?" debate. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : protonik Date : 07-01-07 03:02 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I just find that its use of the word "optional" is its saving grace, and that there's not many mandatory rules synergies to deal with. yeah but were any of the AD&D2 rules really optional on an official level? Straight from the core book was sorta cool but the fact remains that supplements etc assumed you used all the "optional" rules like specialist priests and NWPs etc. I like calling them the "optional-nonoptional rules" personally if you wanted to follow a game line. The saving grace of 3e is that they try not to reference to other sourcebooks all that often and provide sidebars to replace certain things or to explain rules that they used from older sourcebooks such as vile damage etc. and also provide non-psionic versions of monsters that are just as effective as the psionic version, unlike 2e or 1e. Characters straight from the core rules in this way remain viable, unlike in 2e when if you ran a module it would include psionic monsters (requiring you to buy the OPTIONAL Psionics Handbook) etc. I can't really say which edition I prefer though because by the CORE books alone there isn't a lot of difference in 1e and 2e except for some changes to classes that in some cases improve the class (thieves) or eliminate them (Monk and Assassin). I had an irrational dislike of 2e for years though we used a 2e DMG. I still stand by the nonoptional comment though. LOL. I'll play just about any edition but Basic. I used to stand up for C&C but now that I look on it, it is a decent system just not for me. If I had my druthers I'd be doing a 1e campaign right now. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : soulwalker Date : 07-01-07 07:23 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I started back in 1978 and I must admit I do like the old system but what the original D&D taught us was that all these rules are guide lines and that the DMs word stands. I like 3.5 for it's game system only. I do not like all the prestige classes. They take to much away from the system and it becomes more about the class and no the story line. Some of the funnest times we have had as a group is role playing in town about buying items or meeting interesting characters. I am looking at starting up my own campaign again and I will not allow prestige classes. I want the emphasis to beon RP not power gaming. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : Hugin Date : 07-02-07 10:14 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D I am looking at starting up my own campaign again and I will not allow prestige classes. I completely understand. I don't allow prestige classes either and multiclassing is generally discouraged and kept to two classes max. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 07-02-07 10:27 AM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Most of my players keep it in one class, except for the uber-Wizard who has picked up a little of various classes simply as a matter of course in his lengthy adventuring career. This player's "lesser" characters are all single class. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : protonik Date : 07-02-07 01:08 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D Rather than eliminating prestige classes think more about limiting sourcebooks. I have done that for a couple years now, core book plus ONE supplement for characters and I only use monster books. Worked wonders on my 3e related migraines. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Wiseblood Date : 07-02-07 01:17 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D -Still mulling over proper fixes to Saving Throws, which seemed arbitrary in 2nd Ed. I actually like the simplified saves of 3E (one of the few things I DO like), Reflex, Willpower, and Fortitude, but don't like arbitrary DCs. Who knows, we might adopt 3E saves, once it gets tweaked a little. -When in doubt, run with it. If the character wants to do something unexpected, let him do it. If a rule comes into question, roll a die and make a decision. Most things we kept, we kept because we liked them and they made sense in our campaign. It may be a little more complex, but it's our baby, and we didn't appreciate it being tossed out in Wizard's bathwater. Long live AD&D 2nd Edition! Allow me to add something here about saves in 3e. They are easier to remember. But 9 times out of 10 they get meta-gamed. Hey that guy's kinda brutish I bet his will save sucks. O.o I must say I prefer arbitrary. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : Shiftkitty Date : 07-02-07 03:37 PM Thread Title : Re: The Best Version of D&D If you feel like putting in a little extra work, take one or two monsters out of every encounter and tweak the saves around. Vary them by 1d4 to account for individuality. Let your party meet a brute that doesn't go down so easy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.