* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : D20 vs Older Ed D&D and AD&D (nostalgic look at my own D&D experience) Started at 08-30-03 05:00 AM by Unknowable Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=90882 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Unknowable Date : 08-30-03 05:00 AM Thread Title : D20 vs Older Ed D&D and AD&D (nostalgic look at my own D&D experience) I first started playing D&D back in 1987. I was about 13 and 14 then. My first exposure to RPGs was through the TSR game called "Star Frontiers." When I was 12, a guy who played that moved across the street from me and introduced it to me. I enjoyed it and it peaked my interest in D&D because there was a small little sign on the box that said something like "From the makers of Dungeons and Dragons." I was able to buy SF without any problems but when I mentioned to my parents that I was interested in D&D, they said something about it messed people up and said no. Around that time a video game called Gauntlet came out. I had a lot of fun with it but I didn't have an infinite amount of money to blow on video games. Also, I thought SF was cool because it allowed you to come up with your own ending (also, you could fudge the dice rolls and always win. *L*) So the way I worked around it was I used to rules for Star Frontiers as a base and a freind and I designed a medieval battle game borrowing from Gauntlet and a variety of Sword and sorcery type movies. We then got a couple of other people (who were also into the Gauntlet game) involved and almost everyday after school we'd get together for a couple of hours and play. This particular game we game up with was a hack and slasher player's paradise. About midway through the summer, my parents kind of figured out that I had made homemade D&D. But since I had suffered no ill effects from it, they broke down and let me buy it. Buy the end of the summer we'd all bought the red basic box set and most of us had all the rest of the Box sets too (Basic through masters. I don't think the Immortal Rules had come out yet). We then took turns DMing throughout the rest of the school year but by the end of 1987, for some reasons that I don't remember, I had taken over as DM exclusively. About that time, we all started getting bored with the Hack and Slash munchkin style of play and gradually our games become more focused on story. Over the course of that I year I became increasingly interested in AD&D just because of the sheer volume of material released and Early in 1989 I bought a 1ed AD&D PHB, DMG, MM, and Forgotten Realms grey campaign box set and Started DMing a FR campaign. Of course I probably would have waited a bit longer had I known that AD&D 2ed was coming out the next year. 2nd Ed came out and I converted and DMed games off and on until about 1996 when I dropped the hobbie all together. But in the early 90's I bought and read as much material as I could. I somehow even managed to get a hold of some very old D&D stuff. For example I own a book from the second printing of original D&D. I stopped playing in about 1996 for a number of reasons. One was because in that time, at least where I lived it was majorly considered to be a geek thing and everytime I would attempt to either host a game or join someone elses game, I was largely unable to find anyone who wasn't either a serious creep or a total social misfit. Another reason was because the dark elf trilogy was very big at that time and I would always have at least three people wanting to be drow elves. Also everyone knew so much about the forgotten realms that either you couldn't keep ahead of the players (half of them owned and had read all the material out there and so knew everything about the world.) I tried working around this last problem by using a highly modified version but then people would complain because it wasn't standard FR. In frustration I quit DMing and after a little time, quit playing too. In 2000, I started noticing that D&D was 'back' and wasn't a geek thing anymore, at least not as bad as it was in the 90's, so I started back as a player and eventually started DMing again. Almost immediately after I started back into the hobbie, I got the 3ed stuff because it was necessary. Everyone else had already converted so it was 3ed or nothing. So I am familiar with D&D and AD&D in all it's various forms, versions, printings, and editions. I have lost some of my older books through the years and am in the process of trying to replace them but mostly for the sake of nolstalgia. In my own opinion, the D20 is by far the best system to date and in almost everyway 3ed D&D is vastly superior to earlier editions of either D&D and AD&D. I do agree with most posters that 1st ed was better than second edition in the sense that it wasn't any where near the mess that 2nd ed was. But it was far from perfect and had a whole lot of holes and gaps in it. Every single 1ed DM I've ever played with has a long list of house rules and every single one of those lists are different. 3ed fixed all that. If you are playing a 1ed game, I'm buy no means saying you should stop. Stick with what ever keeps you happy. But to newbies, I would stay stick with 3ed. If you are just finding and just learning the game, go with 3ed. 1ed had it's points and the artwork in 2ed PHB and DMG was much better (3ed art is atrocious IMHO) but both had messy systems with a ton of holes in it. 3ed takes the best out of 1ed and 2ed AD&D and Basic D&D and combines them into a system that is vastly superior to anything in the past. Many veteran gamers complain that 3ed is missing the feel of 1ed or 2ed. This is true but only if you have already played 1 or 2 edition already. A lot of that 'feel' is about the mystery in discovering the game for the first time. If 3ed is the first you have ever played of D&D, you will find the feel of the game there. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Malaki, Cabal Necromancer Date : 08-30-03 09:22 AM I don't know if I would be considered a vet because I'm only 16, but I started 2nd Edition when I was 10, and I would have to say that 3E doesn't have the feel of 2E (never played 1E). I have a play group of 4 people (including me) who I introduced to 2E around a year ago and they love it. Their reaction was equal to people's reactions of the 8th Edition Magic card faces, but unlike the 8th edition face change, they never got over 3E, and 3.5E just ****** them off. I admit, I don't really care about change, and I haven't read all of the 3E or 3.5E, but I just don't have the money to spend on it or the time to convert rules. So for now I'll just stick with 2E, play whatever floats your boat. If you like it and your players like it, then stick with it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Unknowable Date : 08-30-03 10:03 AM Necromancer I don't know if I would be considered a vet because I'm only 16, but I started 2nd Edition when I was 10, and I would have to say that 3E doesn't have the feel of 2E (never played 1E). If you started on 2nd Edition, then 3rd edition will not have the feel of discovering D&D for the first time. Their reaction was equal to people's reactions of the 8th Edition Magic card faces, but unlike the 8th edition face change, they never got over 3E, and 3.5E just ****** them off. Never played magic and I have no idea what you are talking about. I admit, I don't really care about change, and I haven't read all of the 3E or 3.5E, but I just don't have the money to spend on it or the time to convert rules. The combat system for 3ed is vastly superior than any D&D previous edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 08-30-03 03:13 PM I have to say outside of a few things I really like 3e-3.$ was not that spectacular. The combat system for one was not an improvement. Too many actions to memorize too many modifiers...I liked 1e-2e's combat better one action per turn thats it no miatures needed (optionally they rock for forming the party) . Yes there were always exceptions to those rules but 3e and especially 3.$ assumes the use of minis and base comabt off of them. Not a very good idea. I liked 2e's initative better but I like the 3e saves and bab's. I also like not having thac0 or hit tables, not that they were bad ( i liked them mostly) sometimes it was just a headache to calculate ( especially 27 hour into a weekend marathon game). CR I could do without. I just got a 2e monsterous compendium and may use those xp bonuses instead. Dr in either 3e or 3.$ sucks so I have come up with my own rules on it. Spells were ok but I prefer 2e's more than 3e's. Oh well enough of my rant. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Algolei Date : 08-31-03 05:39 AM Thread Title : Re: D20 vs Older Ed D&D and AD&D (nostalgic look at my own D&D experience) Originally posted by Unknowable 1ed had it's points and the artwork in 2ed PHB and DMG was much better.... 1st Edition had some of the best art evar! The thing about 3E (and 3.5) that I dislike the most is the 5' squares. Everything's done in 5' squares! I haven't found any rules in it yet that would accomodate two spearmen in a 6'-wide passageway holding off a horde of orcs (a favourite memory of mine from 1st edition). The combat system seems too pigeon-holed to me: If you don't fit in one 5'x5' section, you take up 4 of them. NNNGUH! I've heard of sudden weight gain, but wow! Really. The 5' squares have gotta go! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 08-31-03 09:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Re: D20 vs Older Ed D&D and AD&D (nostalgic look at my own D&D experience) Originally posted by Algolei Really. The 5' squares have gotta go! I agree. Generally speaking the combat system in Third Edition is a good one, but rules that defy sense and hamper actions one could logically expect to take (such as the spearmen in a corridor) in order to better facilitate the use of miniatures will be promptly ignored in my games, thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Unknowable Date : 08-31-03 10:05 AM The reason I say that third edition combat is the best so far is because it is not counter intuitive and very easy to learn. In previous editions, it always took me at least a couple of sessions to teach new players the rules. Now, one combat round and they've got it. The combat isn't based on minis so much as on the position of the combatants in relation to each other. It does require you to keep track of all combatants even more so than previous rules but I feel that is a boon, not a bust. I think its always a good idea to use minis of some kind regardless because it clears up a lot of confusion. And it's easy. If you dont' want to spend any money on it, you can just use those small plastic army men. You can buy a pack of them in most grocery stores for about a dollar in the USA. My minis for my campaign started with using two bags of plastic army men (one green, one tan) and a lamenated grid. The combat runs smoother now that it has ever run, by a long shot. In previous editions, I was contantly having to refer to my DM screen. The first time I DMed with 3ed I was a little nervous because I had been unable to find a 3ed DM's screen. Come to find out that I didn't need it at all. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 08-31-03 10:36 AM still don't see how 2e's combat was so hard. Annouce what your going to do roll initiative resolve actions in initiative order one action per pc per round GEE i can see where it gets complicated I'm glad wotc fixed that I would have never understood it....(wanders off muttering about noobs) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : rwbm1 Date : 08-31-03 07:31 PM I started playing AD&D when I was about 8 and I started with 2ED. I played for years, eventually stoping in 00' because the group just couldn't pull off playing every weekend. Although this may sound strange, I played with 30 year old couples, and despite my younger age I thoroughly enjoyed every moment. Now years later I am taking a stab at DMing myself with a couple of noob friends as PCs. I have mostly 2ED books and decided I'd need a couple more in order to DM well. So my friend and I go to the local Borders to pick up whatever I could find that may assist me. Now I must say this to all vet AD&D players, what the hell was WOTC thinking? I was appalled at what I found inside of these books. I read them and felt like every modifier and stat has been raped of its value. Tables of numbers and percentages have been reduced to virtually nothing. Suddenly 5 or 6 different values (hit prob., damage adj., weight allow., etc.) all erradicated. I feel like AD&D have been simplified to the point where it isn't the same game anymore. It now takes on a feel similar to that of a video game where a stat is a stat and that is where the line is drawn. For any Magic players its like 3.5ED is the "Portal" of AD&D. I feel that the "difficulty" (as some may refer to it) of 2ED called to the more intelligent people of the world and they added to the game in their own, unique quirks. I like to think of myself as open-mided and accepting to change, however I will never use this 3.5ED crap and will teach my noob friends the old school AD&D, the way it should be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 08-31-03 07:54 PM rwbm1, I knew I liked you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Malaki, Cabal Necromancer Date : 08-31-03 10:16 PM Originally posted by rwbm1 It now takes on a feel similar to that of a video game where a stat is a stat and that is where the line is drawn. For any Magic players its like 3.5ED is the "Portal" of AD&D. I feel that the "difficulty" (as some may refer to it) of 2ED called to the more intelligent people of the world and they added to the game in their own, unique quirks. I like to think of myself as open-mided and accepting to change, however I will never use this 3.5ED crap and will teach my noob friends the old school AD&D, the way it should be. Why is there no thumbs up smilie? So for now I will have to use: :bow: I did think of it as the portal of ad&d, lol -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Unknowable Date : 08-31-03 11:23 PM For any Magic players its like 3.5ED is the "Portal" of AD&D. I feel that the "difficulty" (as some may refer to it) of 2ED called to the more intelligent people of the world and they added to the game in their own, unique quirks. Saying that it is calling to the more intelligent players is just snobbery and has no basis in reality. If a system is encumbersome, it doesn't necessarily meant that the people that use it are more intelligent, just that the system is more encumbersome. More complex does not always equal better. Yes, they did simplify and streamline 3ed but that is good things, especially if it brings more players to the game. It allows access to people that otherwise would have never taken the time to learn to play. People choose not to play for a variety of reasons, one of the biggest being time restraints. If the mechanics are overly complicated, it often times doesn't allow a person to get into the spirit of it immediately. With the release of 3ed, D&D went from being a geek thing into being just another hobbie. It's not just for nerds who can't cant get dates anymore. Of course that's not just because 3ed is more streamlined, but also because WotC has marketed it worlds better than TSR ever did. I really don't understand why anyone would want to go back to the mentality of "It's a game for us smart people" if you play and "it's a game for nerds" if you don't play. The current system and enviroment does not keep us veterans, or geeks as some used to like to call us, from playing and doing what ever we want with it. It just doesn't alienate the more mainstream crowd anymore. To put all pretensions of our intellectual superiority asside for a moment, I don't like being thought of as a nerd or a creep just because I play D&D. I don't like being thought of as a nerd or a geek for any reason. There are plenty of people that are every bit as smart and intellectually capable as the geeks and nerds but didn't play because of the stigma surrounding the game. I didn't mind the stigma so much as that right before TSR went belly up, almost every one that played the game (at least in my neck of the woods) fit the stereo types. I don't mind people like that playing. I don't mind anyone playing. I think the more the merrier. It's just that I don't particular like hanging out with people that are full of prentensions about there own intellectual superiority yet cant get a date. If you like 2ed better, play it and more power to you. I am glad you are having fun. After all, that is what the game is there for. I still have a lot of my 2ed stuff and I am still working on buying what I don't have just because I enjoy collecting and having the stuff. And I still use stuff out of 2ed. I want to make it clear that I am not bashing or dogging anyone still playing 1st or 2nd edition. What I am totally against is going back to the elitest mentality where everyone that plays thinks they are so much smarter than everyone else and everyone that doesn't play thinks that do are a bunch of creeps and weirdos. That said, because of many of the changes of 3ed, I am able to spend a lot more time developing story lines, and a lot less time on working out the mechanincs. That is another thing I like about 3ed. It is much easier to improvise a game session with. I dont have just bunches of time to sit around preparing for adventures and so I welcome rules that are simple enough that allows you to improvise an adventure on the spot if time doesn't allow for you to plan one that particular week. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-01-03 01:03 AM ^ havin a hard time with this one....Do I beat him with the :turkey: or not? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : rwbm1 Date : 09-01-03 03:18 AM Well then I guess I am just an elitist AD&D snob. However, I wasn't saying that, just because someone doesn't immediately catch on to the intricate world of AD&D means that they are forever banned from a secret society of geeks and dorks. What I was trying to say is that complexity attracts people who would play the game to its fullest and what I feel is the way it was meant to be played (which is more than just another hack and slash). AD&D can very easily become a pure hack and slash game. This happens when unimaginative warmongers begin playing for the game's simplicity and then just take everything that is unique about the game and throw it out the window. I know hack and slash may be a fun way of playing, but is that really the intention of the game? And so by simplifying we entice these warmongers to play and the very name of AD&D is labeled as a hack and slash, kill everyone, leave no survivors game. What WOTC did is a travesty! Also, quantum physics is a complex and complicated subject and would be considered cumbersome to most. High school algebra is also believed to be a daunting task for some, perhaps even cumbersome. If an individual comprehends the convoluted study of quantum physics and another person has mastered the mannerisms of algebra, but cannot understand a lick of quantum physics, then who is the smarter? I'm sure from my post you can gather what my answer would be and I believe you will have the same. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Aasimar Date : 09-01-03 06:16 AM Hey unknowable, your story resembles my own, very much. The time frame is about the same. I also started on Star Frontiers (among others) around '87. I also went throught the video games like gauntlet. I had the FR problems, but solved them by playing Greyhawk. I also stopped around '96 and returned around 2001. And to the rwbm 1: First of all, I remember a lot of hack and slash players in the AD&D generation. I see no change in that due to 3e or 3.5e. I do agree that it is easier to fall into a 'video game' style with 3e. But if played right, with the right DM and the right players, I think the system is superior and more versatile, compared to earlier editions. I mean, I will always have the fondest memories of AD&D (mostly nostalgia) but if I had to start playing it again, I would feel very restricted. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Algolei Date : 09-01-03 06:47 AM I agree with Unknowable that the combat system is better, in that it allows for more complexity than just attacking and/or taking damage. In fact, I wish there was more complexity to it, to allow for more. And I agree with rwbm1's point about the simplification of ability scores. That was one of my biggest peeves about 3.0 when it first came out, and basically why I never fully converted over to it. I yearned for better rules than the "a stat is a stat" format 3rd edition had embraced. Your edition of choice isn't based on intelligence, either. Some of the "stupidest" people I've ever known (:rolleyes: Hello! Potkettleblack!) have been some of the best players. (That's in 1st and 2nd edition, anyway--I've never met any stupid players in 3rd edition, but then, I haven't been looking.) For me, 3E introduced a few things I wanted in my games: Evening out the stats so you didn't need a 15 (or 16!) to get a bonus; Giving monsters stats.Unfortunately, 3E lost too much of what I loved about the game. So I've had to take those 3E ideas I like and convert them backward. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-01-03 09:28 AM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes ^ havin a hard time with this one....Do I beat him with the :turkey: or not? Why don't you try countering his arguments with an intelligen-- Oh. Nevermind. Carry on doing whatever it is that you do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Unknowable Date : 09-01-03 09:29 AM Well then I guess I am just an elitist AD&D snob. However, I wasn't saying that, just because someone doesn't immediately catch on to the intricate world of AD&D means that they are forever banned from a secret society of geeks and dorks. It is not about not allowing someone in your group because they didn't quite get the rules down at first. If someone doesn't know all the rules, I don't bar them from my games so long as they are making some effort to learn the rules. What it is that some people might give up fairly early on and not come back if they don't believe that the return of having fun with the game will be worth the effort involved in learning the rules. If someone believes that it is not worth the trouble, you should not look down on them as being beneath you intellectually or any other way. Likewise you might not know all the rules involved in playing football. That does not mean that people that watch football are smarter than you, it just means that you didn't believe that going through the trouble of learning the rules would be worth the trouble. On the other hand, if the rules are easier to learn and use, then it gives a person more of an opertunity to have fun with the game and get the feel of the game a little before they decide whether or not it's worth the effort. What I was trying to say is that complexity attracts people who would play the game to its fullest and what I feel is the way it was meant to be played (which is more than just another hack and slash). Originally D&D sprang out up out of war gaming so in its very earliest incarnation it WAS simply for hack and slash. But that asside, the way that it is meant to be played is what ever way brings the player the greatest amount of enjoyment. The complexity of one system verses another has nothing to do with who is attracted to it. If a person likes role playing, they will use what ever system works the best for the game they want to run. If a person like a certain world, they might use one system because it is the only one available. AD&D can very easily become a pure hack and slash game. And there is nothing wrong with that. If that is what someone wants to do and they have fun with it, then the game is serving it's purpose. This happens when unimaginative warmongers begin playing for the game's simplicity and then just take everything that is unique about the game and throw it out the window. I know hack and slash may be a fun way of playing, but is that really the intention of the game? If that is what a person enjoys, then YES, it is. The purpose of any game is for the people playing it to have fun. If that is what brings someone the greatest amount of enjoyment, then the purpose of the game is in fact hack and slash. And so by simplifying we entice these warmongers to play and the very name of AD&D is labeled as a hack and slash, kill everyone, leave no survivors game. What WOTC did is a travesty! There were just as many Hack and Slashers in AD&D as there are now with 3ed D&D. Almost everyone who plays, regardless of edition, started with hack and slash and later graduated to more story oriented style playing. The reason you don't see too many AD&D hack and slash players now is because most people that are still playing AD&D already went through their hack and slash phase. Since most new players are going to start with 3ed, then most of your current hack and slash players are going to be 3ed players. It has nothing to do with the complexity of AD&D vs D&D 3ed. Actually I see 3ed as probably reducing the amount of hack and slash gaming going on in the long run. One of the reasons so many people start off hacking and slashing is because that's the best and easiest way to learn the combat mechanics. You learn by doing. The sooner you have the mechanics committing to memory, the sooner you get bored with that and graduate to more advanced styles of gaming. By making the hack and slash simpler, the players graduate on to more role playing oriented gaming quicker. So what Wizards of the Coast has done is effectively made it much simpler for people to become the kinds of gamers that use the game to it's full extent. Also, quantum physics is a complex and complicated subject and would be considered cumbersome to most. High school algebra is also believed to be a daunting task for some, perhaps even cumbersome. If an individual comprehends the convoluted study of quantum physics and another person has mastered the mannerisms of algebra, but cannot understand a lick of quantum physics, then who is the smarter? There is no way of saying which person is smarter because you have not included enough information about either person. If one person understands quantum physics and another person does not, then that means that one person has either been trained in it or has studied it themselves while the other person might not have. A person might be the smartest person in the world but if they have not studied quantum physics, they are not going to know a thing about it. Also a person can study algebra in high school and then in college pursue studies in History. A history degree doesn't require taking quantum physics so the history major will probably not have the time to study a field that is so specialized but outside of his major. Also some people have a knack for languages or art or music but are terrible at math and physics while other people excel at mathematics but do poorly in other areas. That does not mean that one person is any smarter or dumber than any other person. Human intelligence is way too complex to be judged according to whether or not a person chooses to study a highly specialized branch of physics. In other words, this is a terrible analogy. I'm sure from my post you can gather what my answer would be and I believe you will have the same. I believe your answer will be that someone who understands quantum physics is smarter. I could be wrong about that but I don't know why you would even have used the analogy if you thought I would answer differently. But I gave you my answer and as you can clearly see, that is not my answer at all. But why would you think that I would have the same answer? That is a extremely narrow and specific way to define human intelligence. Many different have many different ways of defining intelligence and few people define it so specifically as this. So what makes you think that I would choose this particular way? What if I understand quantum mechanics and you understand understand all the theory and history of Russian Romantic music and can even compose entire symphonies that are every bit as good as anything Tchaikovsky composed? Am I still smarter than you? What does this have to do with D&D anyway? Are you suggesting that if I want to improve my gaming experience I should require some one to have a degree in quantum physics before they can play in my game? What if someone has a PhD in Medieval Literature, knows five different languages and has written several fantasy novels but never got past high school algebra? Should I bar them from my game because they never took physics and so couldn't posssibly be a good player? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-01-03 09:42 AM :nonono: This is starting to get sad. 2e was the pinnicle of D&D. Combat was not overly simple and did allow for complex things. 3e is too complex too many actions to memorize Player: is it a standard or partial action to pee on the orc DM: uhhh {flips through book} yeah partial player: cool I get an attack too right DM {flips through book} sure now in 2e player: i pee on the orc DM:ok player: my turn again? I attack. By the way you had alot of the same options as you do in 3e but they were easier to handle. Geez enough with the 2e bashing....You basher might get mistaken for fanboys and I HATE fanboy's. :D j/k -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-01-03 10:10 AM Originally posted by Unknowable If that is what a person enjoys, then YES, it is. The purpose of any game is for the people playing it to have fun. If that is what brings someone the greatest amount of enjoyment, then the purpose of the game is in fact hack and slash. It's truly sad how many people cannot understand this very simple thing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Unknowable Date : 09-01-03 10:18 AM By the way you had alot of the same options as you do in 3e but they were easier to handle. Geez enough with the 2e bashing....You basher might get mistaken for fanboys and I HATE fanboy's. j/k I'm not bashing 2ed at all. I have many many fond memories of 2ed. If 2ed is what you like, then by all means stick with it. I'm actually more of a fan of the way WotC has marketed 3ed than I am of 3ed itself. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-01-03 10:20 AM Ow, Plunderer, 2e the pinnacle of D&D? I must admit there are very many great 'fluff' products for 2e, but the systems was actually one of the lows of D&D. Especially all of those complete blabla handbooks. Terrible. I hated them. I still have some though (thief's and rangers, compare these and it is immediately obvious that 'balance' was not a consideration in 2e) And by the way. You Plunderer, are the pinnacle of fanboyism :smirk: You are a rubber chicken fanboy. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-01-03 11:15 AM [pets the :turkey:] no he didn't mean that. who's daddy's chicky wicky? Ok the compleate books were bad but big reminder all you need to play is the PHB, DMG, And MM. Everything else was and is optional. As far as wotc's marketing goes it stinks. It's the same as any other rpg company has done. No innovation, and pre 3.$ they were starting to reprint just as TSR and WW have done. It's just a different company doing that. :turkey: come on baby I'll get you some ice cream to help forget what that mean Mr. Vandermeer said......;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Unknowable Date : 09-01-03 11:55 AM As far as wotc's marketing goes it stinks. It's the same as any other rpg company has done. No innovation, and pre 3.$ they were starting to reprint just as TSR and WW have done. WotC did allow for the D&D movie to be made. It was good clean fun that had a lot of elements of the D&D game. It might not have been a very good movie but it did portray a live action version of the way that a lot of games run. I know that a lot of people feel that a movie is against the spirit of RPGs because D&D is about participation instead of watching. Also, I know that a lot of DMs could of easily cooked up a better story than the movie. But the way the movie was handled was the correct approach IMHO because it gave audiences a view of what might go on in a game world. It was lighthearted, giving audiences the the feeling that it isn't taken too serious. Also the movie helped to ease concerns that it might contain occultic elements. Also if someone thought the story wasn't so hot, they could try their hand at making (and DMing) a better story. The main thing it accomplished was to make D&D mainstream. A lot of people went to go see it that would have never taken an interest in D&D otherwise. Also, I have seen advertisements for D&D in magezines that back in the 80's or 90's you'd never expect to see a D&D add in. It's just a different company doing that. There was talk of a D&D movie as early as 1980 but no movie company was ever able to reach an agreement with TSR. WotC buys out TSR and with in a year, a D&D movie is already in the works. TSR tried to make thier money buy flooding the RPG market with tons of superfluous 'rules supplements,' and came close to killing the RPG market in the process. WotC has sought to make their money by bringing new players to the game and by sharing the D20 system with anyone who wants to use it. Also TSR would never had even considering offering so many freeloads on the net. Look at all the free 2ed stuff WotC has made available absolutely free. So that different company is making a world of difference. Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast are big money making companies and got that way by knowing how to advertise and market their stuff. People might complain about big corperations but that is a sign that they know how to do things effectively. If WotC steers things in a direction that most people are not happy with, profits will drop off and they will take notice and work to change that. Being in business to make money means that they are in business to get customers and keep those customers happy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-01-03 11:58 AM Mainstream...bah too many compromises when something goes mainstream......I think I'm going to be sick.......BARF! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : rwbm1 Date : 09-01-03 02:12 PM Alright, I guess I lost sight of the fact that D&D is a game and is meant to just be fun. Although I don't like all of what 3ed did, I'm seeing that many people have combined what they like with 2ed and I think thats great. Whatever you play, have fun with it and thats all that matters. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Lord_Soto Date : 09-01-03 06:52 PM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer Ow, Plunderer, 2e the pinnacle of D&D? Actually, I'm going to agree with Plunderer here. And yes, I have pee'd on an orc before. In 3E it should be a full round action, since you have to drop your chainmail undies. Especially all of those complete blabla handbooks. Terrible. I hated them. I still have some though (thief's and rangers, compare these and it is immediately obvious that 'balance' was not a consideration in 2e) Maybe it's just me, but screw balance! Balance has become the battle cry of everyone who thinks a Necromancer should be able to hold his own with a fighter of the same level, as long as he has his 10K of magical treasure that the DMG says he should have at that . I always believed it made the players play smarter when the 'Troubleshooter' thief had to work twice as hard to keep up with 'Greenwood' ranger. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-01-03 10:51 PM Originally posted by Lord_Soto Actually, I'm going to agree with Plunderer here. And yes, I have pee'd on an orc before. In 3E it should be a full round action, since you have to drop your chainmail undies. [B] Maybe it's just me, but screw balance! Balance has become the battle cry of everyone who thinks a Necromancer should be able to hold his own with a fighter of the same level, as long as he has his 10K of magical treasure that the DMG says he should have at that . I always believed it made the players play smarter when the 'Troubleshooter' thief had to work twice as hard to keep up with 'Greenwood' ranger. Amen Soto. Balance is just the wotc term for Nerf. 2e had it right, It all boiled down to how good a player you were not how good the class was. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Algolei Date : 09-02-03 02:15 AM I agree that the Complete yadda yadda Handbooks were crap, but there were a lot of people who loved them. I, for one, loved the Options books that came out later. Of course, there were a lot of people who hated them. And that's what I loved most about 2E: Choice. I got to choose which rules made sense in my game. There's too much from 1st edition that I love to mention it all, but I will say this: I still use the XP system, even when I tried my hand at DMing a few dozen 3E games. :D 1EXP rocks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-02-03 04:36 AM Hey, let's get one thing straight. I don't play strictly by the rules in the book. That means I'll have fun with all systems. Name an example of a very bad rule, and I probably houseruled it. That said, I think 3e gives me more tools to create the game I want it. Nobody in their right mind is going to look up how to break down the turn so someone can pee on an orc. Only complete rules lawyers or obsessive neurotics do that (and maybe total newbie's) So that is in my eyes not a valid argument. In 3e peeing on an orc works the same as in 1e: player: I pee on the orc DM:ok Sometimes people also say that skills like diplomacy replace actual roleplaying. That is also nonsense, I never let a roll replace actual roleplaying. These skills are just extra tools. As I said in the beginning, I have had a lot of fun with 2e. But honestly I had more fun with 1e, and I am having more fun with 3.5e. (I know, I am very mainstream. I have no patience anymore for trying to be 'different' at all costs). Now put that chicken away, before it lays a rubber egg! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-02-03 08:21 AM Originally posted by Algolei And that's what I loved most about 2E: Choice. I got to choose which rules made sense in my game. And this is different than other D&D rules, how? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Myrridin Date : 09-02-03 02:50 PM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Amen Soto. Balance is just the wotc term for Nerf. 2e had it right, It all boiled down to how good a player you were not how good the class was. Allow me to respond to this thus: Heh. Hehe. Hahahahahahahahahahaha...*wheeze* No, it all boiled down to how good the class was. Being a human had no advantage what so ever. Play an elf, multi-class fighter/mage, and watch your lvl 8/8 fighter/mage destroy the equivalent xp amount lvl 10 fighter. The game wasn't as much fun because if one person created an unbalanced character, they would dominate the party if you did create a balanced one. I like the simplicity of 3E, not to mention it's a much harder system to twink out than AD&D was. The various "complete" books were some of the most unbalanced garbage ever printed, I know, I still have most of them. Using the martial arts rules and such presented, a first level character could have an AC of -1, and a Thac0 of about 13 or 14...how's that fun? I started playing when I was 9, with first edition, and liked that better than AD&D. Sure, if you managed to get psionics in 1st ed you could do just about anything, and kill anyone, but it was better than AD&D. Yes, it's about personal preference, but if you want to start to claim that being balanced is not a good thing....that's just silly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-02-03 07:08 PM God, they said Mainstream again {pukes on Vandermeer's shoe} Yeah this supposed balance wotc put out is good...Holds as much water as a bucket with holes in it. The compleate books were unbalanced IF you used the Players option books and skill and powers with them...As to 2e's superiority over 3e I direct you to dragonsfoot.com to see all of the people that left 3e to go back to 1e and 2e..... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-02-03 07:30 PM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes God, they said Mainstream again {pukes on Vandermeer's shoe} Yeah, god forbid they attempt to draw new players into the world of role playing. By the looks of things here, a few well-adjusted players might throw off the whole maturity grading curve. Lord knows we don't want that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-02-03 10:38 PM Originally posted by Shoegaze99 Yeah, god forbid they attempt to draw new players into the world of role playing. By the looks of things here, a few well-adjusted players might throw off the whole maturity grading curve. Lord knows we don't want that. For the record: Mainstream kills. It killed Metallica (napster fiasco among other things), It killed anime (fox box), It killed ICP (listen to the last few albums Good but not the former work they did), It kills just about anything it touches. So why the flame? I have not made one Inflammatory remark to you on this thread and you have to keep Insulting me. Oh well I guess it's time to hit the report button.( really didn't want to either) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Lord_Soto Date : 09-02-03 11:40 PM Originally posted by Myrridin Allow me to respond to this thus: No, it all boiled down to how good the class was. Being a human had no advantage what so ever. Play an elf, multi-class fighter/mage, and watch your lvl 8/8 fighter/mage destroy the equivalent xp amount lvl 10 fighter. Except that the elven fighter mage can't specialize in a weapon (1 1/2 attacks per round to the single classed fighter's 2 (at +1 to hit, +2 to damage, no less)), can't wear armor (except elven chain, which (according to the PHB), cannot be bought, must be found), and has an average of 32 hp to the single classed fighter's 55, and doesn't qualify for the exceptional strength score or the fighter's con-bonus to hit-points. The game wasn't as much fun because if one person created an unbalanced character, they would dominate the party if you did create a balanced one. I like the simplicity of 3E, not to mention it's a much harder system to twink out than AD&D was. The various "complete" books were some of the most unbalanced garbage ever printed, I know, I still have most of them. Using the martial arts rules and such presented, a first level character could have an AC of -1, and a Thac0 of about 13 or 14...how's that fun? I'm gonna call your bluff on that one. First level fighter, 18/00 strength, 18 dexterity, maximum roll for starting gold (200 gp). He can afford at best, Banded armor. This gives an AC 4, modified by his dexterity to 0, modified by proficiency in Aikjutsu to -3. So that's a pretty good AC for a starting character. His Thac0 is 20, with a +3 to hit for the 18/00 strength (Thac0=17). Specializing in the martial arts under this system (Advanced Martial Arts - Optional Rule) does not give him an additional bonus to hit. On top of this, his attack is penalized for any armors that his opponents might be wearing except the "Hurl" maneuver (+1 against Chain Mail/Brigandine, +3 vs Full Plate or better), including Monsters. He is also penalized by at least -1 whenever his opponent is wielding a weapon. His base damage is 1 point (Aikjutsu), modified by his 18/00 strength (+6) to 7. Assuming he tries to hit another 18 Dex Fighter wielding a broadsword and wearing Banded (AC=0) with his 'Great Throw' maneuver (almost impossible for him to have because of his maximum proficiency slots at this level), he makes an attack roll with a Thac0=21 (20+3 to hit, -2 for the opponent's armor, -2 for the opponent's medium sized weapon). IF he hits (only on a Nat-20), he does a whopping 8 points of damage. So while his defense is quite remarkable for someone of his resources, I can think of a lot more effective combat from an 18/00 fighter. God help him if his opponent has the forethought to purchase a shield. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Algolei Date : 09-03-03 05:30 AM Originally posted by Shoegaze99 And this is different than other D&D rules, how? 3E doesn't have nearly the choices 2E had. I don't get Dragon Magazine anymore: Do they still print articles on new rules? Or did that end with the advent of 3rd edition? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-03-03 05:39 AM *wipes the puke of his shoes* I am so mainstream that I still like Metallica. Metallica isn't dead!! I hate anime, so let's not even go there. And I don't even know what ICP stands for. I only hope I am not too mainstream to play the game, as I have for the last fifteen years. Look, I can understand you like the 'underground' feel that D&D used to have. But you have to realize, D&D will never become completely mainstream and it will not die because of some more popularity. So don't be afraid. And if you ever puke on my shoe again, I will wipe it off with your rubber chicken! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Lord_Soto Date : 09-03-03 06:03 AM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer Look, I can understand you like the 'underground' feel that D&D used to have. But you have to realize, D&D will never become completely mainstream and it will not die because of some more popularity. So don't be afraid. I (for one) have no problem with AD&D going mainstream. Over the last 12 years, I have taught more than 15 people how to play. I would love to see the day when I could put a memo advertising my game on the recreations board at work like the "Bowling Night" or "Softball League" and not have it be ridiculed, misinterpreted, or be removed for violating "religious sensitivity" (honestly). However, to me the difference is in the feel of the game. 3E (and 3.5) seem to attract a generation of D&D-like players. Not everyone whom I have met that plays 3E is mainstream, and some of the longest term players I have ever met have converted. It's the people who look at 3E as tabletop 'Evacrack' that bother me. The ones who feel that they DESERVE a certain value of magic items or that they can pick the prestige class of their choice. That's not mainstream, that's video-game. If I wanted Final Fantasy, I'd buy a playstation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-03-03 06:28 AM Oh yeah, I also HATE the videogame approach to real roleplaying. That really sucks. But I think that is (as you said) not the fault of the 3e system or it's popularity. It is the fault of... you guessed it; the videogames. And while I like some CRPG's, I think they have very little to do with real RPG's. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-03-03 08:20 AM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Oh well I guess it's time to hit the report button.( really didn't want to either) AhahaH Ah HAhAHa hHAH ahhahha HA HA HH A HAhahah AHa haa!! Whatever you say. Have fun with that. Hah AHa hAH HAH HAa! ICP indeed ... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-03-03 08:23 AM Originally posted by Algolei 3E doesn't have nearly the choices 2E had. Huh? Based on what? You know saying something doesn't make it true, right? What great expanse of choices did Second Edition have that Third Edition does not in one form or another? Are the WOTC folks coming to your door and telling you what rules you have to use else you be beaten into submission, unlike the TSR folks, who sent you flowers and candy? Are you somehow forced into abiding by certain rules in 3e when you were not in 2e? Do tell. Be specific. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Lord Phobetor Date : 09-03-03 08:41 AM Originally posted by Lord_Soto Except that the elven fighter mage (snip) doesn't qualify for the exceptional strength score or the fighter's con-bonus to hit-points. Ummm...why not? The exceptional Str & the Con bonus were not restricted to single-classed fighters. I'll need to double-check on the bit about specialization for multi-classed types. The fact remains that in 1E & 2E, dual-wielding multiclassed elven fighter/mages OWNED over their single-classed, single-weapon comrades. That's before adding bladesong from the Complete Book of Munchkins I mean Elves. Granted, bladesong was only usable with a single weapon, but it was still Out. Of. Control. Play whatever edition gives you joy, but please have your facts straight. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-03-03 09:11 AM NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Don't mention Bladesong! I still have nightmares. Me a beginning, unsure DM and him...... the munchkin player from hell that came to the first session with that blasted book! No please, keep him away. Away I say. (He ruled over characters twice his level and with higher stats and all.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Myrridin Date : 09-03-03 09:43 AM Originally posted by Lord Phobetor Ummm...why not? The exceptional Str & the Con bonus were not restricted to single-classed fighters. I'll need to double-check on the bit about specialization for multi-classed types. The fact remains that in 1E & 2E, dual-wielding multiclassed elven fighter/mages OWNED over their single-classed, single-weapon comrades. That's before adding bladesong from the Complete Book of Munchkins I mean Elves. Granted, bladesong was only usable with a single weapon, but it was still Out. Of. Control. Play whatever edition gives you joy, but please have your facts straight. Thank you, I was pretty sure that I was correct in that they got all those bonuses as well. I like argueing with the facts, it keeps these things more civil and nice. I also enjoyed the hell out of 1E, and played more than my share of AD&D, but I realized pretty fast that it was just plain broken, and I think they fixed a lot of those issues in 3E. The assertation that many people are going back to 2E over 3E...well, it may seem that way, but if that were true, the Wizards would stop printing 3.5, and go back to printing AD&D, if it were the preferred edition by the most people. Fact is, 3E has brought D&D alive again, and helped a struggling industry recover. edit: I should be nicer, so I edited it so that my response is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Lord_Soto Date : 09-03-03 01:03 PM Originally posted by Lord Phobetor Ummm...why not? The exceptional Str & the Con bonus were not restricted to single-classed fighters. I'll need to double-check on the bit about specialization for multi-classed types. Specialization has always been the domain of single-classed fighters. I'll have to double check the exceptional strength and con. I'm not talking about bonus hit points per level, but the FIGHTER Con bonus to hit points. Other classes were eligible for up to +2 Hit points per level, but even rangers and paladin's can't specialize. (Unless you use Skills & Powers rules.) It's just so darn rare that any of my players qualify for exceptional strength anyways that I don't remember off the top of my head. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Myrridin Date : 09-03-03 01:17 PM Right, the multi-class fighters don't get weapon specialization, I'd forgotten that, thanks for reminding me. :) The FIGHTER Str and Con bonuses, multi-class fighters got as well. Prehaps the fighter/mage isn't the best example, because as it was pointed out, the wearing of armor mucks up your spell casting. I would say then that the elven mage/thief was a bit more overpowering. You don't wear armor, as leather armor pretty much sucked. And all your spells do is give you the ability to use the ridiculious backstab damage of a thief more often. Those were what were really unbalanced. I suppose you can fall back on the "wonderful" mechanic of certain races having a max number of class levels. That always struck me as stupid. The best elven mage could hit, what, 15, 16 level? I don't have the books on me. In AD&D, they could live for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and they couldn't get above a certain level. It never made any sense to me. So if you're not playing with the arbitrary level maxs, the world would be overrun with elven mage/thieves, half-elven mage/priests, elven fighter/thieves, and the occasional gnomish thief/priest. Now at least if you multi-class, you pay some tangible penalty for it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : LORD ORION Date : 09-03-03 02:36 PM I still like 1st edition the best.... having extensively DMed all versions, it is the one I keep going back to (and no it wasn't the 1st version of D&D I played). Reasons: Magic Resistance works logically, monster XP calculation works logically, the Assasin class isn't retarded (or non-exsistant), combat resolution is fast and better suited for story telling, using percents for certain things like thief skills and magic resistance works out far better then D20s, Illusionist is a playable class, not a crappy sphere of magic spells :), weapon restrictions actually mean somthing, poison is actually dangerous, heroes can be heroes.... and ORCUS!!! ;) As a comment, racial level restrictions were put in place to 1)balance multiclassed characters 2)balance racial traits of non-human characters. The basic idea is that humans are the dominant and largest, dynamic culture, so they tend to produce better talented adventurers that aren't limited and stagnated by the status quo typical of the other races. Elves just don't have the DNA and cultural aptitude to create legendary fighters that are on par with legendary human and dwarf fighters. ;) 2nd edition was OK, but it was kind of bland.... it felt like a politically correct version for the masses. There were many ways to get around the basic restrictions that make up the distintiveness of a class, which, through experience playing, actually translates to less diversity and teamplay as PCs maximize the effectivness of their characters, not the strengths of their classes. PS: the blade singer is not a PC class, it has what, a dozen "NOT FOR PCs" warnings? ;) I personally dislike 3rd edition because there is so much muck to sort through that there is a debate on rules implementation in almost every single gaming session I run. Its massive attention to detail actually limits creative action of the PCs. It's more like D&D for the clueless who need predefined definitons for acting like a hero. Also, although it looks like there are alot more options to flesh out your character's abilities, I find that the same choices are made every single time. Are there fighter's out there who don't actually try and acquire cleave???!?!?!?!?!?! Do they get owned by orcs? :) So in the end, it is fluff that still ends up with the same end results of the other versions, but with alot more unnecessary work. I also find that the skills DO NOT WORK, what typically happens is that the difficulty checks simply get harder and harder as the PCs gain levels... oh look, I have 20 hide in shadows.... but I still need a 15 to get past the uber guard.... hmm...this is the same as being level 1 except I have more statistics to track now. Or. "Mr DM, how come every place I try and sneak into is made up of 90 degree slippery surfaces and has uber traps littered throughout" DM: The same reason you never run into small orc raiding parties.... magic wizard ducks and the fact that the gods hate you is the only logical explanation. YAY!!!. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Myrridin Date : 09-03-03 03:08 PM Originally posted by LORD ORION I still like 1st edition the best.... having extensively DMed all versions, it is the one I keep going back to (and no it wasn't the 1st version of D&D I played). Reasons: Magic Resistance works logically, monster XP calculation works logically, the Assasin class isn't retarded (or non-exsistant), combat resolution is fast and better suited for story telling, using percents for certain things like thief skills and magic resistance works out far better then D20s, Illusionist is a playable class, not a crappy sphere of magic spells :), weapon restrictions actually mean somthing, poison is actually dangerous, heroes can be heroes.... and ORCUS!!! ;) Didn't 1E assassins have that instant kill table? Something like, if they have X amount of days to plan, roll on here and the target is dead? When they hit level 13, I think that it was something like 95% chance to kill anyone under level 8. That's pretty strong to me. Not to mention 1E monks were just plain nasty if they got to a middling-high level. 3d8 damage, 5 attacks a round at level 17 I think. If you don't think poison is dangerous in 3E...then you're not playing in the same games that I am. :) As a comment, racial level restrictions were put in place to 1)balance multiclassed characters 2)balance racial traits of non-human characters. The basic idea is that humans are the dominant and largest, dynamic culture, so they tend to produce better talented adventurers that aren't limited and stagnated by the status quo typical of the other races. Elves just don't have the DNA and cultural aptitude to create legendary fighters that are on par with legendary human and dwarf fighters. ;) Except that in the stories you'd read about the powerful elven mages with their world shaking spells...and they'd max out around level 16 or so. Is that even 9th level spells? Level restrictions don't make sense, it's an arbitrary way to try and hold back the power of multi-classing. 3E handles it better, there's actually some trade-off for multi-classing. 2nd edition was OK, but it was kind of bland.... it felt like a politically correct version for the masses. There were many ways to get around the basic restrictions that make up the distintiveness of a class, which, through experience playing, actually translates to less diversity and teamplay as PCs maximize the effectivness of their characters, not the strengths of their classes. PS: the blade singer is not a PC class, it has what, a dozen "NOT FOR PCs" warnings? ;) Amen to that. 2nd was boring, and then they "spiced it up" with the various handbooks and Skills and Powers stuff...that's when it just got sick. Blade Singer got axed right fast in my campaigns just because it was overpowered. I personally dislike 3rd edition because there is so much muck to sort through that there is a debate on rules implementation in almost every single gaming session I run. Its massive attention to detail actually limits creative action of the PCs. It's more like D&D for the clueless who need predefined definitons for acting like a hero. Also, although it looks like there are alot more options to flesh out your character's abilities, I find that the same choices are made every single time. Are there fighter's out there who don't actually try and acquire cleave???!?!?!?!?!?! Do they get owned by orcs? :) So in the end, it is fluff that still ends up with the same end results of the other versions, but with alot more unnecessary work. I also find that the skills DO NOT WORK, what typically happens is that the difficulty checks simply get harder and harder as the PCs gain levels... oh look, I have 20 hide in shadows.... but I still need a 15 to get past the uber guard.... hmm...this is the same as being level 1 except I have more statistics to track now. Or. "Mr DM, how come every place I try and sneak into is made up of 90 degree slippery surfaces and has uber traps littered throughout" DM: The same reason you never run into small orc raiding parties.... magic wizard ducks and the fact that the gods hate you is the only logical explanation. YAY!!!. ;) I've built about 5 different fighters, and only one of them had the Power Attack/Cleave combo. The Spiked Chain fighter was some of the most fun I've ever had. As was the archer, or the one built for Spring Attack, or the two weapon fighter...there's a lot of variety there to build from. That's just bad DMing then, if you constantly ramp everything up. That's not a system fault, it's a DM fault. When the characters get to 10th level, they can sneak into castles, and do impressive things, just like in 1E where they could do those things. If you have a logical, consistent campaign world, then those things take care of themselves, regardless of system. By the way, in teaching new people how to play, I've found that 3E is much easier for them to grasp. No backwards AC/Thac0 conversations, less confusion over skills and the like. It's quicker and simpler is what I've found. Wow, this got screwed up. I'd fix it, but that's too much work. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-03-03 04:27 PM PS: the blade singer is not a PC class, it has what, a dozen "NOT FOR PCs" warnings? WHAT! I'll go find that guy that brought the book and slap him with it! :mad: Yeah, I know there were these warnings, but I was a novice DM and I got suckered into allowing it. About the skills thing; Higher level character go to more dangerous situations, so it is only logical that the DC's of such checks go up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : Lord_Soto Date : 09-03-03 06:30 PM Okay, after getting home, digging out my PHB, etc... I admit, I was wrong about the Con bonus & Exceptional Strength. However, to keep the comparison in line, the elven fighter/mage is still going to have 9 fewer hit points than the single classed human due to the fact that his con bonus maxes out at +3 hp instead of +4 hp/level. This is practically an extra hit-die more that the human fighter has over the elf. Also, on the topic of dual-wielding elven fighter/mage, he has to drop/sheathe one weapon in order to cast spells with a somatic component, has a -2/-4 penalty to hit if using two weapons of the same size, and still only gains a half-attack over human fighter of the same level. So, if he attacks with both weapons on round one, drops one on round two to cast a spell, he has to draw it or pick it up again to attack in the third round, which (iirc) costs him his attack with that weapon that round. Except that in the stories you'd read about the powerful elven mages with their world shaking spells...and they'd max out around level 16 or so. Is that even 9th level spells? Level restrictions don't make sense, it's an arbitrary way to try and hold back the power of multi-classing. 3E handles it better, there's actually some trade-off for multi-classing. No... a 16th level Mage gets one 8th level spell per day. However, some homework on elven high-magic. There were pretty heavy pay-offs to using spells above the caster's maximum spell level. Not the least of which is requiring 1-5 casters and having a casting time of 10 rounds-> several days. He must have a Con of 12, and Int & Wis of 18 each. He has to advance to the maximum level of elven wizards (15) and two levels beyond through the optional high PR score rule. He must be at least 450 years old, and having a "Consequence Roll" for using that level of magical power. As for level restrictions, I believe the logic ran something along the lines of humans being a race who rise and fall to power very quickly, are more likely to have the drive to advance farther than an elf, with a longer life will take his time getting up to level, and having adventured for 200+ years, will get bored with the life, and return home, having never reached his potential. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Algolei Date : 09-04-03 05:45 AM Originally posted by Shoegaze99 Huh? Based on what? You know saying something doesn't make it true, right? What great expanse of choices did Second Edition have that Third Edition does not in one form or another? You have GOT to be kidding. Are the WOTC folks coming to your door and telling you what rules you have to use else you be beaten into submission, unlike the TSR folks, who sent you flowers and candy? Yes. But they all look like they want to sell me something, so I shoo them away. :) Are you somehow forced into abiding by certain rules in 3e when you were not in 2e? Do tell. Be specific. Ooookay. I am forced to play with Feats in 3E. I was not forced to play with any rule in 2E. I don't like Feats, but I don't have the time and patience to rewrite every character class and ever monster so that I can do away with them. I am forced to play with Skills in 3E. I used them in 2E, but they were optional. Since they were optional, I was able to use a non-D&D skill system. But it's not the d20 system, so it doesn't work in 3E. I am forced to play with the Ability modifiers in 3E. I prefer something closer to the ones in 2E, but if I use them, suddenly every monster in every 3E book I own needs to be reworked. In 2nd edition, there were a lot of conflicting rules published. I got to choose which ones to use. I didn't have to dismantle a rigid system to incorporate something new into my games--since they were all optional, the authors of the books did most of that for me. In 3rd edition, every little change I made would cascade into a whopping great pile of work that I just wasn't willing to do. I bought the extra books--Master of the Wild and all that--hoping to find some optional rules, some rules variants, something that offered me choices. Where are the choices? Where are the choices. :( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-04-03 06:18 AM Well, if all goes well, a lot of the choices will be in the Unearthed Arcana! (I hope it's good) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-04-03 08:53 AM Originally posted by Algolei You have GOT to be kidding. You're not answering the question. I am forced to play with Feats in 3E. I was not forced to play with any rule in 2E. Because 3e came with thugs who beat you if you didn't use Feats, but 2e didn't? What a ridiculous argument. If you don’t like the Feats – you know, that crazy rule that offers players broader choices in how their character advances and what sort of character it becomes – don’t use them. It’s that simple. Nobody is going to beat you up for it. Amazingly every rule in the 2e rulebooks was optional, but every rule in 3e must be used, else your thumbs will be broken. What a horror! I am forced to play with Skills in 3E. I used them in 2E, but they were optional. See above. My rulebooks did not come with enforcers given the task of forcing me into using any of the rules within. Just like Second Edition, just like First Edition, just like Basic D&D, I can and do use what rules I want and disregard the rest. You know, just like always. Maybe if each page had big red block text that said “THESE RULES ARE OPTIONAL – THIS MEANS YOU” you’d be happy? Some people need things spelled out for them, after all. I am forced to play with the Ability modifiers in 3E. I prefer something closer to the ones in 2E, but if I use them, suddenly every monster in every 3E book I own needs to be reworked. Oh, boo-hoo! And this is different from 2e, how? Oh, I see. It’s not. You were “forced” to use 2e’s ability modifiers, too. Does that mean 2e offers you fewer choices than First Edition? Of course it doesn’t. It means the numbers behind the game mechanics have changed. Big deal. Boo-hoo. A changed game mechanic is suddenly limiting your choices in a way that wasn’t present before? The line of reasoning here is utterly ridiculous. In 2nd edition, there were a lot of conflicting rules published. Yeah, that was a real positive for gamers. In case you haven’t noticed, over the years one of the biggest and oft-repeated criticisms of Second Edition has been those conflicting rules. And for good reason. I didn't have to dismantle a rigid system to incorporate something new into my games--since they were all optional, the authors of the books did most of that for me. Funny, I didn’t have to do that for the rules I’ve incorporated into my Third Edition games. Are you inept or just unable to fathom the vast complexities of the d20 system? ‘Course if you want someone else to do the work for you, there are scores and scores of optional rules books simply littering the shelves, jam-packed with enough optional rules to make your head spin. Maybe you missed them? I guess so, else you wouldn’t be making this ridiculous line of argument. Hint: If you want optional rulebooks for d20 D&D, go buy them. In 3rd edition, every little change I made would cascade into a whopping great pile of work that I just wasn't willing to do. Sheer and utter nonsense. Incorporating house rules into Third Edition D&D is no different than in any prior edition. It’s easier, since the d20 system is ground in a uniform game mechanic, but otherwise no different. “I don’t like that rule. We’re going to use this rule.” Wow. Tough. Oh, wait. You want the work done for you, right? You want a slew of books marked Houses Rules Vol. 1, House Rules Vol. 2, etc.? That’s nice. I bought the extra books--Master of the Wild and all that--hoping to find some optional rules, some rules variants, something that offered me choices. Where are the choices? Ummm, in the books? Oh, sorry. You’d have to read them. That’s too much work. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Myrridin Date : 09-04-03 09:41 AM Originally posted by Lord_Soto Okay, after getting home, digging out my PHB, etc... I admit, I was wrong about the Con bonus & Exceptional Strength. However, to keep the comparison in line, the elven fighter/mage is still going to have 9 fewer hit points than the single classed human due to the fact that his con bonus maxes out at +3 hp instead of +4 hp/level. This is practically an extra hit-die more that the human fighter has over the elf. So he has 1 attack worth of lower hit points? That's and weapon specialization are what's holding you back? The fighter/mage is also the weakest example. The mage/thief is where a multi-class elf really kicks butt. The other thing to do with your off hand for a fighter/mage is the use Block 1, from the Complete Ninja's Handbook, and just negate an attack on you each round. This leaves your hand free to use somatic components as well. No... a 16th level Mage gets one 8th level spell per day. However, some homework on elven high-magic. There were pretty heavy pay-offs to using spells above the caster's maximum spell level. Not the least of which is requiring 1-5 casters and having a casting time of 10 rounds-> several days. He must have a Con of 12, and Int & Wis of 18 each. He has to advance to the maximum level of elven wizards (15) and two levels beyond through the optional high PR score rule. He must be at least 450 years old, and having a "Consequence Roll" for using that level of magical power. So the fact that elves are supposed to be magical creatures, and that they never get 9th level spells is ok with you? I wasn't even talking about high-elven magic, I was talking about the nicety of being able to cast 9th level spells, something that is evidently far beyond an elven mage...sadly. The small bonus to stats, and the other little perks that an elf gets don't make up for lack of spellcasting ability/power. The only reason that the bonus to stats was especially nice was because AD&D had a large range of functionally the same stats, ie, useless numbers. Something like from an 8-13 or so had no game effect on your character. A role-playing effect, yes, but no game effect. Thus it encouraged you to really min/max to get use out of your hopefully 2 or maybe 3 high stats. As for level restrictions, I believe the logic ran something along the lines of humans being a race who rise and fall to power very quickly, are more likely to have the drive to advance farther than an elf, with a longer life will take his time getting up to level, and having adventured for 200+ years, will get bored with the life, and return home, having never reached his potential. That's not logic, that's realizing there's a faulty game mechanic, and trying to fix it by screwing over a player of a non-human race. If the elf is really going to live for 600 years, they're going to know a lot more about magic than someone who will *maybe* live 1/6 the amount of time. The level limits were arbitrary and there to try and curb the abuses that the AD&D creators built into their system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Savien Date : 09-04-03 11:12 AM All the versions of D&D have their cool and uncool parts... Basic D&D was too basic, but fairly simple AD&D 1st ed became rather more complicated as it tried to adress issued not covered by its forerunner. ADD 2nd ed tried to meld some of the simplicity of basic with the wider scope of advanced and almost got it right. My opinion of third ed D&D is it seems like a cool concept but needs more tweaking. The great marketing machine of WOTC(insert sarcasm) will inevitably produce another version and/ or edition, that will completely pre-empt this one so all the books become obsolete and new versons will have to be bought(shades of white wolf). I am sick of this and that is my main reason for not changing. my current favorite is my own, a comfortable hybrid of 1st and 2nd ed rules. The new system is also a minmaxer's paradise. Anyone who has played with one knows what I mean. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : Lord_Soto Date : 09-04-03 01:03 PM Originally posted by Myrridin So he has 1 attack worth of lower hit points? That's and weapon specialization are what's holding you back? The fighter/mage is also the weakest example. The mage/thief is where a multi-class elf really kicks butt Not an extra attack's worth. Not counting con bonus the human fighter has an average of 55 hit points. The elven fighter/mage has an average of 32. This is a 23 hp spread. Factor in the potential 9 extra hit points that the fighter is going to get from the extra point of Con that the elf is not going to have, and you're looking at a 32 point spread. This is a whole extra elven fighter/mage worth of hit points. The other thing to do with your off hand for a fighter/mage is the use Block 1, from the Complete Ninja's Handbook, and just negate an attack on you each round. This leaves your hand free to use somatic components as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Block 1 from the CNH is going to require you to use up an attack that round. That pretty much negates you casting a spell that round. So what's the point? That's not logic, that's realizing there's a faulty game mechanic, and trying to fix it by screwing over a player of a non-human race. If the elf is really going to live for 600 years, they're going to know a lot more about magic than someone who will *maybe* live 1/6 the amount of time. The level limits were arbitrary and there to try and curb the abuses that the AD&D creators built into their system. Perhaps it is. However, I have always treated it as a role-playing consideration. The elves were always described as aloof and unconcerned with the ways of men. They often feel that their way of doing this is superior. That sort of attitude alone is enough to put a damper on someone's ability or desire to learn more. Ask my players how often any one of them ever reached maximum level for their race? I guarantee that the racial maximum levels never became a way of repessing their characters. BTW: If I can take the time to clean up the board tags in my post, you can take the time to clean up yours so I can actually read it to reply. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : Myrridin Date : 09-04-03 01:18 PM You get extra attacks from the martial arts forms, which you can use for Blocks, so you can still cast a spell, and block. BTW, I didn't clean them up b/c the post is still readable, and evidently you're not having any problems replying to them. No need to be nasty. So just because you haven't playing in a campaign where level restrictions come into play, they're not worth commenting about? They're an artifical restriction applied to the various demihuman races. They're not there for "role-playing flavor", they're there because the demihuman races were supposedly that much stronger than humans, so they needed some way to nerf them. I In the last epic campaign I played in, which took about 4 years of real time, it was nice to play in a system where being an elf or dwarf didn't screw me long term. Instead, it was used to add flavor and other role-playing opportunities to the game. Had this been in AD&D, it would've been so much "fun" to watch a human character get to level 20 or 21, and have my elven mage stuck at level 15 or 16, whatever the cap was. Nothing like reducing the usefulness of demihumans in long term campaigns. Yes, the elven fighter/mage was a bad example, and the human fighter will house him. I notice you're not talking about the elven mage/thief I brought up, or the gnomish priest/thief as well. They were overpowering in a party, and the only way that TSR was able to "balance" it, was by the above mentioned arbitrary level restrictions. The new system is no different from the old system in that it's a min-maxers paradise. It's why I prefer games like Nobilis where you can't really min-max out a character. *sigh* This is one of those useless debates, I can tell. You love AD&D, and won't acknowledge the points I bring up. And I'm sure you're thinking the same thing about me and 3E. I liked AD&D, and played it for a long time. I played 3E, and found that it fixed a lot of the problems I ran into in AD&D. To me, that meant a better system which meant I enjoyed it more. I gave both systems a fair try, and found the one that I had to house rule less, and that flowed better; so I went with 3E. Side note: I've heard that Arcana Unearthed is pretty cool. I've never played with it, but a couple friends have, and they really like it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-04-03 05:17 PM 3e is a bit of a min/max paradise. Mainly because there are so much options, you can always find a way to use these to the max. I personally have no problem with this, as my current group doesn't have any powergamers. They are in it for the roleplaying. So maybe I just have it too easy. :D (But I also like to think I stimulate them to care more about roleplaying than power) I really like AD&D, but the reason I was never too happy about 2e is that it kept the things I didn't like about AD&D and changed (or removed) the things I liked. It's probably for a big part just personal taste. But on the other hand 'fluff'was great in 2e. I have a lot of 2e books, just for that reason. In my campaigns I use mainly v3.5 rules, but besides that I use everything I have from AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition. For example a lot of people complain that they can't use their Planescape setting anymore because it hasn't been published as 3e (yet). I don't consider this a problem. The setting is still great and playing it with new rules is not a big problem in my experience. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Lord_Soto Date : 09-04-03 06:49 PM Originally posted by Myrridin You get extra attacks from the martial arts forms, which you can use for Blocks, so you can still cast a spell, and block. Wrong. Page 48 from the CNH under #AT Mod reads: All martial arts styles add 1 to the number of attacks per round the character can perform while fighting unarmed. If he uses the martial arts style with a weapon, he recieves only his usual number of attacks. From the 2E PHB page 85 under Casting Spells: During the round in which the spell is cast, the caster cannot move to dodge attacks. Therefore, no AC benefit from Dexterity is gained by spellcasters while casting spells. and page 93: Some examples of actions a character can accomplish include the following: 1. Make an attack (make attack rolls up to the maximum number allowed the character class at a given level. 2. Cast one spell (if the casting time is one round or less). From this we can infer that casting spells and taking actions that require attack rolls are mutually exclusive, except in the case of touch spells. Yes, the elven fighter/mage was a bad example, and the human fighter will house him. I notice you're not talking about the elven mage/thief I brought up, or the gnomish priest/thief as well. They were overpowering in a party, and the only way that TSR was able to "balance" it, was by the above mentioned arbitrary level restrictions. You love AD&D, and won't acknowledge the points I bring up. And I'm sure you're thinking the same thing about me and 3E. I liked AD&D, and played it for a long time. I'm working on a reply to both the mage/thief and the priest/thief arguments. It just takes more time because I've defended the human fighter many times before. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : theDwarf Date : 09-04-03 09:20 PM Originally posted by Shoegaze99 Because 3e came with thugs who beat you if you didn't use Feats, but 2e didn't? What a ridiculous argument. Actually his argument is more this: 3e is an integrated system, 1e and 2e are not as integrated. If you change something in 3e it can have major ramifications on how the game runs as a whole and thus can lead lead to a ton of work. Feats and skills are intrinsic to the whole system (actually, they are pretty much the basis of the system). If you try to play without them you have to rewrite every class (for "balance") and pretty much everything else has to at least be looked at. Some "subtle" changes have major effects as well. Trying to eliminate the 5-ft step was a pain (what, 4-6 feats, a few skills, and the "balance" between missile and melee weapons ... look at 1st printing of Star Wars RPG for an example of that blowing up). The most modular system in 3e (AFAICT) is prestige classes, and they can quickly become more unbalanced than anything I remember from 1e or 2e (including kits from 2e). Just starting a party with absolutely no equipment greatly hinders the play in 3e, especially CR, for levels to come (3e plays a lot like "adventure to buy better equipment to be better at adventuring to buy better equipment, and so on ...", depending on the GM (in 1e/2e the equipment was found ON the adventure, not made/bought afterwards). 1e was an established system that had additional "modules" (as in modular) added to it, like skills, kits, etc. Pick and choose, use or don't use, add and/or modify. HackMaster is a good example of this, as were Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Wilderness and Dungeoneer's Survival Guides, and 2e). All that being said, there are books/variants out there that do make modifying 3e easier. Wheel of Time, Star Wars, etc, all have rule variants in them that I plan to adapt into a campaign I have been planning for years. In some ways 3e is more flexable, in others much less so. The greatest flexability, choice, is also the most rigid. Some will say "You have all these choices and can play your character anyway you want", but that is the trap. Multiclassing loses you the shear firepower of being a "pure" or single classed character (a WoTC employee warned me about the multiclassing trap when the game first came out "Multiclassing is more of a trap in 3e than it was in 2e"). Not taking certain feats will weaken the whole party (one person said to me "How effective is a fighter with a high strength that doesn't have cleave?"). Having your only fighter suddenly decide to take magic-user or sorcerer levels. Etc. My point boils down to this. The person whom you are mocking is not necessarily wrong. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-05-03 04:42 AM My point boils down to this. The person whom you are mocking is not necessarily wrong. You are right there. Multiclassing loses you the shear firepower of being a "pure" or single classed character That would be a problem if your game is about firepower. Again, I am just lucky I guess. If my players thinks adding a few levels of wizard to their fighter is cool for the story, they will do it. It doesn't matter if it makes them slightly less powerful. +extra remark: I think the balance issue with kits was much greater than with PrC's though -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : Algolei Date : 09-05-03 05:00 AM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer +extra remark: I think the balance issue with kits was much greater than with PrC's though I agree. That's why I chose not to allow kits in my games. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : Algolei Date : 09-05-03 05:26 AM Originally posted by Shoegaze99 Funny, I didn’t have to do that for the rules I’ve incorporated into my Third Edition games. What kind of changes have you made? Incorporating house rules into Third Edition D&D is no different than in any prior edition. It’s easier, since the d20 system is ground in a uniform game mechanic, but otherwise no different. I've had nothing but trouble changing the rules in my 3E games. I've tried to remove Feats from the game, but every class and just about every monster has Feats built in. I've tried to replace the Skills system, but again, every monster has Skills built in. I've tried to rework the Attribute modifiers toward the 2E format, but once again, every monster has its modifiers built in. You seem to think I'm an idiot because I haven't the time to do these things. You say it's easy, yet you haven't shown me how to do it. You say "Just do it" like an old Nike commercial, but I tell you "It's not that easy." I don't want books of someone else's house rules. I want variant rules, made by the company that put out the official rules. Yes, I did have them in 2E; no, I don't have them in 3E. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-05-03 08:00 AM I agree. That's why I chose not to allow kits in my games. I think that is the most sensible thing to do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : Myrridin Date : 09-05-03 08:54 AM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer I think that is the most sensible thing to do. Amen to that. Lord Soto - Sorry, I was wrong about the martial arts attacks, it's been a long time since I've looked at AD&D, and am going off of memory here. I do notice that you're only trying to refute my arguements, and that you don't come up with ways in which AD&D might be considered a "better" system. The elven mage/thief was overpowered, *shrug* it just came down to that. With the discrepancy in the amount of XP it took to level, if you were allowed to choose the split, you could keep almost equal levels in both classes. I'm still not seeing a compelling arguement for class level restrictions based on race either. "It's for role-playing" flavor is a weak arguement at best, as you shouldn't need an arbitrary rule to give that to a system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-05-03 10:17 AM Originally posted by Algolei What kind of changes have you made? Most notable is probably my elimination of Attacks of Opportunity, which seem to be a big part of Third Edition D&D combat. I didn’t do any restructuring or retooling, I just ignore them because I think they’re poorly designed and tend to slow combat. (While I like many aspects of the 3e combat system, it lacks the frantic pace of 1e and OD&D, which I liked) I also implemented a basic Spell Point system, something I’ve intended to do for years but only recently got around to. With regard to Feats, I’ve pretty much ignored weapon and armor proficiencies, instead going with the class-based weapon and armor restrictions of earlier D&D but allowing PCs to expand what they can use by taking Feats. (Other Feats I’ve kept because the players like the idea of picking new special abilities every few levels) There are other things major and minor, but those are probably the most noteworthy. It hasn’t been any more or less difficult than deviating from the standard rules of prior editions. As far as I’m concerned, the entire rulebook has a giant unwritten “Optional” label on it. Just like always. I've had nothing but trouble changing the rules in my 3E games. I've tried to remove Feats from the game, but every class and just about every monster has Feats built in. I've tried to replace the Skills system, but again, every monster has Skills built in. If you don’t want to use them, just ignore them. Seriously. Make believe they’re not there. Sure, we can talk about “balance” and all that, but in the end the most important factor to game balance is the DM, always, every time. Keep some monster Feats as Special Abilities and ignore the rest. Same with Skills. Just ignore them if you don’t want them. No muss, no fuss, no restructuring or tweaking. Just ignore them. If there are systems you like from past editions – say, an older Skill system – just use it. That’s all. I've tried to rework the Attribute modifiers toward the 2E format, but once again, every monster has its modifiers built in. If the issue is so important to you, I don’t see where the difficulty is in this. “Hey guys, a 16 is no longer a +3, but is a +2 like it was before.” That’s it. No doubt you know the old modifiers inside and out, so surely you can see the “proper” modifier at a glance no matter what’s printed next to the Ability number. There’s no huge amount of paperwork or converting involved, just know that when you see a “12” written next to strength you ignore the “+1” and instead apply no modifier. Once again, balance comes through the DM more than anything else. No amount of tweaking and pushing and pulling will create a truly “balanced” game (else, income opportunity aside for the moment, 3.5 would not exist), so unless you’re doing something drastic like giving Fighters the ability to cast 9th Level spells don’t worry about such things. Ignore the rules you don’t like. Use those you do. Just like before. You seem to think I'm an idiot because I haven't the time to do these things. I don’t think you’re an idiot for because you don’t have the time to do these things. Yes, I think the “choice” argument has little merit because I don’t think 3rd Edition D&D offers any more or less choices than previous editions (unless you feel rules must be labeled “optional” in order to represent a choice). It’s my belief that your argument is based on a personal preference for a specific system rather than an objective look at all systems – and that preference fine. I will say that your “choice” argument is ridiculous and fails to stand up to scrutiny, but I won’t say your personal preference is ridiculous because what you like is what you like. And there are indeed things to like about older systems. Believe me, I have a great deal of respect for the idea that people don’t have the time or inclination to restructure rules to their liking. I understand because my situation is no different. I most certainly do not ask that anybody else do something I’m not willing to do – and I’m not willing to rewrite the rulebooks. But you’re right, I do think it’s fairly easy to simply ignore the rules you don’t like or that don’t work for you. I’ve been doing it for years. I don't want books of someone else's house rules. I want variant rules, made by the company that put out the official rules. Yes, I did have them in 2E; no, I don't have them in 3E. It’s unlikely you’ll get them, for a number of reasons. Most longtime gamers agree that the optional rulebooks of Second Edition were a mess, even (with some exceptions) hardcore advocates of the edition. They were a mess I think Wizards of the Coast would sooner avoid. It’s also unlikely you’ll see such official rule variations because the d20 system is now open gaming content. It’s open gaming content for a reason. WOTC is clearly (and intelligently, in my opinion) seeking to tap into the third party market of game designers in the same way PC game makers have encouraged the mod community, allowing others to craft “mods” and adventures and the like using the basic structure of the d20 system. Others expend the time and resources to fill the niche (and the desire for such things is a niche within a niche, no doubt) to the benefit of the system as a whole. (See also, Valve’s handling of Half-Life, still hugely popular six years later, which is virtually unheard of in the PC game market). There are optional rulebooks out there that are just like the 2e “Complete Handbook of …” tomes. A “Wizards of the Coast” stamp, or lack thereof, makes little difference. They’re still the same jumble of sometimes cool and sometimes contradictory and sometimes overpowered rules for players and DMs to cherry pick for use in their game they would be if they had that “Wizards of the Coast” label. (The RPG market is so incestuous the 3rd party creators are often people who were working for the “official” company just a few years before, releasing rules that would have been “official” had they still been employed by WOTC, so the difference in actual content is probably minimal). Things don’t have to be labeled “Optional” to be considered optional. Such has been the case since the beginning of D&D. You have a basic framework of rules and work from there. Using the rules as a framework rather than a rigid set of instructions has always been very much in keeping with the spirit of D&D, in my opinion, and I don’t think that’s changed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-05-03 11:16 AM Originally posted by theDwarf Actually his argument is more this: 3e is an integrated system, 1e and 2e are not as integrated. This is true. First Edition especially was very piecemeal in nature, and expectedly so since it was very much a work in progress for years. While it made it easier to ignore things you didn’t like, it was also probably the system’s greatest weakness. If you change something in 3e it can have major ramifications on how the game runs as a whole and thus can lead lead to a ton of work. As in older systems, it depends on what you change. I’ll address this with your specific points below. Feats and skills are intrinsic to the whole system (actually, they are pretty much the basis of the system). If you try to play without them you have to rewrite every class (for "balance") and pretty much everything else has to at least be looked at. Some "subtle" changes have major effects as well. I think Skills can very easily be dropped save for rogue (and related) classes. In their case, the Skills are simply determining the old Thief skills under a different die, no? Many of the 3E skills either take the place of/supplement role playing (such as Bluff or Diplomacy) or are for things we always took for granted (such as Ride). Others are easily replaced with the old standby of ability score checks. Spot and Search add a game mechanic that did not exist before; situations where they would be used can easily be resolved “the old way,” eg by the DM determining how things play. Yes, some monsters utilize Skills as fairly major features – a high Move Silently, maybe – but those are the exceptions, not the rule, and are little different than saying “Monster X can Move Silently like a 5th Level Thief” in an older edition. What happens if you eliminate the 3e Skill system? Nothing too drastic, in my opinion. Yeah, the game designers used the system to “balance” the classes to some degree, but you know what happens without that “balance?” The classes look much like they did in previous editions, with strengths and weakness to be exploited by smart players. I think the new skill system is a great way to make characters unique and add flavor, but I don’t think they’re a huge factor in pure game balance. Feats are a different matter, most notably because of the Fighter’s heavy reliance on Feats – again, for “balance.” Despite this I think they can be safely ignored without breaking the system. Fighters will remain the dominant combat class of early levels and will slowly fade to walking meat shields for spellcasters at high levels, which is not too far from the situation in other versions of D&D. (A simplified view, but not far off the mark). Special abilities Fighters got in previous versions can still be gotten, as most are given d20 representation through Feats. Just call them Special Abilities and grant them as they were under whatever system you liked. Will doing any of this throw off the “balance” of Third Edition? You bet it will. But so too did incorporating optional rules from Second Edition, or Weapon Proficiencies from Basic D&D, or whatever else. The game elements impact one another, no doubt, but (with exceptions) that’s unavoidable no matter the system you’re playing under. A DM can and should be able to adjust accordingly. The most modular system in 3e (AFAICT) is prestige classes, and they can quickly become more unbalanced than anything I remember from 1e or 2e (including kits from 2e). Arguably. I don’t think the Prestige Classes are any more or less unbalancing than the Kits. As a whole both systems are very similar and have strong pros (fun and varied choices) and cons (wildly varying power levels). Just starting a party with absolutely no equipment greatly hinders the play in 3e, especially CR, for levels to come I do find that 3E is scaled to be difficult, and the CRs of encounters and difficulty of modules tends to be higher than previous editions and how I run my campaign. But like any DM, I adjust accordingly. That doesn’t take any effort on my part. The CRs are a loose measuring stick, little more. I agree that the idea of incorporating “expected equipment” into game balance is a poor one. It’s not something I take into consideration. My campaigns have always been low magic. A CR4 creature in my campaign is more like a CR5 or 6. But like I said, I simply adjust accordingly. Mind you, I haven’t played a high level campaign under Third Edition rules, where this stuff may very well become a big factor. (Balancing high levels seems to be a problem in most RPGs). But then high-level campaigns in previous D&D edition were rare for us, too. We’ve always gravitated towards mid-level play. I can’t speak firmly on high-level balance for any edition save Basic D&D. (3e plays a lot like "adventure to buy better equipment to be better at adventuring to buy better equipment, and so on ...", depending on the GM (in 1e/2e the equipment was found ON the adventure, not made/bought afterwards). The key phrase is “depending on the GM.” I don’t see what in the rules indicates that Third Edition leans more towards buying equipment rather than finding it. To date my PCs have found all their best equipment, save some items that were given as a reward and a good bow that was bought. Yes, they give magic item price lists now, but I honestly pay that little mind. In some ways 3e is more flexable, in others much less so. The greatest flexability, choice, is also the most rigid. That’s not an unfair argument. The type of choices inherent in each system differs. The amount or variety, I would argue, is about the same. It’s not unfair to say that the modular nature of earlier editions was a strength, just as it’s not unfair to say the uniform game mechanic of d20 is its strength. But choices abound in either, though the nature of those choices differs. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : Demon Lightfoot Date : 09-05-03 12:09 PM Huh; I liked the Complete books and kits; and Skills and Powers. And anything else that I could lay my hands on to increase the options in my games; I wallowed in 2e's excesses; after the long slow changes in 1e (UA, OA, WSG & DSG), the wealth of stuff to play around with in 2e was liberating. Of course, I kept things from 1e that I liked , such as rangers who specialized, all of OA -- especially the martial arts rules, which I adapted into Western styles like wrestling, street-fighting, boxing and savate. Never had "balance" problems; no one ever whined that such-and-such was "stepping on the Fighter's toes", or hogging all the "spotlight" (there is one player who complains that his characters don't get lands and titles and castles like some of the other PCs, but that's because he tends to play his characters as totally obnoxious socially screwed-up jerks who alienate the powerful NPCs who dish that stuff out, so he has only himself to blame). The only way that a character ever dominated play in our games was when the personality that was created was striking and powerful enough to virtually take on a life of its own. I hate to say this, aside from the cookie-cutter nature of 3e clerics (specialty priests 4eVA!), overly complex combat, ugly dungeonpunk art, denatured flavor text, cruddy multiclassing rules, peed-on spells, the blatant money-grab that was 3.$ and skinny halflings, the more I play around with 3e, the more that I think that I like it. Of course, I'm keeping kits, specialty priests, adding 2e & 1e bards as viable variants, expanding the disadvantage system from S&P, and running with an alt.ranger, some barbarian variants and I'm beefing up the sorcerer's Spells Known and class features and tweaking the races and boosting the number of feats that characters get... Life is good. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-05-03 05:21 PM I hate to say this, aside from the cookie-cutter nature of 3e clerics (specialty priests 4eVA!), overly complex combat, ugly dungeonpunk art, denatured flavor text, cruddy multiclassing rules, peed-on spells, the blatant money-grab that was 3.$ and skinny halflings, the more I play around with 3e, the more that I think that I like it. Of course, I'm keeping kits, specialty priests, adding 2e & 1e bards as viable variants, expanding the disadvantage system from S&P, and running with an alt.ranger, some barbarian variants and I'm beefing up the sorcerer's Spells Known and class features and tweaking the races and boosting the number of feats that characters get... Life is good. Good attitude! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-05-03 05:57 PM I was wondering since the subject of 2e-3e hybrids has come up. By changing stat bonuses to the 2e ones (mentioned aboved) have you noticed the effect it has on skills and saves? I tried it and saw how bad it was on them and went back to 3e's idea. I have tinkers with halving the bonuses. Sadly I have not had time to playtest yet but it does look good. Also went back to the 2e iniative and did halve the init bonuses(feat bonuses included) and that does work well. Any way I also went to 2e's combat system and also got back the frantic combat pace 3e is missing. My new 1e books are not here yet but I know I will be borrowing from them as well. As mentioned above also I agree somewhat that changing certain 3e rules does have a negative effect on other 3e rules and it does take some tweaking to make work but not as bad as usual tweaking of any system. But to be compleatly honest I got the LOTR book and have been reading it and cant wait to try it's system out. It looks promising. Back to the subject. are there anymore suggestions on hybriding the eds? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : Lord_Soto Date : 09-05-03 09:36 PM Originally posted by Myrridin Sorry, I was wrong about the martial arts attacks, it's been a long time since I've looked at AD&D, and am going off of memory here. I do notice that you're only trying to refute my arguements, and that you don't come up with ways in which AD&D might be considered a "better" system. I'm not trying to prove that it is a "better" system. I am simply trying to prove that this "The various "complete" books were some of the most unbalanced garbage ever printed, I know, I still have most of them.." is not as true as you think it is. It appears to me (and I may be wrong), that you, like so many others that I have met, pulled the "twink" stuff out of the Complete series and disregarded the penalties attached to the stuff. I would also imagine that you disregard the role-playing penalties attached to the various kits as "Weak... at best" since you seem to feel that rules (read: Nerfs) based on racial personality traits are "an arbitrary rule" that "you shouldn't need" [B] The elven mage/thief was overpowered, *shrug* it just came down to that. With the discrepancy in the amount of XP it took to level, if you were allowed to choose the split, you could keep almost equal levels in both classes. [B] You're right. I did the math... he doesn't need to use half of his thieving skills, because by the time he is fourth level, he can use clairaudience, spider climb, and invisibilty. He doesn't need armor because he can cast armor. In a toe to toe equivalent, he kicks the human thief's au natural behind all over the map. Which makes me wonder why so many of the munchkins I have DM'd for over the years never played a mage/thief. The best I can come up with is that he has the worst Thac0 of any class except straight mage, the second worst hit points of any class, and is only outdone by the gnome priest/thief for weapons available (Club, Staff, and Sling are the only blungeon only weapons from the thief's weapon selection). His spells do help some, but without using optional rules, the PC doesn't get the choice of how to split his experience between classes. My original post was meant to bring to light that Balance does not necessarily make the game more fun. I stand by that. What makes a system good is the ability to do remarkable things with little effort, to use it intuitively, and to enjoy it. Balancing the party should be the job of the DM, not the guys who write the rules. In 2E, Joe Fighter and Bob Thief/Priest could operate in the same party quite well together. Joe didn't have to worry about Bob taking two levels of Barbarian (which still doesn't make sense to me) and suddenly put Joe out of a job. So many people seem to think that the game is supposed to be fair and balanced so that every character has approximately the same power level. My observation is that nobody complained about 2E Haste until they were able to abuse 3E Haste. These days, it seems that 3.5 Haste isn't fair because it weakens the mage, when it has basically the same effect now that it had two revisions ago. Wanting 3.0 Haste back isn't about wanting balance, it's about wanting something for nothing. It is the same as claiming 3E is better because the character classes are more balanced. It isn't. 2E may not be as "balanced" as 3E, but that is because you percieve it as repressing the powers of the single-classed theif as compared to the thief-mage. I simply feel that the opposite applies. To me, 3E cheapens the sense of accomplishment of playing a master-theif because it trys so hard to make sure that nobody has an unfair advantage/disadvantage. I am not trying to prove that one system is better than the other, just that balance is very subjective, and does not make 3E a better system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : GreyLord Date : 09-06-03 01:29 PM Have to finish reading the posts...but from what I've read so far...this is HILARIOUS...3e made D&D mainstream. What the heck are you on? Last time I checked, the majority of D&D players are STILL pimply faced geeks, and nerds. The only difference is that you are older, therefore many of those previous geeks are now more professional and making a heck of a better paycheck, which makes them seem more mainstream. Hate to break it to you, they aren't. The biggest item which made D&D even remotely more mainstream was the advent of the Infinity Engine Computer Games, which produced the Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale series. Next came the Neverwinter Nights series, which is about the closest to mainstream that it comes...except, oh what is that, most hardcore gamers that spend a lot of time with those games, are rather geeky themselves. The most mainstream I think I've ever seen D&D was about the mid 80's. However, many of you probably thought magic was mainstream as well, which it never really was. The closest games I've seen WotC come to mainstream, and actually HIT the mainstream in popularity has been with games such as Pokeman, when it came out. Stephen King is mainstream overall (10 to 18 million copies in the first few months which would be more money than WOTC made in it's first year with D&D and ALL the books). Tom Clancy is mainstream (with similar figures). Heck, Harry Potter is mainstream (for who knows what reasons right now). Lord of the Rings has become mainstream, for who knows why. D&D mainstream? Riiight. It just seems that way from who you hang out with. Before I moved, I had to recruit people to play, NO ONE really ever even touched D&D. Yes, it was STILL seen as a geeks and nerds game. Even now, amazing enough, I have found players to play with in 3e, and starting in with another group that plays hackmaster. You know what, the people buying this stuff, are still the same in looks and acceptance (with rare exceptions). The most normal people are actually the ones who are playing hackmaster (who look at those playing 3e as Geeks, believe it or not). This group is made up of (and I kid you not, this is a reason to play Hackmaster if you can get so lucky...heck any RPG game for that matter) of extremely well proportioned, blue eyed, blondes. Most of them are actually pretty hot. I'm lucky enough that I'm the first guy they've thought would be nice enough to game with (they don't like the other RPG'ers it seems), and to top it off, they like to Roleplay (actually I have to admit, I've been a little busy when they've called me up recently, I wanted to watch a movie or two yesterday, when they wanted to game instead, yeah, sometimes I'm stupid too). D&D isn't mainstream...don't kid yourselves. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-06-03 04:14 PM :rofl: :twitch: He said hackmaster. :looloo: well propotioned blue eyed blonde Riiiiight :headexplo he lies :turkey: WHAM! POW! SPLAT! SPLORT! BINK! SQUEAK! THUNK! PLUNK! BOOSH! POOCH! much better....carry on..... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-06-03 05:14 PM Last time I checked, the majority of D&D players are STILL pimply faced geeks, and nerds. Maybe I don't have a problem with the mainstream thing because I was never a pimply faced nerd. And even though in the groups I played with there would always be like one or two nerds, they were always vastly outnumbered. (Not to say anything bad about nerds, because all of the nerds I played with were GREAT people. They just had some more problems interacting with other people. Mostly just because they were shy.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-06-03 05:50 PM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer Maybe I don't have a problem with the mainstream thing because I was never a pimply faced nerd. You probably don't have a problem with the mainstream thing because as a well-adjusted and sensible guy you realize it's a ridiculous, stupid and inconsequential thing to be concerned about. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : GreyLord Date : 09-06-03 09:53 PM Originally posted by Shoegaze99 You probably don't have a problem with the mainstream thing because as a well-adjusted and sensible guy you realize it's a ridiculous, stupid and inconsequential thing to be concerned about. Exactly. It's amazing though, how many of those who are considered such, have such a hard time admitting it to themselves. I ran track, I won state, I played college sports on scholorship, and you know what, I still qualify as that geek thing. Why? It's what you do, not what you look like, and face it...D&D is geeky. It doesn't really matter that much once you are happy with yourself, I find those that are most in denial of it however, are typically the ones most concerned, and most applicable to the term. Me, I liked being an introvert, instead of an extrovert, I liked to read, in the past few years I started to like computers (didn't have much use for them before really, however, as my physique has died down, I've started being interested in activities that aren't quite so, physical. I'm one of those that just has to win if they play in a sport (not so in RPG's luckily), and of course I roleplay...all geeky things. PCgames = geeky, console games, well, it seems console games are mainstream apparantly. As for hackmaster, I did play today for a session. Now all you youngsters, don't go looking up some of my references, though I don't say anything bad, it could lead you to some bad things, so don't go looking. One of the blondes was about 5'3" at about 110 pounds, looks like one of the Dahm sisters. I'd say about a 34b-27/28-34 The other is around 5'6" and looks to weigh about 120 to 125. More of a pixie looking face. I'd say about a 34b/c-28-33. Rough guesses. There's only two. One was the DM, not to happy with me after the session I might add (I had a half-elf mage/thief that was NE, threatened to kill the innkeeper, burn down the rosebushes behind the inn that's been in his family for generations, and made a general mess of her adventure idea) but I hope she's recovering. I was there to game, no matter how cute they might be. Plus, I'm already married to yet...another cute blonde. I find once you accept what you are, it doesn't really matter whether something is mainstream or not (which as I wanted to point out before, PnP RPG's are not, hence D&D PnP is definately not). You enjoy it, not because it's what everyone else does, but because it's something you enjoy. You are basically happy with who you are. Which is why I had to poke fun at what everyone said on the first page of this thread about it being mainstream and not for geeks and nerds anymore and all that stuff which is wholly and completely humorously false. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-06-03 10:01 PM not really wanting to post but my boots only go so high man. First you say it's not mainstream but still geeky then add baywatch type babes. I smell something and it's not roses. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : GreyLord Date : 09-07-03 02:16 AM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes not really wanting to post but my boots only go so high man. First you say it's not mainstream but still geeky then add baywatch type babes. I smell something and it's not roses. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive of each other. I do have to say, I was surprised myself to have girls that look like that into gaming...funny enough, it wasn't 3rd edition, nor even D&D (though then you are getting into technicalities). They are not baywatch type babes though, neither one has D size cups. They are pretty cute, and as I said, surprised the heck out of me that they liked RPG's (met them at a game store, started talking, and found out they were more into RPG's than me overall, heck, even my wife didn't really like RPG's, I have to basically drag her into it...). Wargaming is not mainstream either (unless you count Risk and Axis and Allies, and then it might count...maybe), but that doesn't mean you don't run into some neat people in it sometimes. Have no doubts, D&D is geekiness, but as shown above, you should be above that, as geekiness is something of the mind... Prime example, look at Sharon Stone, high school cast out turned grown up hottie. At least I thought she was pretty cute back in the 90's. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : Mister E Date : 09-07-03 11:37 PM Originally posted by Shoegaze99 Yes, I think the “choice” argument has little merit because I don’t think 3rd Edition D&D offers any more or less choices than previous editions (unless you feel rules must be labeled “optional” in order to represent a choice) Normally I would agree with this since a game is "flexible" only because it's already pretty close to how you want to roleplay. There is just one problem, 3ed was supposed more flexible. Remember how WotC made a big deal about having "tools not rules." I can't speak for Algolei, but what i think he is doing when he wants official rules is calling WotC on thier claims. "Hey WotC, i can't even play the way i was a year ago. Where are all these great tools to customize the game. So far, I'm doing the work without help. You lied" At least, that's why i gave up 3ed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : Mister E Date : 09-07-03 11:49 PM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer You are right there. That would be a problem if your game is about firepower. Again, I am just lucky I guess. If my players thinks adding a few levels of wizard to their fighter is cool for the story, they will do it. It doesn't matter if it makes them slightly less powerful. +extra remark: I think the balance issue with kits was much greater than with PrC's though Firepower can be a factor without dominating the campaign. My games have been pretty freeform, with the actions of the characters (not the players) determining the story. A little bit of min maxing is a good thing, since it shows that the players are concerned with what happens, (no deus ex machina to bail the characters out.) I completley agree with theDwarf, 3ed's "flexible" system really screws the players if they try do something the deisgners didn t intead -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-08-03 06:32 AM You probably don't have a problem with the mainstream thing because as a well-adjusted and sensible guy you realize it's a ridiculous, stupid and inconsequential thing to be concerned about. That is true also. As for the comment that Greylord made about D&D being geeky. Well I guess it is and will always be. That said, I am proud of having a geeky side! Mr. VanderMeer: well-adjusted, sensible, mainstream and a little geeky. Well that seems like a pretty well rounded personality. :D Okay back to topic: About the flexibility of the systems. I think you can never get a definitive answer on this discussion. Different people want different choices. I think 3e gives me more freedom and choice. Someone else will have different demands on the system. That doesn't mean one is better than the other. (wow, I really am sensible!) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Lord Phobetor Date : 09-08-03 09:15 AM Originally posted by Algolei I've had nothing but trouble changing the rules in my 3E games. I've tried to remove Feats from the game, but every class and just about every monster has Feats built in. I've tried to replace the Skills system, but again, every monster has Skills built in. Dude, trying to remove Feats from 3E would be like trying to remove Saving Throws or xps from 1E or 2E. They're that integral to the game. Originally posted by TheDwarf: 3e is an integrated system, 1e and 2e are not as integrated. That's both a strength and a weakness of previous editions. Granted, the lack of integration made changing certain aspects of the game easier, but the flipside was that even with official products, the power levels varied wildly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : Unknowable Date : 09-08-03 10:30 AM You probably don't have a problem with the mainstream thing because as a well-adjusted and sensible guy you realize it's a ridiculous, stupid and inconsequential thing to be concerned about. I'm the first person to mention and I don't think its so stupid or inconsequential because if the game is percieved as nerd or a geek thing, that no one but geeks or nerds will approach it. Not because they don't want to be considered nerds or geeks so much as they don't want to be around nerds or geeks. When I use the word geek or nerd, I am refering to people that have significantly more difficulty getting along or fitting in with people than they average Joe. I've gone to plenty of games were most of the players didn't have gfs, didn't seem to have much going for them and spent more time talking about their characters from past games than about anything interesting or in real life. When I play D&D, I prefer to play with well rounded people that don't have problems or issues with the opposite sex, that have something intesting to talk about and have something more going on in thier lives than just D&D. I eventually quit playing for a few years because it finally reached a point where it seemed that the only people who played it at all were complete social misfits. I've never concerned my self with looking like a nerd, I just don't like hanging around with misfits. Most people don't. That's the reason they are misfits, because most people don't really like them. Someone mentioned that it was humorously false that D&D has become more mainstream. I don't know where you live, but where I live, 3ed is considerably more popular than 2ed and since TSR was bought out by WotC, the number of players has increased drastically here. Granted D&D is still a little bit of a geek thing, that mentality is on its way out. Another way in which its not inconsequential is more mainstream means more people playing which effects the descisions of the company of the company that manufactures the product. For example, was less concerned about bringing in new players and so tried to make thier money buy flooding the market with tons of books. Almost one of these books assumed the use of several others to encorperate them smoothly into game play. And then TSR just relied every D&D player to buy every bit of crap they cranked out to keep them afloat and guess what, it doesn't quite work that way. WotC on the other hand has done written thier material in such a way that every new product only assumes the use of the 3 core rule books and nothing else. Not all the products are inter-reliant and you do not have suppliments to suppliments. Also, TSR would never have dared to publish something like the BoVD. Its the mainstreaming of D&D that allows for such endevours to be commercially viable. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-08-03 10:43 AM I'm the first person to mention and I don't think its so stupid or inconsequential He meant that is is stupid to say that D&D becoming more mainstream is a bad thing. So he doesn't mean you. You are actually happy it is becoming more mainstream. I like that too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : Mister E Date : 09-08-03 06:10 PM Originally posted by Lord_Soto [B]I'm not trying to prove that it is a "better" system. I am simply trying to prove that this "The various "complete" books were some of the most unbalanced garbage ever printed, I know, I still have most of them.." is not as true as you think it is. It appears to me (and I may be wrong), that you, like so many others that I have met, pulled the "twink" stuff out of the Complete series and disregarded the penalties attached to the stuff. I would also imagine that you disregard the role-playing penalties attached to the various kits as "Weak... at best" since you seem to feel that rules (read: Nerfs) based on racial personality traits are "an arbitrary rule" that "you shouldn't need" Ding Ding Ding, give the man a cigar. I remember one of the 3ed desinger crowing about how the role-play penalites didn't work because players would just find ways around them. When i read it i tought to myself, well why would a dm allow the kits they didn't add to the game. Plus i think determining whether a kit or rule was balanced was A LOT easier in 2nd. The rules point blank stated how they work. In 3ed you don't really know, cause you can combined everthing in anything into one character. I don't think that 1st or 2nd ed was so unbalnced as people try to make it out. Most of the optional stuff for 2nd worked if you didn't give the pc's to high of attributes. Ie, if fighters all didn't have high strenghts and dexteritys, those optional style rules from the compelte fighters handbook would just replace high stat bonuses (since all of 1st methods gave pretty high attributes.) So many people seem to think that the game is supposed to be fair and balanced so that every character has approximately the same power level. My observation is that nobody complained about 2E Haste until they were able to abuse 3E Haste. These days, it seems that 3.5 Haste isn't fair because it weakens the mage, when it has basically the same effect now that it had two revisions ago. Wanting 3.0 Haste back isn't about wanting balance, it's about wanting something for nothing. It is the same as claiming 3E is better because the character classes are more balanced. LOL. I don't see how the 3ed desingers make a big deal about relative power levels for the core classes, when everyone is playing Prc's or multi-multi classes, or monster with templates ect... To me, 3E cheapens the sense of accomplishment of playing a master-theif because it trys so hard to make sure that nobody has an unfair advantage/disadvantage. Yeah,i hate how generic everything's become. I liked it when the illusionist and mage had differents spell lists. When the ranger just kicked orc's butts from here to tuesday and then gave away all the treasure cause he couldn't carry it. Or when the druid wasn't so insecure about his leather armor, he needed to turn into dire elemental butt weasle to feel useful. And i never even seen 1st editon till a couple of years ago. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : GreyLord Date : 09-08-03 07:48 PM Originally posted by Unknowable I'm the first person to mention and I don't think its so stupid or inconsequential because if the game is percieved as nerd or a geek thing, that no one but geeks or nerds will approach it. Not because they don't want to be considered nerds or geeks so much as they don't want to be around nerds or geeks. When I use the word geek or nerd, I am refering to people that have significantly more difficulty getting along or fitting in with people than they average Joe. I've gone to plenty of games were most of the players didn't have gfs, didn't seem to have much going for them and spent more time talking about their characters from past games than about anything interesting or in real life. When I play D&D, I prefer to play with well rounded people that don't have problems or issues with the opposite sex, that have something intesting to talk about and have something more going on in thier lives than just D&D. I eventually quit playing for a few years because it finally reached a point where it seemed that the only people who played it at all were complete social misfits. I've never concerned my self with looking like a nerd, I just don't like hanging around with misfits. Most people don't. That's the reason they are misfits, because most people don't really like them. In other words your a geeky nerd. You can admit it. If that was what you think of the people you gamed with, obviously, guess what...you were hanging out with them...and that makes you a? Ding ding ding, you got it...a NERD! And a misfit to boot from what you write. Like attracts like, like hangs out with like...except for those parasites that try to join in but all they want is that fleeting taste of popularity...those actually are more disgusting to me. And really bad as they don't have any identity o their own. Afterall, apparantly you are still caught up in the highschool mindframe. At a certain point, it doesn't matter anymore, or shouldn't, and if one is so bothered by stereotypes that they can't accept something like that...well...perhaps you should stop critisizing your boss. Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, George Bush (poor guy, people mock him about all sorts of things, at least they don't mock him as badly as they do others), all previous geeks who have gotten over their previous dilemmas (or we should hope). The First two are pretty smart guys as well...actually really smart. I don't agree with many of the things they do, but heck, look at what geeks and Nerds can DO! It's so highschool. Yes, it's definately a geeky thing, and the proper response should be...so what? You're either happy with yourself or your not. If you can't accept that what you do might be called a geeky thing, then heck, perhaps you are not in it for the right reasons. I played Soccer in College, and also Ran track. You know, we were by no means even close to being considered jocks like the Football players. Many probably would scorn us. We even went to the nationals, won a national tournament or two, and yet, we were not considered as athletic as the Football team that did not. So what? We were happy playing, we enjoyed what we did, and who gives a hoot if we are considered wimps by others. Only the high school kids... :rolleyes: Accept what you do, and that it's not mainstream. Mainstream will be something else in a few years...and then, where will you be. To be mainstream you always have to change what you do...or become...gasp...nerdy, geeky, and out of step with the rest of the crowd...oh dear... Once again... :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-08-03 10:36 PM ----------------------- | | | V Nuff Said -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : Unknowable Date : 09-09-03 12:04 AM He meant that is is stupid to say that D&D becoming more mainstream is a bad thing. So he doesn't mean you. You are actually happy it is becoming more mainstream. Yeah, I got that now. I didn't read the thread very good the first time. And I didn't read every post. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : Unknowable Date : 09-09-03 01:29 AM In other words your a geeky nerd. You can admit it. If that was what you think of the people you gamed with, obviously, guess what...you were hanging out with them...and that makes you a? Ding ding ding, you got it...a NERD! You completely missed the point. When I was in high school I was a bit of a nerd or a geek but I really wasn’t too terribly concerned about people thinking that then, and I certainly am not concerned with it now. If someone wants to think that about me, let them. Life is too short worrying about what everyone else thinks. The reason I don’t particularly care for hanging out with geeks and nerds is because I do not like enjoy the company of people of most misfits because they are generally unpleasant to be around. To better illustrate the point, I’ll describe some the gamers I’ve encountered in the past. One guy that I gamed with had a house filled with medieval figurines at the exclusion of just about everything else. There were dirty clothes and empty pizza boxes all over his floor and he sometimes went for days without showering. He would come to the gaming table wearing two scimitars, just like Drizzt Du’urden. He never talked about anything except for past characters he had played and the adventures they had went on and I never once saw him with a woman. When gaming, anytime anything having to do the least little bit with an attractive woman came up, for example encountering a dryad or a nymph, he would talk like an 11 year old who had just discovered the thrill of using profanity or telling a dirty. If he had been a teenager, this might have been forgivable but he was in his mid twenties. I think that most people don’t particularly care to hang out in a house with dirty clothes all over the place. If someone knows I’m coming and doesn’t take the time to clean up, it gives me the idea that either this person isn’t too terribly concerned with other peoples feelings, or doesn’t really know any better. And if they don’t know any better, that’s at least partly because they are generally unconcerned with other people’s feelings. As for other people’s characters and their adventures, the experience is one that only involves the specific people that were present. It’s not like a book or movie that replays the same way regardless of the viewer but instead is something that is not repeatable. And so if I was not present, it is not an experience that I can share in. And so just about anything is more interesting for someone who wasn’t there. I played with another guy who made secret dice rolls and always, without fail, managed to hit regardless of the DC or AC. In every session and every encounter, he wanted to be the star of the show. Anytime someone talked about life outside the game, he had a story that was bigger, better, more heroic, more tragic, you name it, that he’d been through. He was an expert on everything from physics to history to biology to anthropology of every last civilization and culture that there ever has been. He was 38, living with his mom, and mostly did unskilled manual labor when he was actually working. He did talk about his girlfriend an awfully lot but her physical description changed from week to week as well to whether or not she had cancer, or some other terminal illness. Does this sound like people you would want to hang out with? Playing D&D does not in and of itself make someone a nerd or a geek. Being a jerk does and if I go to a game and everyone there is a jerk, I leave. Not because I worry that someone will think I'm a nerd or a geek, but because these people are jerks and generally unpleasant to be around. I don't dislike the because they are nerds and geeks, I dislike them because they are generally too unconcered with mine (or anyone elses) feelings to not do things that are unpleasant or offensive. And a misfit to boot from what you write. I never said I had problems getting along with people or that I have issues with the opposite sex. I have plenty of friends and I'm married and most people generally like me. Or at least they don't appear to strongly dislike me so what gives you the idea that I'm a misfit? I was a little in high school probably but even then I had plenty of friends so I must not have been too bad. Like attracts like, like hangs out with like... The only thing I had in common with either of the two guys I described is that I play D&D. I didn't hang out with them when we were not playing D&D and I didn't game with either for very long. except for those parasites that try to join in but all they want is that fleeting taste of popularity...those actually are more disgusting to me. If you had actually taken the time to analyze and consider the motives of these guys, it looks to me like you have much more of the problem than you are accusing me of. I have never given this much thought to someone I didn't like. I don't even give people I don't like enough thought to despise them. And really bad as they don't have any identity o their own. Apparently they have some identity or somethng that makes them awfully important because you seem to devote an awful lot of time and energy to despising them. You think they are so important that you tell me about them. I wont tell anyone about you because I'll forget all about you 5 seconds I leave this keyboard so these people that you dispise must be pretty important. Afterall, apparantly you are still caught up in the highschool mindframe. I don't like being around unpleasant people. I couldn't care less if they do or dont play D&D or do anything else. I don't want to be around them, period. Because they are unplease. I've got some bad news for you. People never reach a point that they actually desire the presence and company of people that are unpleasant and unlikable. At a certain point, it doesn't matter anymore, or shouldn't, and if one is so bothered by stereotypes that they can't accept something like that...well...perhaps you should stop critisizing your boss. Since I DM nowadays, as a rule I never game with someone that I work with. I don't even know if my boss even plays D&D and I somehow don't it. But that asside. I'm not 100% of what you meant. If you are talking about the Prez, then you have it backwards, We are his boss. I couldn't care less with stereo types. If it is totally cool and hip to be a total jerk, I'm still not going to hang out with jerks. Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, George Bush (poor guy, people mock him about all sorts of things, at least they don't mock him as badly as they do others), all previous geeks who have gotten over their previous dilemmas (or we should hope). The First two are pretty smart guys as well...actually really smart. I don't agree with many of the things they do, but heck, look at what geeks and Nerds can DO! I thought Bill Clinton was a better Prez than Bush but that asside, he cheated on his wife. Guess what that makes him? It makes him a jerk and creep and not someone I would want to hang out with. But that's a moral thing. On all accounts, he was a very good guy to be around and he wasn't a social misfit. QUOTE]It's so highschool. Yes, it's definately a geeky thing, and the proper response should be...so what? You're either happy with yourself or your not. If you can't accept that what you do might be called a geeky thing, then heck, perhaps you are not in it for the right reasons.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? What is so high school? Did you even [read my post? The reason I am happy with the way that WotC has margeted 3ed is that it brought in more players, which means a much larger choice of people to play with. I don't care if what I'm doing is considered a geeky thing or not so long as the person next to me doesn't smell bad or bore me to tears with stupid stories of things that never happened. And if I am sitting next to such a person, I don't care if it's geeky, cool, or what. I still want to get away from this person. I played Soccer in College, and also Ran track. You know, we were by no means even close to being considered jocks like the Football players. Many probably would scorn us. We even went to the nationals, won a national tournament or two, and yet, we were not considered as athletic as the Football team that did not. So what? We were happy playing, we enjoyed what we did, and who gives a hoot if we are considered wimps by others. Only the high school kids... How is your track days in high school even remotely related to this current discussion? And what is your deal about high school anyway? Did you just graduate like with in the last couple of years or somthing and still hadn't gotten used to life not being nearly so predictiable? I can't even began to guess at what I was thinking about in high school because that was way too long ago. Accept what you do, and that it's not mainstream. Mainstream will be something else in a few years...and then, where will you be. Do you even know what mainstream means? To be mainstream you always have to change what you do...or become...gasp...nerdy, geeky, and out of step with the rest of the crowd...oh dear... The business suit is used by busimen because it reveals nothing about their personality. You can't look at a man in a business suit and make any educated guesses about what his personal biases or prejudices and that is the reason the business suit is used: it allows for a person to conduct thier professional affairs without ever potentially offending someone on a personal level by thier mere appearance. And so the suit has been the mainstream for hundreds of years. Another good example is classical music which is now and always will be the most mainstream of music. It's not everyone's favorite music but no one is offended or annoyed by it. Once you get out in the world, most people really don't care one way or the other about you or anyone else they don't know and don't interact with. No one really cares if you or I or anyone else is playing D&D or doing anything else and that is what I mean about it being more mainstream, the abscense of the stigma. D&D no longer is synonomous with unpleasant jerks and so a lot more people are willing to approach it. And the result is if you want to play, you choices are no longer limited to people that you wouldn't hang out with otherwise. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-09-03 04:01 AM I have never met, let alone played with, such mentally disabled people as you just described. (Although the guy that always has a bigger story does remind me of someone I knew in college.) Having those kind of experiences is naturally going to give you a different view from others, who only met the run of the mill likeable geeky, nerdy good guys (and girls). As I said I never met idiots living in a trashheap, not showering and walking around with two scimitars. (well except for the Larp'ers of course, but they don't wear their outfits in daily life). If I did I would probably give them a very wide berth. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : theDwarf Date : 09-09-03 03:48 PM Originally posted by Lord Phobetor but the flipside was that even with official products, the power levels varied wildly. Odd, I my opinion power levels very just as wildly in official 3e material as the 2e "Complete book of..". ;) Possibly more so with the introduction of the Epic level book and some of the Prestige classes. :rolleyes: :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : GreyLord Date : 09-09-03 03:49 PM In answer to some of "Unknowable's" questions. I stated the problem because you seemed overly concerned with separating yourself from "nerds and geeks" as stated in your first post. I stated about my college days because they were referenced directly to what I was stating about acceptance and mainstream. I know what mainstream is (I work in the book market, it's part of my job). Something that sells 20 million copies is mainstream. Something that sells less than a million in a year is not... For example, Football is mainstream. The Superbowl brings in tons of money. A football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Atlanta Falcons probably generates as much revenue alone that D&D does in a year. Does that mean D&D is bad...of course not. Bookwise, a single new release by Tom Clancy makes more money than a single new release of any D&D book out there on the market. Fantasy is slowly becoming more acceptable, and has an appreciable rise in marketing power recently. It still can't beat out most best sellers, and D&D isn't exactly on the top of the heap (maybe in game circles it might be a powerhouse seller, not in books though). It sells well enough, but not nearly as good as a lot of other items. Perhaps you should be the one to figure out what mainstream is. Does it really have to be mainstream to impress you? Does something have to be mainstream? Did you know that hockey has gained popularity in the US? Does that mean it's "mainstream" now? Looking at the statistics and ratings for Football and Basketball...I'd say that was dubious to say the least. (Not to put down Hockey, and it is mainstream in some places I understand...plus, what other sport do you see guys sliding all over the place with a rubber...okay, won't go there). :) I stated about the one type of people I dislike. Some of those tend to stick to you like glue. They like to use you. Some of them might percieve you as "popular" or as you could see "mainstream" and are trying to use you to be that themselves. When you are no longer of value to them they move on. I dislike them because they can't be trusted, and are not your friends. I have had to put up with parasites like that, and I really don't like them. Most gamers are not like that (I am happy to say), just those who keep up the ideas of what is popular, nerdy, geeky, as important and significant in their lives. All those things, classifying, labeling, whatever, is something that teens do, thus the term high school. This is why I refer to it as so "highschool." There comes a point where you should be happy with who you are, even if it is a nerdy type person, and accept that is who you are, and what you like. Most grow out of the classifying stage, and mature to the point that yes, we could say someone looks nerdy or geeky, or what they do is nerdy or geeky, but it doesn't matter, because they are happy with who they are, and we are content with who we are. We can all work together for common goals. I brought up Bill Gates and others because in their younger days, they were considered outcasts, and other such things among those who were "mainstream." They have grown up to be some of the most powerful people on earth. This shows that this terminology, is meaningless. Who gives a dang... So, what you should have gotten is, 1. From your first post, you indicated that you were insecure with your position in life, and had to justify yourself as being "unnerdy" by stating that you would not hang out with aforementioned "nerds." This I found ridiculous. I found it somewhat humorous when you tried to go back and say that you meant jerks, not nerds, in your statement. 2. From what I've seen of sales, D&D is not "mainstream" per se. That is not to say it doesn't make lots of money, it's just not as "mainstream" as a lot of other things which put D&D to shame. D&D is not the "mainstream" thing to do with your evenings. Most would rather spend time with others doing other items, for example...watching a football game. 3. D&D appeals to the same audience that it has always appealed to. 3rd Edition did not really appeal to those that D&D never appealed to before. It DID bring back some who had left, and influenced those who may have not been interested in the dying industry of 2e, but would be interested in the same items of fantasy and Roleplaying in general. Hence, if you considered D&D nerdy and geeky before, than it is nerdy and Geeky now. You should recall however, that 1e/AD&D had quite a following of people in the 80's, had a TV show, and lots of merchandise. A return to that kind of stigma is a good thing. (Though I think that 3e is now turning more and more like 2e in it's development, like the 3.5 idea, and other items which doesn't make a bright forcast). D&D just seems to appeal to certain types of people, and not others. It's like Sprints/Track appeals to me, and others like me. To some they find it innately boring. Most of those will probably NEVER ever be interested in Sprints, even if we changed some rules, such as changing lanes in the 100,200,400, and hitting/shoving others out of the way. They'd still be bored with the basic concepts of Sprints. To some of them, Sprints are something for those sissy kids who can't do a real sport...football. So whoever thought Sprints was a sissy sport before, even with changes, Sprints will still be a sissy sport. It still has those that watch it fanatically, as opposed to those that never will. Hope that answers the questions. Yes, I am a jerk. I've also been called an arrogant, well actually I can't say what it is because of the rules of the forum. You would not like gaming with me. Luckily I have others who will. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-09-03 08:14 PM I was thinking of my own AD&D experience the other day and came across something that I had never realized before. First I am from a rural area and D&D is not very popular here. At the time my group and I started playing we were in 9th grade. All we had between us was the 2e cores some basic stuff and a 1e dmg and monster manuel. Of course it was all owned by seperate people so no one person had all the books. We started as most do, hacking our way through dungeons killing everything and enjoying it. As we traded books and learned more about the game our characters gained personalities and even basic drives and ambitions. Come Christmas that first year we started asking our parents a for D&D stuff. Most of us were shot down mainly due to the D&D is evil crap during that time. One member who was lucky enough to have leanient parents got all the 2e core books and was willing to share with us. After we had all poured over them we saw some things we did not like. We outed racial level limits, limits on who can be what class, and things like that. Then as time went on the group grew and so did our library of books. I got a job and got my own books, the FR grey box, and a few supplements to the monsterous compendium. We played like crazy every weekend and every weekday(in the school library). Our world was still the one we started out in but we had incorperated elements from other worlds. (for example we had a city of greyhawk, to the south was the grand duchy of Karamekos etc.) I had also started a FR game that was doing well also. As we played we continued to tweak classes rules and make our own monsters. Everyone DMed from time to time so many of us photocopied things from a buddy's book we did not have. One of my favorite tweaks was when we decided rogues were cool. We had several different takes on them and loved every one. We had folders filled with PC's that we created and played all of them at one time or another. Then came the summer before our senior year. We knew it would have to end. We thought of how we would do it, then by accident we got ticked at the party Paladin and attacked him. To make matters worse we had just found the hand and eye of Vecna so Another player and I gougued out his eye and cut off his hand and replaced them with Vecna parts. Sad to say the DM decided this would bring the Lich back. That whole year we had to fight off armies of undead and demons trying to fix what we had done. Then came the final game. We ended with a week long session (seniors got out a week early) that was us trying to take him out. We used our own mass combat rules to do the siege on his tower then fought him to the death. Sadly several beloved pc's died that night. Out of possibly 20 pc's only 3 lived. But we ended with a bang. The next day was graduation and we said our farewells. The point: We never had the luxury of the "complete book of_____" the only splat book we owned was the arms and equipment guide. We made up our rules, we tweaked what we wanted and it NEVER disturbed the "balance" of the game. 2e bad? Unbalanced? No. It was the system i grew to love, and still do. I got some 2e books the other day and had forgot how much I liked the rules. We made those rules ours, the Realms ours and our homebrew ours. From our pseudo Greyhawk to the Sacking of Waterdeep to the destruction of Vecna it was all us. TSR just made the rules.....we changed them as any good group will. If I had to choose systems I'd take 2e. Not that 3e is bad, there are many thing there I like and will be using in the 2e game I am starting. It may be nostalgia but I think it as a player preference to a system he loves, for a game he loves and in that there is no wrong answer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-10-03 04:26 AM I got some 2e books the other day and had forgot how much I liked the rules. We made those rules ours, the Realms ours and our homebrew ours. From our pseudo Greyhawk to the Sacking of Waterdeep to the destruction of Vecna it was all us. TSR just made the rules.....we changed them as any good group will. That is the kind of reason I like to see when you explain your preference for a certain edition. It is a good reason, and nobody can argue with it. Heck, maybe I would have felt the same way if I had had played continuously. But I stopped playing D&D around 1997, and I got back into it around 2001. Of course picking up the new edition was easy at that time and I've been hooked since. I do have something to add to the discussion whether D&D is becoming mainstream. I remember seeing a lot of threads about bestsellers lists when v3.5 hit the shops. It seems like sales were very high. If that determines whether something is mainstream or not (in my eyes it is only part of it) than D&D is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : dogstar Date : 09-10-03 08:42 AM Thread Title : How the Dogstar Sees it Basic and Expert in 1981 brought me to the world of the RPG and D&D then about 3 years later I went to AD&D Personally, probably due to nostalgia, I prefered 1st Edition to second, regardless of some of the worst art in history appearing in 1st edition, the thief picture and all of the monster manual images. But the psionics were swiftly kicked out, followed by the bard, Gnomes were laughed at and everyone had a halfling thief called something 0 furfoot. Until Unearthed Arcana appeared experience points had be ignored, but suddenly GMs were fearful of barbarians 2ed Seemed to water down but not add anything. Demons and Devils were replaced by ridiculously named vowel less entities, and I felt cheated that I was expected to buy all the books over, and have ridiculously over large folders to drag around. So we stayed first edition. 3rd Edition - I GM 4 different 3rd Edition games, all of them variants (Judge Dredd, Slaine, B-5 and Call Of Cthulhu) but couldn't bring myself to look into a fantasy game. Several players perfer the system as more flavoured, but I love the 1st Edition where a Fighter was a Fighter and a bloke who cast spells was a magic user. Illusionists died like dogs, and bards were suprisingly dangerous. Even after 22 years of gaming I find other fantasy games lacking that special something (Exceptions here to Pendragon and Legend of the 5 Rings). Ah 1st Edition was the king, it was unbalanced and lacked even the remotest shred of realism, but somehow nothing ever came close -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : diaglo Date : 09-10-03 09:45 AM Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : dogstar Date : 09-11-03 04:54 AM Thats the one that comes with the counters instead of dice isn't it. Man that thing is a classic relic, its quite a rarity over here in the UK to find one. My first set was the first Basic set (red with the greekish spear weilding fighter matey vs the green dragon thingy with the elfy missy stood near by in a woefully inapproprate split dress). We had a copy of that in the group, but its owner refused to let people touch it, he would just show it off (it was actually his foxy sisters and she would certainly let us touch it.... and the boxed set). He swapped it in the end for a complete set of 1st Edition Hardbacks with and a stack of modules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : theDwarf Date : 09-11-03 06:20 PM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer I do have something to add to the discussion whether D&D is becoming mainstream. I remember seeing a lot of threads about bestsellers lists when v3.5 hit the shops. It seems like sales were very high. If that determines whether something is mainstream or not (in my eyes it is only part of it) than D&D is. Unearthed Arcana was also a best seller for a while. It may not have reached the level 3e did, but IIRC it was the peak for AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : dogstar Date : 09-12-03 06:11 AM The success of hackmaster (pretty much based on AD&D) seems to suggest that a certain older system is still going strong. Skills, yeah right, great, er isn't that something thieves have? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-12-03 09:35 AM Please, Hackmaster is just a way to make the older eds look bad. The stratagy is easy to spot. Wotc licenses Hackmaster. People hear it's like the previous eds of D&D then see all the stupid stuff and assume that this was how it really was. It just prooves Wotc nor Kenzer and co, have no respect for the tradition of D&D or the work of the previous devolpers. Note: from now on the mention of hackmaster is a rubberchickening offense. :turkey: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-12-03 10:07 AM I only see funny things about that certain system ehich I am not allowed to mention *keeps a wary eye on the rubberchickens* It seems to me like it is more of a parody than a serious game. Ofcourse I may be wrong, because I have never actually looked into the books. (Buy the way, while I dislike rubber chickens, I think rubber chicks are great.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-12-03 10:43 AM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer (Buy the way, while I dislike rubber chickens, I think rubber chicks are great.) :rofl: ok look here (www.kenzerco.com/rpg/hackmaster/) Just browse around although you learn some looking through the books is more informative. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-12-03 11:20 AM Thanks for the link, Plunderer. You can download the conversion document below to completely transform your old, well-worn 1st Edition character into a vital, heck-raising Hackmaster character! I see this on the site. So the Hackmaster system is actually different from the actual AD&D system then. That is what I thought. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-12-03 12:59 PM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer It seems to me like it is more of a parody than a serious game. That's exactly what it was intended to be when it was created, but people liked it and so it was fleshed out into a full-fledged game. A full-fledged game expanded from a parody game. It goes without saying, but PotP's conspiracy theories are sheer and utter nonsense. And sadly typical. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-12-03 12:59 PM to me it seems to be a hybrid of 1e and 2e...it is somewhat different but hard to explain. And shoegaze's holier than thou attitude is old and worn out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : jasper Date : 09-12-03 02:47 PM As a gamer and master through all three systems, it not the system or the game but the gamers which makes or breaks the game. One thing I do like about the new edition is they hardlined core versus optional. Now no more hoping that Billy would bring his complete splat book of furry dice just so Wally could get his cool powers. So new time masters can say core or door until they get experience under their screen. Random thoughts and cut and pastes Meticallica and anime dead and this is not consider a good thing. I still hoping Disco will die! Elf chain rare! about as rare as a Steven Siegall or Dumb and Dumber being broadcasted on TBS or FX channels. …The ones who feel that they DESERVE a certain value of magic items or that they can pick the prestige class of their choice. That's not mainstream, that's video-game…. OR Dywane wanting to run the new bounty hunter npc as pc or insert cool magic item from latest movie. Or Mike wanting insert cool power or spell from Marvel comics. Not new just new players getting into the game while adjusting to your gaming style. Reading the dmg like it is the Christmas wish book. Speaking on video gaming style of game play. How many modules had that cool powerup um excuse me magic sword which would defeat the monster three doors down. Plus most modules made it appear you had no magic items at all. Most modules I picked up on the first read through I was penciling out a third of the magic. The good thing about <3 rd is Dm Fiat was quicker to be accepted or was it? …..3e is an integrated system, 1e and 2e are not as integrated…. If you change something in 3e it can have major ramifications on how the game runs as a whole and thus can lead to a ton of work… This looks true but I wonder if drop all feats and just kept the skill checks how close this would play to first edition. …I agree that the idea of incorporating “expected equipment” into game balance is a poor one…. I will agree with this statement. …aside from the cookie-cutter nature of 3e clerics…. Or cookie cutter nature of 5 th level thief in first compared against a 5 th level thief of first edition. D&D isn't mainstream...don't kid yourselves.. amen brother grey lord. .. when everyone is playing Prc's or multi-multi classes, or monster with templates ect...... Or Paul has his Pixie wizard, Michael is playing reincarnated black bear fighter, or Jasper’s Hobbit thief has been reincarnated into a troll, ogre, half-orc, stone giant etc. Again either new gamers wanting to be cool or old farts wanting to be cool. … I think that most people don’t particularly care to hang out in a house with dirty clothes all over the place. If someone knows I’m coming and doesn’t take the time to clean up, it gives me the idea that either this person isn’t too terribly concerned with other peoples feelings, or doesn’t really know any better…. AMEN AMEN AMEN this is one of major reasons Jasper is no longer playing. …Another good example is classical music which is now and always will be the most mainstream of music. It's not everyone's favorite music but no one is offended or annoyed by it…. You never had the jerks I had to live with in the Army. … Fantasy is slowly becoming more acceptable, and has an appreciable rise in marketing power recently. It still can't beat out most best sellers,…. Have to disagree with here old Grey one since I can remember when the New York Times started listing scific and fantasy books on their own best seller list since some these books would actually show up on their scared list. Now they may have change it back but I remember the early eighties when it happen. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : theDwarf Date : 09-12-03 03:13 PM Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer It seems to me like it is more of a parody than a serious game. Ofcourse I may be wrong, because I have never actually looked into the books. First off, I am not afraid of chicken, rubber or otherwise, and thus have no qualms about answering you. ;D I find HackMaster to actually be a much more serious system than any other form of D&D I have seen. Yes, there is humor in the text/writing (that my be part of the licensing agreement, but only Mr. Kenzer and the people at WotC would know for sure), but it is more flavour text than anything else. Thanks for the link, Plunderer. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can download the conversion document below to completely transform your old, well-worn 1st Edition character into a vital, heck-raising Hackmaster character! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see this on the site. So the Hackmaster system is actually different from the actual AD&D system then. That is what I thought. There was a conversion document for 1- 2e AD&D as well. Don't let anyone fool you, AD&D is the core of HackMaster. HackMaster has extra things added (critical hit table, Honor stat, building points, quirks and flaws, etc), but 3e is further removed from AD&D than HackMaster is. You can actually use AD&D modules (add books) for HackMaster with very little actual conversion work. The reverse is true as well. This is not true with AD&D to 3e AFAICT. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-12-03 03:38 PM Somebody hit upon my biggest 3e gripe up there ^. 3e's integration is not something I am fond of. I wanted to incorperate some 2e stuff to 3e but found after altering 3e any I was left with a mess. After I got new 2e copies I tries adding 3e elements to 2e and that worked better. I for one liked being able to cahnge 2e's rules to fit my campaign (see above post). As to the hm reference....Shoot! I left my Chicken on another board (had to teach some Canadians a lesson) well I guess I can use this.......Shick-Click........BANG! Hmm wonder how that tennis racket is now? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : Hiryu Date : 09-12-03 05:57 PM I just feel the need to to jump into this topic and add my two cents. Of all the D&D game systems, the most unballanced of all is 3E. This is not to say AD&D 2e didn't had it's share of broken rules, however. But under AD&D it was much easier for the DM to keep an eye on the character's advancement and power levels, SPECIALLY under the Player's Option and kit rules, contrary to popular belief. Got a fighter with 18/00 strength and a +5 Vorpal sword? Have a troll roll a critical hit and knock the weapon off his hand, or better yet, break his arm (he deserves it, if he's got a sword that powerful). Dealing with a wizard who got the taboo or talisman disadvantages just for the character points? Have his talisman stolen and watch him cry, or place him under a situation that plays on his taboo and see the 20th level sorcerer be unable to cast spells. Problems with an elven fighter using a sharpshooter kit? Make him stick to the -1 initiative penalty (works best when the sharpshooter is rolling his group's initiative). I own all of the "Complete" handbooks (including Sha'ir, Gladiators, Ninja's and Necromancer's) and all of the Player's Option books, and the only game-breaking kit I have seen, is the Spirit Warrior for ninjas, and that kit forces the otherwise fast-advancing rogue to use the wizard's experience table and be a single classed character. I have been DM'ing with the handbooks and Player's Option rules (and the one Dungeon Master's option book) for over 7 years, and not once have I had any problems keeping characters in check. It is all a matter of playing inteligently on their class and racial weaknesses. However, under 3E rules, this check on the characters power becomes much more harder. I am not saying it is impossible, but there are many things under 3E that raise the power bar of characters much higher than it is supposed to. Sure, it gives them fairer chances of survival at low levels, but turns them into uncontrolable power houses at high levels, even more so than any rule, standard or optional, under 2e. The prime example of this being the Prestige Classes, which have litle or no disadvantages attached. As for the combat rules, yes, 2e's are a tad cumbersome and it may take a couple of combats to get the hang of them, but in the long run, they are much better than the slower and bulkier rules for 3E. One of the biggest gripe of 2e's players, was the length of combat, and how much it took to resolve one round, and now they take even longer? Give me a break. Supposedly this new 3E rules are intended for making more colorful and intersting combats, but that is the responsibility of the DM and his players alone, not the rules. The rules should only provide a game system, not a rol system. I have seen plenty of intresting and fresh combats happen in 2e: Two 1st level PC's against 1 Ankheg, players get initiative (this is an actual example that took place not too long ago): The first player, a mage, launches a magic missle aiming for the ankheg's neck, which makes the creature expose itself for a second (max damage). This chance is taken by the second character, a ninja, to launch forwards with his katana and attack the exposed flesh of the ankheg, who snears in pain right before trying to grab the ninja under it's jaws (attack hits). The ninja, however, manages to back-flip out of the way, with the razor-sharp teeth of the ankheg only inches from his face (the attack missed by 1 point). (next turn players gain initiative again) The wizard, not having any spells left, retains his action, analizing the situation and looking for any oportunities of attack he might have. Meanwhile, the ninja is out of reach to hit the ankheg, since he just back-flipped out of the way, so he decides to reach back to his waist and quickly pull out his repeating crossbow (automatic action) and an arrow directed to the ankhegs eyes (a called shot). As the giant insect waddles side to side on pursuit of the ninja, the arrow aimed for his eye whistles next to it's face, slighly grazing the side of it's head, but without doing any real damage (the attack fails). Once he is close enough, the ankheg cries out and tries to snap the ninja between it's jaws with all the strength it's got. The wizard notices that the ankheg will easily cut his companion in half (attack hits with a 20), so he runs in front of the insect as fast as he can and places his trusty staff between the creature's jaws (he rolls for dexterity/aim and passes). The staff, trapped between the powerful jaws, snaps loudly, pushing back both characters, who hastly get on their feet and, knowing they are not match for a chreature like this, plan their retreat into the woods, running through the trees in an attempt to loose the ankheg, who is still in pursuit. As the characters keep running through the woods, with the insect closing in fast and giving no signs of stopping, look for anything that might give them cover, finding a patch of bushes where they quickly hide, with the hopes that the ankheg will loose track of them or at least, loose intrest. Now, in many game groups I have seen the same go like so: Round one: mage- i use my magic missle... it hits for five damage ninja- i attack the ankheg with my sword dm- the ankheg attack the ninja and fails Round 2: mage- i retain action ninja- i make a called shot at the ankheg's eye... i failed dm- the ankheg attacks the ninja again... it rolls a 20, it's going to kill the ninja mage- i get him out of the way dm- roll dexterity mage- i pass dm- ok Round 3: ninja- we got initiative, we run away dm- okay, the ankheg is chasing you mage- we run faster dm- roll constitution ninja- we failed dm- you didn't loose him yet mage- (rolls constitution again) we passed, did we loose him yet? dm- yes So, I hope this helps illustrate how rules have NOTHING to do with how a combat plays out. Anything 'new' that supposedly can be done under 3E combat rules, was already there. The only thing it requires, it is role-playing commitment by the DM and the players, not a bunch of rules that make combat unnecesarily longer. As for the elven Fighter/Mage issue... I can say in all honesty and with all due respect, that that is BS. Sure, if you are gonna go only by the rules and make a dice throwing game, rather than role playing, the Fighter/Mage WILL be moe powerful. However if we throw good role playing into the mix, any well played 1st level thief can kill a munchkin's 15th level paladin of Tyr. Any mage or cleric who gets a good punch on the throat, is guaranteed to not be able to cast any spells with verbal componets for at least 1 round. Any successful called shot to the throat will kill most characters, specially when given by a backstabbing thief (and yes, you CAN slice someone's throat from behind). AD&D 2e is full of this kind of game balancing oportunities, it is all a matter of the DM using them in a smart way and never ignoring the dissadvantages associated with a class or race. 3E, however, gives way more to the players and like to the DM, making it the perfect game for any rule-hogging munchkin. Again, this does not mean that 3E is completely unballanced and out of control, but it does mean that it is much more harder for the DM to keep a balanced and anjoyable game. D&D 3E was made as a marketing scam, being pushed and rushed into development as soon as Hasbro bought WoTC because they wanted aproduct to sell, and that is the truth behind it. Is it a good or a bad thing, that is for you to decide. Hasbro and WoTC are a business, and as such, of course they want to sell, and of course they want to be mainstream. That is what they do, that is what they eat off of. I couldn't care less if they are intent on making money or on going mainstream. They are a company, they are supposed to be concerned with this. What I do care about, is the quality of the product they are offering me, and D&D 3E just doesn't cut it. It has some good ideas I am already adapting to 2e, but it is an overal lobotomized and simplified version of the game, intended to bring new role-players onboard. Even hardcore 3E gamers who have been there since 1e agree that it doesn't feel like Dungeons & Dragons, and that is because it's not. It is a different game with the same name, and the truth is that some people may love it, some people may hate it, but it all boils down to a matter of taste. Let us 2e luvers keep our game, and we will let you 3E luvers keep yours. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : Shoegaze99 Date : 09-12-03 06:20 PM Originally posted by Hiryu Even hardcore 3E gamers who have been there since 1e agree that it doesn't feel like Dungeons & Dragons, and that is because it's not. I'm glad you've spoken for me, I being a D&D gamer for over 20 years, starting with 1e and Basic and playing through all variations since. Problem is, I don't agree. Let us 2e luvers keep our game, and we will let you 3E luvers keep yours. What about us poor souls who think both systems are just fine and who think nittering and nattering like this is some argument worth taking "sides" over is idiotic and childish? What shall we do? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-12-03 11:40 PM One other point worth mentioning: In an above post I said that my old 2e group changed the rules to suit our game. two changes we made were abolishing the level caps on non-humans and eliminating the restrictions on classes. We had an elven paladin of about 18th level. Funny thing was it did not disrupt the game at all. In fact he was one of the first to die in the grand Finale of the game. I think it boils down to testing changes before they are made "official". The player of said Paladin knew if there was a problem the pc would go. In fact alot went during our messing with the rogue phase we went through the year before. I dunno I may be wrong but I never noticed all the problems so many others claim to have found. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Author : GreyLord Date : 09-13-03 06:09 PM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes One other point worth mentioning: In an above post I said that my old 2e group changed the rules to suit our game. two changes we made were abolishing the level caps on non-humans and eliminating the restrictions on classes. Actually, those weren't rule changes, as they were already optional rules in 2e. In otherwords, it stated in the books that you were allowed to do this (DMG) as an optional difference to the typical rules. 2e actually had a lot of these alternative options, a lot more in fact than what is in 3e overall. (Unless you count class creation, 2e had a set plan for class creation that, though not balanced, was far more balanced than the 3e class creation ideas). To give a balanced and fair veiw to both sides however, 3e has a lot more options for the players. Instead of listing them as DM alternative options, they are part of the core rules, giving the players a lot more choice in the matter. Just an FYI for ya. Interesting...neh? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 114] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-13-03 07:37 PM Hmm I need to look in my books closer (I have been brushing up amazing how much you forget). However, I did like the ideas of dm options. but I agree 2e's class creation was a better Idea. I had hoped 3e would do a formula like 2e did especially for Prc's. Truth is I have come to the opinion thet 2e is the better system for roleplayers or rules tweakers. I have found that tweaking 3e in certain areas can be a bear and have decided that I will use 2e as a base to add 3e ideas that I like. I don't think it would disrupt the system that much. Don't get me wrong I like 3e but, I think there were some things in 3e that were underdeveloped and were not fixed in the revision. Overall I prefer the flexibility of 1e-2e to the rigidness I have found in 3e but it is just mere preference rather than fact. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 115] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 09-13-03 09:05 PM So, I hope this helps illustrate how rules have NOTHING to do with how a combat plays out. Although I do not share your didlike of 3e, I do agree with this statement. It's all about the DM and the players. Rules are merely a tool. The v3.5 tool serves me fine, the 2e tool serves you well. So your statement: Let us 2e luvers keep our game, and we will let you 3E luvers keep yours. is a good one. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 116] Author : MerricB Date : 09-17-03 01:59 AM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes [B] However, I did like the ideas of dm options. but I agree 2e's class creation was a better Idea. I had hoped 3e would do a formula like 2e did especially for Prc's. Just as glad they didn't actually. Prestige Classes are too wild and woolly to be properly defined by a formula. There's just way, way too many variables. 3.5E is moving towards having new base classes rather than just new prestige classes - and also we have the 'monster' classes and 'template' classes expanding the game more. Options in 3.5E? How about the upcoming Unearthed Arcana? :) oAD&D was balanced primarily for levels 1-12. Above that, it got pretty weird. 2E inherited that scheme from oAD&D, and didn't fix it. Kits are a fine idea, but are too constricting - especially as they only apply at 1st level - the idea of the kit was eventually subsumed in the Feat choices you took in 3.5E, especially the skill bonus feats. Cheers! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 117] Author : MerricB Date : 09-17-03 02:03 AM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Don't get me wrong I like 3e but, I think there were some things in 3e that were underdeveloped and were not fixed in the revision. Overall I prefer the flexibility of 1e-2e to the rigidness I have found in 3e but it is just mere preference rather than fact. I agree with you that 3.5E isn't a finished development yet - there are still things that can be done with the rules. (Including creating a simpler version - I hope the rumours about the Return of the Red Box are true. Well, at least I hope that the rumours I like about the Return of the Red Box are true!). What I've found is that 3E allows me to do more within the system without needing to go outside it and make things up. I don't mind making things up - but when they are for common tasks, I tend to think "Why wasn't this handled in the first place?" Cheers! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 118] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-17-03 06:51 PM I actually like making things up. For example I used OA more for a non-oriental country. I moved a few things around to use classes such as the sohei and the shaman in a more european setting. ] Plus I am testing sveral new weapons and other things to deepen the game. I also have been using stuff strait from 2e. But I also have had years of practice doing it. I don't like being spoon fed by the company and will do changes and clairifications myself. To me it's not official unless I say it is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 119] Author : Captain Temporary ID Date : 09-18-03 09:01 PM Originally posted by Lord Phobetor Dude, trying to remove Feats from 3E would be like trying to remove Saving Throws or xps from 1E or 2E. They're that integral to the game. Actually, I think they're more integrated. I've tinkered with dropping the XP system from my 1E/2E games before, and adopting systems similar to Mechwarrior, Shadowrun, and/or GURPS. And I have altered my Saving Throw tables drastically (they're a lot more like 3rd edition D&D now, actually). But a fair and adequate way to drop/change the Feats has eluded me so far. The Fighter class depends on them, for starters. I'm working on changing all Feats into proficiencies (but without rolls required--in other words, they're still Feats, but you buy them with proficiency slots), but there are problems with controlling them then. My players might decide to put all their proficiency points into Feats. Breaking down the 3E system has been very time consuming. Still, I'm finally starting to glimpse a light at the end of the tunnel. [P.S. It's me, Algolei. I'm in British Columbia for my brother's wedding, and I can't remember any of my passwords, so I made up a new ID: Captain Temporary ID! :) ] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 120] Author : The MadStepDad Date : 09-19-03 08:59 AM I’m a 2E kid at heart, having learned that game at 10 years old (1990) and running my own world by 1993. I am NOT ashamed of our hobby, nor do I consider it a “geeky” thing. Which means I’ve been recruiting new players into the fold as soon as I learned the rules. I try to spread the Game far and wide. And at one point during the mid-1990’s, I had my ENTIRE block infected. Fo real. There was a point in time when you could come to the Avenue at ANY time of day or night, and there would be a Game going on SOMEWHERE. A front porch here, a street corner there, EVERYWHERE. Around 2000, I lost my hunger and passion for the Game, and in turn, interest temporarily petered out. It would lie in limbo for two more years. Finally, I decided to see what the hell all this hub-bub about 3E was. So I copped the books and taught myself the rules. BAM. 3E fever has struck. My POINT is: I’m STILL recruiting new players into the Game, just as I did for so many years before. BUT, the 3E rules make it SO MUCH EASIER to explain! It would take HOURS and HOURS to create a 2E character with a new player. Sometimes even a whole DAY! But the 3E rules are way simpler, quicker and easier. Meaning less time dwelling on how the game WORKS and more time actually WORKING the Game! It’s all good, baby, but 3E is GREAT. Peace MSD -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 121] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-19-03 09:22 AM A whole day for a 2e pc? Were you playing Dangerous Journies by any chance. Cause even at the most a 2e pc with a new player took me 30 minutes max. As far as remembering the rules all the way to basic...well, several of us still have the books and some of us just have excellent memories.... As far as 3e being easier to explain: your right but 3e to be playable needs to have 1/2 the combat rules stripped from it and retooled majorly. Anywhoo sorry about the Aslanic tones but this really shows a side of gaming that sadly needs to be hid. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 122] Author : The MadStepDad Date : 09-19-03 11:07 AM Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes A whole day for a 2e pc? Were you playing Dangerous Journies by any chance. Cause even at the most a 2e pc with a new player took me 30 minutes max. As far as remembering the rules all the way to basic...well, several of us still have the books and some of us just have excellent memories.... As far as 3e being easier to explain: your right but 3e to be playable needs to have 1/2 the combat rules stripped from it and retooled majorly. Anywhoo sorry about the Aslanic tones but this really shows a side of gaming that sadly needs to be hid. I didn't understand half your post, lol, but anywayz... Never heard of Dangerous Journies, so the answer is "no". And there is NO way a 2E PC can take 30 minutes if you’re explaining to the new player HOW the process actually works. Sure, you can be all like “jot, jot, jot, this goes here and here” and whip up a sheet no prob. But can your new player build his own character WITHOUT your help after that? A 2E character is a PROJECT. Even if you know how to make one! 1/2 the combat rules stripped from 3E and retooled? Isn't what 3.5 is for? And what the HELL is an "Aslanic tone"? LOL Please enlighten me. peace, Plunderer! MSD -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 123] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 09-19-03 03:19 PM Yes you can make a new player a pc in 30 or less. You give themn the basics and teach as they play, or make them actualy read the PHB. Aslanic tone: It is a term from a different msb altogether. I forgot where I was posting. Basically It is a condecending tone that disputes the validity of your claims along with the overall intellegence of the poster. It was coined on the Unexplained Mysteries message board as a light harted jab at a member named Aslan who uses these tones. Example (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6059) 1/2 the combat rules were kicked back to 2e because they did not rely on the millions of actions needed nor miniatures, or even grids. It runs faster plays better and is smarter than 3e's system. I didn't understand half your post, lol, but anywayz... I'll type slower next time then maybe you'll get it. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 124] Author : Mach2.5 Date : 09-25-03 11:37 AM Well, I'll start by saying that I got into D&D with its humble beginings when you had but a few choices at all to make, fighter, elf, rogue, etc. It was great! Things were simple, the adventures were basic. Over time, things got tailored a bit to fit myself and the other players. New ideas bred new rules. New ideas also bred new kinds of adventures. Now, istead of just diving about a mad wizard's underground labarynth, we were waging wars between nations. New kinds of adventures bred new rules. Little did we know that the exact same thing was going on in gaming groups everywhere. New ideas, new adventures, and new rule tweaks. Eventually, enough people shared ideas that the gaming market responded with either new games to cover some of these new kinds of adventures (horror, cyberpunk, etc), or new editions of previous games (D&D, AD&D, 2nd edition of untold numbers of games from CoC to Paranoia). The thing is, will it end? Nope. And I personally hope it never does. Having played through 5 incarnations of the same game, I find that there's something I like about each one, and by the reverse, something I can't stand as well. 2e? Kits sucked. D&D. All elves are only minor spellcasters? 1st Edition. Instant death. So far, every incarnation of D&D has its own merits and flaws. Will D&D ever get it down perfect? Not likely, but such is the gamers fate. Is one particular system better than another. Not one bit. No matter how you rate each version of D&D, they all wind up rating about the same. What I find upsetting though is some of the more narrow views that I've seen through this thread and similar ones dozens of times over. Those who 'stick with tried and true', meaning, those who think that an older system is superior (and indeed for them, it really is), have essentially consigned the hobbie to a slow and wasting death. Simple as that. By removing one's self from the consumer market and encouraging others to do so as well, you've relegated that eventually, there won't be any new products coming out. No one will be buying anything. No more products means that eventualy, the rpg hobby will become some kind of dusty collector style hobby, played by old farts sitting in rocking chairs talking about their arthritis and 'the good old days of gaming.' Once again, the reverse is equally as sad. Those who refuse to acknowledge some of the older incarnations of the game are forgetting that some mistakes have already been learned from. Those who have simply 'taken a peak at those old lame books' are neglecting the fact that some of those old timer's books may very well be better than your brand new off the shelf adventure or setting. By condeming everything that came before as 'inferior blueprints for the latest and greatest', you also condem the millions of hours of labor by thousands of people to eventually bring you what you have today. What I hate to read in these kinds of threads most are the posts from people who think that their opinion is fact. You have your opinion, that's fine. State it as such. The only fact is that your opinion is just that, your best guess. Your feelings and opinions are as justified to you as they are to anyone else, and when it comes to opinions, yours is just as likely to be proved wrong as someone else. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 125] Author : devinmdp Date : 09-26-03 07:18 PM God I despised 1st edition combat. I'm a fighter. Ok. I'm like every other fighter. What can I do? Attack. Oh...OK. Let's fight. It's my turn. What are my options? I can roll a D20 to hit or roll a D20 to hit. Wow! That's exciting. Then I can wait for a half hour while the mages do their thing. Then I can roll a D20. Whew! That's real fun! And at least peeing on an orc in 3rd ed takes 6 seconds. In 1st and 2nd ed blinking your eyes took a minute and everyone ran at 2 miles per hour due to the inane minute long rounds! And thieves. Yeah. Great. The cleric can cast Find Traps. The wizard can Knock open anything. I fight worse than a priestess of the Goddess of Sewing and Knitting. And my massive 18 Dex gets me an awesome -4 to my AC, which when coupled with the crappy leather armour I have to wear gives me the equivalent of...chain and shield. Woo hoo! 3rd edition is so much better because it gives you so many more choices. Think of all of the different paths a simple straight fighter can take. He has any number of feats. Is he going to be a swashbuckler type (dodge, mobility, weapon finesse, spring attack), a cleaver type (power attack, cleave), a horse rider (mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge) or a bow man (rapid shot, precise shot, point blank shot)? And there is now so much even a stupid fighter can do in combat. Do I attack normally? Do a full attack? Do a single attack and maneuver? Fight on the defensive? Run? Trip? Grapple? Overrun? Bullrush? Sunder? Disarm? I can intimidate or feint before I attack. And so forth. The options are so amazing that it makes every combat potentially a new experience. And thieves? Suddenly they went from the most useless XP sink possible to a class that can hold its own with anyone (take a +8D6 sneak attack spring attack sometime and tell me otherwise). 3rd edition is so much better than any previous edition (and I've played since the first boxed set in 74) due to the sheer variety of choices available, in skills, multiclassing, spells, metamagic, and feats. Devin -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 126] Author : GreyLord Date : 09-27-03 03:36 PM Originally posted by The MadStepDad I didn't understand half your post, lol, but anywayz... Never heard of Dangerous Journies, so the answer is "no". And there is NO way a 2E PC can take 30 minutes if you’re explaining to the new player HOW the process actually works. Sure, you can be all like “jot, jot, jot, this goes here and here” and whip up a sheet no prob. But can your new player build his own character WITHOUT your help after that? A 2E character is a PROJECT. Even if you know how to make one! 1/2 the combat rules stripped from 3E and retooled? Isn't what 3.5 is for? And what the HELL is an "Aslanic tone"? LOL Please enlighten me. peace, Plunderer! MSD Hmm, I seem to recall that with my new players it took them all of 5 minutes to make a new character with me as the DM leading them how to do it. For 2e, with the options of the core rulebooks, hour max, 30 minutes sounds reasonable, but that was for an entire group of 5 people doing it simultaneously of course. All day!? Your DM must really not have known what the heck they were doing! Were they just reading the rules that day? I too find it excessively hard to think anyone who had the remotest idea of what they were doing would have that tough of a time. Heck, take the easy way out, Profficiencies are options...have em roll 6 times with a 3d6, pick a class with a time limit of 30 seconds, and then have em roll Hit dice...and if they are slow, give em weapons and 5 gold...that you've chosen. That takes, even with a slow player, with the restrictions placed on them...oh, about 2 minutes. The only thing that really ate up time was indecisive players...which is where you start guiding em by the hand on what they need to do and be. Got to agree with Plunderer on this one from the looks of it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 127] Author : Hiryu Date : 09-30-03 01:20 AM Excuse me, Rogues in 2ed are far from being the 'xp stink' you claim they are, the difference is that 3E rogues are far too powerful and way too unbalanced. Under 3E rules, a freaking second level thief can shrug off a great wyrm's breath weapon, for pete's sake!! (all coutesy of the Evasion ability). I will not even go into all the game breaking abilities rogues and other classes gaign starting at 10th level. Rogues had a reduced Hit Die and Gac0 table simply because of game balance. By the time a single classed thief, ninja or bard hits second level, all other classes are still first level. and the gap only grows bigger with each level of experience. By the time a thief achieves 10th level, a fighter or cleric with the same experience will be 8th lvl, and a wizard 9th level. Added to this, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows are some of the most useful (and used) skills in a game, second only to spellcasting abilities. This not to mention Backstab. It works under the same rules and situations as the Sneak Attack ability (altho it is much better worded in 3E), however, it multiplies the damage, including your 20's. A 13th level thief on 2ed will multiply the damage x5, which is pretty damn powerful, but under 3E rules the 13th level rogue will add 7d6 to the damage roll, which is completely ridiculous. What is this thief doing, casting a 7th level Fireball? Admitedly, however, I wholeheartedly agree on the 2ed clerics issue. They are about the most unbalanced class there is in ANY role playing game. They need almost as litle experience as a rogue, however, they can cast quite a bit of helpful spells while in armor. They are almost as powerful as a Fighter/Mage, but gather less than half the experience. The greatest problem with clerics is that they are full of dissadvantages and restrictions, but most of this dissadvantages are subjective (with the exception of the Chance of Spell Failure and a couple others). For a dissadvantage to be effective, it needs to be mechanical and practical, not imaginary and subjective. The clerics are full of this 'dissadvantages by appreciation', and as such, both player and DM will miss most of them. Maybe the cleric did something his god/goddess wouldn't allow, but he's still not being punished with no spells and a mandatory penance to regain his deity's favor. Maybe he is wearing an armor or carrying a weapon his deity doesn't allow. This is the exact same problem that Kits had. Many of them gave mechanical advantages (like an extra proficiency, combat bonuses and such), and only a small subjective dissadvantage that WILL be often ignored for one reason or another. Prime example: the Swashbuckler kit. (since we are on the subject, I will tackle on the kits issue now) This is for one simple reason. As much as we would like to, DM's cannot be a walking rules encyclopedia and know ALL the rules in EVERY book by heart. Also, during the course of an adventure, we will be focused on one thing: developing a story, and for that reason, we cannot keep creating stories that play on all of the characters' subjective dissadvantages. The campaign would soon grow stale and repetitive, and the end result, is the characters getting free skills at litle or no penalty. This carries another problem as well: limiting the character and hampering role playing. Take the dissadvantage for the Thugh Kit, for instance: Thugs are often wanted by the local law enforcers. In a relatively confined area such as a city, a thug can never relax. Around the next corner might be a member of the constabulary–or the thug's next victim. What if the player decides his thug is part of a vigilante type of gang? And hence, serves as an informant to the local autorities. What if the character goes to a place where he is not known? The results are free benefits (+1 to all damage rolls) and no penalties what-so-ever. What makes this hard, is that as a DM you cannot tell your players: You cannot pick this kit; You cannot leave your city; You MUST be of evil alignment; or even worse, You cannot play the character how you want to play it. Even worse are the kits that give penalties to reaction rolls as a dissadvantage... to date, I have not met one single person who uses that rule. (so I apply them to any and all charisma rolls). The point of this last segment of the rant (the part regarding kits), is that I want people to take a hard look at 3E under this parameters. If you look at both Kits and PrC's in ther very basic mechanics, they work exactly the same way. I have read many 3E books, and most PrC's (about the same percentage as kits in 2ed), have either lame drawbacks or the same kind of subjective dissadvantages. Both kits and PrC's are almost as unballanced, with the PrC's being slightly more powerful and game breaking than kits. Don't get me wrong, I like kits. They add flavor and variety to any game, BUT, most kits will have to be tweaked before being allowed to enter a campaign. I think it would be 3E and 2ed DM's responsibility to go through every PrC and Kit with a fine tooth comb before allowing any into their campaigns. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 128] Author : The MadStepDad Date : 09-30-03 01:06 PM You're trying to say a brand new player who's never even heard of RPGs can whip up a 2E character in 5 minutes? You on speed? Even when you know what you're doing (trust me, we did) it took at LEAST 30 minutes to make an ill 2E character. Don't ask me how to make a 2E character anymore, cuz I repressed all those memories. PS, I agree with Devin COMPLETELY. Word is bond. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 129] Author : dogstar Date : 10-01-03 10:56 AM Yeah its a bit quick, especially with all those nasty brown guides to flick through...... About 30 mins for a character, unless playing basic - Roll 3d6, six times, roll hps, assign gear and off we go! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 130] Author : devinmdp Date : 10-01-03 01:49 PM "Excuse me, Rogues in 2ed are far from being the 'xp stink' you claim they are, the difference is that 3E rogues are far too powerful and way too unbalanced. Under 3E rules, a freaking second level thief can shrug off a great wyrm's breath weapon, for pete's sake!! (all coutesy of the Evasion ability)." Hmmm...other classes get Evasion...do you think they are overbalanced as well? In addition, you stil have to make the saving throw. A 2nd level rogue is quite likely to blow every single save he makes against a Great Wyrm's breath weapon and then he can puff out his chest at his overbalanced Evasion ability as he rolls up a new character. "I will not even go into all the game breaking abilities rogues and other classes gaign starting at 10th level." Ah...I see...the entire game is basically broken at 10th level. News flash. If everyone has these abilities after 10th level, then the whole is actually quite balanced. Remember, in 3 ed the monsters get the same toys as the PCs, so I find claims of overall unbalancing after 10th level to be spurious. "Rogues had a reduced Hit Die and Gac0 table simply because of game balance. By the time a single classed thief, ninja or bard hits second level, all other classes are still first level. and the gap only grows bigger with each level of experience." Really? Why don't you look up the 2nd ed XP requirements for, say, a 10th level wizard vs a 10th level rogue? "By the time a thief achieves 10th level, a fighter or cleric with the same experience will be 8th lvl, and a wizard 9th level. Added to this, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows are some of the most useful (and used) skills in a game, second only to spellcasting abilities." Um....yeah. My 9th level wizard will cast Invisibility 10 ft radius and the entire party can have a 100% Hide roll for 24 hours. Cast a Silence spell and you've now got 100% move silently for the entire party. Yeah....I really need a thief for this cr*ap! Climbing? Fly...levitate...Spider Climb. Yawn. This is just way too easy. " This not to mention Backstab. It works under the same rules and situations as the Sneak Attack ability (altho it is much better worded in 3E), however, it multiplies the damage, including your 20's." No...you are completely wrong. It DIDN'T work under the same rules as sneak attack. That was the problem. Crack open your 2 ed PHB and you will see that the requirement for BS is that the opponent be unaware of the thief. In 3rd ed, all I need to do is flank a creature for crissakes and I get a sneak attack. In 3 ed a rogue can basically get his sneak attack for multiple rounds in almost every combat. Pare that against the poor 2 ed rogue who, under the best of conditions, gets his backstab once per combat (before everyone becomes aware of him). " A 13th level thief on 2ed will multiply the damage x5, which is pretty damn powerful, but under 3E rules the 13th level rogue will add 7d6 to the damage roll, which is completely ridiculous. What is this thief doing, casting a 7th level Fireball?" You want me to explain what he is doing? He's hitting arteries and vital spots. A 3 foot piece of steel can do a lot of damage if it sticks into the right spots. As far as trying to compare it to a fireball...the 3 ed rogue does have to hit and he doesn't do half damage on a miss or affect a 20 ft burst, so I find your comparison to fireball to be spurious. A 13th level thief in 2 ed does basically 1D6 x5 or on average 18 points of damage. Woo hoo. And that's basically it for him for that combat. Wonderful. Devin -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 131] Author : Plunderer_of_the_planes Date : 10-02-03 10:09 PM Originally posted by dogstar Yeah its a bit quick, especially with all those nasty brown guides to flick through...... About 30 mins for a character, unless playing basic - Roll 3d6, six times, roll hps, assign gear and off we go! I never used the splats mainly due to unavailability. But I have noticed 3e creation gets long when using splats and the other stuff out now. Add in Savage species 3e creation gets alot slower figuring it all out. I still cannot see taking all day to make a pc...unless you were writing a 300 page novel for a backstory....;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:17 AM.