Still trying to get up to speed with all the changes that have been made in the past. I was wondering what opinions are concerning 3rd Edition, versus 2nd Edition. I've not used (nor have) anything from the 3rd Edition rules.
In your opinion is it worth it to look into the 3rd Ed. rules? The closest aproximation I've run across is the Knights of the Old Republic video game, which I've heard is based on the d20 rules.
Are there advantages or disadvantages that anyone sees right off the bat?
Thanks again,
Glasswalker33
For the Dark Sun material specifically, I'm a bit biased towards the 3/3.5e material from Athas.org, as I've helped develop it.
I would recommend visiting the d20 SRD site at http://www.d20srd.org/ and make a few simple characters and play out a simple quick game of 3E one night with your buddies as a trial run. Nearly all the content from the core rulebooks is there.
Boy was I wrong.
Just by looking at my game notes and old DS character sheets I started remembering how complicated 2e rules were (as compared to 3e); how "cookie-cutter" characters ended up being, the horrible 2e skill system, how many house rules I'd had to create to cope with the variety of situations that commonly occur in a game, etc. In the end I found that it was far easier for me to incorporate the parts from 2e Dark Sun that I liked into the athas.org 3e rules documents than to re-learn 2e rules and "get back into the 2e mindset" after I'd been playing 3e for so long (I basically re-wrote half of the DS 3 rules PDF, as well as almost doubled the number of spells by adding in all the ones from the 2e DS material I liked that hadn't been converted...but it was well worth it).
All in all, 3e (and especially the improvements and fixes made in 3.5e) is much better than 2e, and even though I modified the 3.5e rules to give my Dark Sun game more of a 2e feel I think that the game is a lot more enjoyable, and as a DM a lot easier to prepare for, than it was using the 2e system.
I strongly suggest that you at least give 3.5e a try, such as with the SRD's that Chuntzu linked to. Even my hardcore 2e friends had to admit, after playing with the 3e d20 system for awhile, that it was "worthy of the Dungeons & Dragons name."
Thanks also for the comments. Good to see both sides of an argument.
***EDIT***
Well, I guess it pays attention to read a little bit before you post. The rules from Athas.org do require the 3E rules. I'm wondering though if a person proficient in 1E, as well as 2E rules can get around not having a set of 3E rulebooks? I really can't afford the new books at all. I do like the system of Feats, etc. that I've seen in the Star Wars d20 books, but I've also worked on trying to make D&D rules work with White Wolf rules (long story for another thread on another board, probably.)
Can a poor schlemp without the rules deal with what he can find on the 'Net, or should I stick to the paper rules that I have from when DS first came out?
Again, opinons, theories, and conversation starters are always appreciated.
Thanks again,
Glasswalker33
I also played D&D 2nd, 3.0 and 3.5 Editions and have to say that 3.5 is by far my favourite incarnation. The simplicity impresses me again and again, especially if one plays other RPG systems. And the word simplicity in no way means that the system falls short on some things. It just FEELS right.
Right then. Just now starting to look into the 3rd Ed. rules from Athas.org. Simple question, however. Will I need anyother 3rd Ed. material, like a Player's Handbook, or a DMG?
Thanks also for the comments. Good to see both sides of an argument.
***EDIT***
Well, I guess it pays attention to read a little bit before you post. The rules from Athas.org do require the 3E rules. I'm wondering though if a person proficient in 1E, as well as 2E rules can get around not having a set of 3E rulebooks? I really can't afford the new books at all. I do like the system of Feats, etc. that I've seen in the Star Wars d20 books, but I've also worked on trying to make D&D rules work with White Wolf rules (long story for another thread on another board, probably.)
Can a poor schlemp without the rules deal with what he can find on the 'Net, or should I stick to the paper rules that I have from when DS first came out?
Again, opinons, theories, and conversation starters are always appreciated.
Thanks again,
Glasswalker33
Well, if you go to http://wizards.com/d20, you can get the SRD -- the System Reference Document, which is the freely available 3.5e rules. It includes most of the rules from the Player's Handbook (PHB), Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG), Monster Manual (MM), Deities & Demigods, The Epic Level Handbook (ELH), and the Expanded Psionics Handbook (XPH). You're lacking one important aspect -- there is a single table in the PHB which is not covered under the "Open Gaming License" (which is something explained as well at the site I linked) -- which covers the experience points needed to get from one level to the next, as well as when you get various level-based rewards (like max skill poiints, ability score increases, and bonus feats).
However, I'd recommend getting the "Core" (DMG, PHB, & MM) anyway, plus I tend to consider the XPH as a "core" book as well.
Here you'll find exactly what isn't covered on the site: http://www.d20srd.org/faq.htm
The Complete Warrior is almost necessary to bring single classed fighters up to par with the other classes.
I consider all the complete books nessasary as that is the best way to keep from having bland characters. yea there are quite a few feat choices in the PHB you can make but there are many that never get used and some that are always used. the coplete series help with that and gives many great oprrotunities to specialize a character and make them fairly unique
for it's simplicity, and the ease of use.
:OMG! We're talking about 3rd Edition D&D, right?
Ok, at lower levels, it is simple and easy to use. Sure. The basic system is quite easy to learn and use. In comparison to 2nd Edition, it might be simpler and easier -- or rather, more coherently designed, and thus runs more smoothly. Sure.
I'll give you both of those. But one of the big reasons I'm dissatisfied with 3rd Edition D&D and not playing it any longer, is that higher level play is exasperating in terms of complexity with feats, magic items, spells, skills and so forth. Just stating up a higher-level opponent was a huge chore, and moreso of one when trying to use them effectively in play.
Though there are more problems mechanically with 2nd Edition, that edition actually has 3rd beat in this regard, because higher level play did not become progressively more involved to the same extent 3rd does.
This is not to say one edition is better than another, only to point out to Glasswalker there are some non-obvious tradeoffs between editions -- though I certainly prefer 3rd to 2nd for numerous other reasons (basic rule coherency, streamlined mechanics, challenge rating and other built-in system balances as opposed to balance-by-fiat, etc).
:OMG! We're talking about 3rd Edition D&D, right?
Ok, at lower levels, it is simple and easy to use. Sure. The basic system is quite easy to learn and use. In comparison to 2nd Edition, it might be simpler and easier -- or rather, more coherently designed, and thus runs more smoothly. Sure.
I'll give you both of those. But one of the big reasons I'm dissatisfied with 3rd Edition D&D and not playing it any longer, is that higher level play is exasperating in terms of complexity with feats, magic items, spells, skills and so forth. Just stating up a higher-level opponent was a huge chore, and moreso of one when trying to use them effectively in play.
Though there are more problems mechanically with 2nd Edition, that edition actually has 3rd beat in this regard, because higher level play did not become progressively more involved to the same extent 3rd does.
This is not to say one edition is better than another, only to point out to Glasswalker there are some non-obvious tradeoffs between editions -- though I certainly prefer 3rd to 2nd for numerous other reasons (basic rule coherency, streamlined mechanics, challenge rating and other built-in system balances as opposed to balance-by-fiat, etc).
2nd Edition literally felt like every class was a completely different game. The mechanics were disjointed and frustrating. I never liked 2E's mechanics, refused to run anything 2E, and breathed a sigh of relief when 3/3.5e came out. Things get more complex at the higher levels, to be sure, but at least everyone's still playing by more or less the same rules -- making the mechanics be able to fall more into the background in my campaigns, rather than the struggles of figuring out everything being a constant tedious chore as it was in 2e (I've played a few 2e games, with different DM's... and was never, ever, even remotely impressed with the mechanics. The settings (some of them) were cool enough, but the mechanics... I'm sorry.... it just didn't suit me).
That said, I do have my own personal frustrations with 3/3.5e mechanics, but it is considerably less than what I have with 2e's mechanics. I personally prefer game systems that don't have (what I call) "roleplaying crutches" -- like experience levels, classes, and the such, which I feel are way to unrealistic for my liking. d20 system has that, but gioven enough flexibility with multiclassing, and enough PrC's, I think it does wonders to blurring the steriotypes formed with class-based mechanics.
-stops looking for mate long enough to answer question-
2E bad.
3E good.
-grunt-
-clubs neighbor and steal his mate-
That said, I do have my own personal frustrations with 3/3.5e mechanics, but it is considerably less than what I have with 2e's mechanics. I personally prefer game systems that don't have (what I call) "roleplaying crutches" -- like experience levels, classes, and the such, which I feel are way to unrealistic for my liking. d20 system has that, but gioven enough flexibility with multiclassing, and enough PrC's, I think it does wonders to blurring the steriotypes formed with class-based mechanics.
I agree to a point. I have always preferred "skill-based" games instead of "Level-based" games. Whats the difference? Skill based games have no "levels." You get better by learning skills to higher degrees. What does this mean as far as gameplay goes? Well, you don't have to worry about a new player when all your current players have Level 12 characters. You start new characters will X amount of skill points, depending on the game, and it doesn't matter that the current players have X+20 or whatnot, because new characters can still be comparible, and they can focus on what skills to advance.
Examples of Skill-based games I enjoy are Cyberpunk (2013 and 2020 - still not sure I like v.3 yet), Deadlands, Some of the White Wolf games. Essentially, older characters will be better than newer ones, but not to the point that it makes newer characters unplayable. When is the last time you brought in a new D&D character at 1st level when the rest of the group was 10th? Did they survuve? Did they have fun? Did they show up for the second game session? Usually you have to advance them and allow them to enter the game at Average Level -1 or -2 or whatever or else their character is really pointless, and something that has to be worried about lest it die by a stray shot somewhere.
In any case, I enjoy 3.5 better than 1st/2nd ed. AD&D. When they released the conversion document, we immediately did some of the alterations. Instead of having a Thac0 of 15, we gave the fighter a +5 to hit. Instead of listing their AC as 3, we listed it as 17. Even minor changes like this helped playability of the older system Proficiencies and saves still bit, but it was a start. Let me say though, that Dark sun is one of the campaigns that I would willingly subject myself to torture (ie, 2nd edition) to play. Planescape is the other (no offense to the people at planewalker.com, but all of the "new" planescape stuff just caused it to lose it's appeal for me)
Let me say though, that Dark sun is one of the campaigns that I would willingly subject myself to torture (ie, 2nd edition) to play. Planescape is the other (no offense to the people at planewalker.com, but all of the "new" planescape stuff just caused it to lose it's appeal for me)
That is how I feel except, with planescape I find it to be VERY easy to take the flavor of the 2nd Ed books and throw it straight into 3rd edition because it is so varied a setting that it is very 3rd ed friendly. DS seems to loose a little when I see it converted to 3rd edition, I think it's probably that no matter how you play it 3rd edition will ALWAYS be a more survivable than 2nd ed, and all the 3rd ed options make it easy to create a character that doesn't really belong in DS for flavor reasons even when the DM is very restrictive on the material a player can use.
Once you pop, you can't stop!
p.s. Ricky Martin is the gayest of them all!!
-srcatches crotch-
-stops looking for mate long enough to answer question-
2E bad.
3E good.
-grunt-
-clubs neighbor and steal his mate-
Dammit, now I have to clean the coffee off my screen.
warn someone when you're gonna do crap like that.
Dammit, now I have to clean the coffee off my screen.
warn someone when you're gonna do crap like that.
:heehee yeah, he's a sly one isn't he?
I personally prefer game systems that don't have (what I call) "roleplaying crutches" -- like experience levels, classes, and the such, which I feel are way to unrealistic for my liking. d20 system has that, but gioven enough flexibility with multiclassing, and enough PrC's, I think it does wonders to blurring the steriotypes formed with class-based mechanics.
Then there is d20 Modern/Grim Tales which takes this blurring on to a whole new level.
-srcatches crotch-
-stops looking for mate long enough to answer question-
2E bad.
3E good.
-grunt-
-clubs neighbor and steal his mate-
Apparently Pennarin has been abducted and replaced by a h-o-m-o neanderthalensis.
And just when you thought they were all extinct.
:P
P.S. Ha! Take that you stupid board censors...
Get´er done??
He's doing a good impression of the rednecks from Indiana.
Get´er done??
It's my shout out to flip - he loves it :P !!
*Shudders* Indiana
Yea.... there's nothing good in Indiana. :D
Yea.... there's nothing good in Indiana. :D
Just Indianapolis. :P
Ok, maybe South Bend as well as Bloomington.
All three should just secede from the state, heh.
Plenty of good things. Quite beautiful in the Summer and Fall. Just stay away from the Country Folk. I lived there for 7 years. ;)
Where at?
Yeah, not sure what is worse, rural Indiana or rural Texas at this point. At least with rural Texas you have to drive hours before you get to the next piece of civilization, so less folk to run into.
