I'm curious as to why you guys haven't switched, since I switched mainly because I like 3.0/3.5 better (esp the latter), but did so grudgingly, until I saw how much simpler and balanced 3x was compared to 2e.
Is it because you, or your players don't want to learn new rules?
Have a well established campaign and don't feel like converting all of that?
Money issues? (Not a real good reason IMO, since most of everything you need is in the SRD and and on athas.org and therefore free.)
Just curious, and not wanting to turn this into a flaming thread like the other (VA thread).
I'm just really curious on why a few of you out there haven't made the switch.
And, in fact, I sold all of my 2e material when I picked up 3e and played that until just a few months ago. After fidning that 3e just wasn't what I had hoped I had to sell that and try to buy now out of print books. lol
So, really, I did switch but then I had to switch back as I thought 2e was more balanced, more playbable, and basically all the things you think 3e is. Which is great as far as I'm concerned. I don't see any need for edition wars as the story is what's most important to me and either rules set allows you to bring Athas to life.
Originally posted by vader42xx
I don't see any need for edition wars as the story is what's most important to me and either rules set allows you to bring Athas to life.
Definately agree to that.
1.) Feats.... They are either something I coulda done before (above) or to powerful (Great cleave)
2.) Gnomes... I love playing a gnome with a 16 or better Int, and a five or less wis, now there little dwarves on crack.
Mind you there are a few things that are better, the number of prof points, but Im not keen on the DC system either. YOU wana make a finally crafted longword that getts +1/+1 then -8 from your roll. I just have second ed underwraps, I have heard, "look it up" to much to learn a new system...
Oh yea, rangers getting d8 HP is kinda gay too
Oh yea so are prestige classes
Thac0 just sucked. Every character sheet that I, or any of the members of my group created always had a grid at the bottom to fill in the numbers, because thac0 on the fly was just too cumbersome.
High/low rolls.
"Someone is firing a wand at you, roll a save"
"7"
"Aww, you rolled low, you failed."
"You just tripped, lets see if you can keep from falling over the cliff"
"18! yay, I rolled high for once, I'm good right?"
"Nope, you needed to roll under your Dex-4, Your Dex is 15, you needed an 11 or lower."
As for Rangers getting d8 HP... a whole lot of people thought it was rather lame when they flipped from AD&D 2nd and found out that Rangers got d10's instead of d8s. . . and.. what's this? Priest spells instead of wizard spells? What blasphemy is this?
At least 2nd fixed one of the major bugs for me about 1st edition. . .
"What do you mean I can't advance to 13th level until I seek out some random person of that level and kill them in order to take their place?!? There can't only be three Druids of that level on the entire face of the earth?"
And multiclassing in 1st/2nd. . . I never liked how you had to earn the full amount of XP for any given class (even halfing it for records doesn't change the fact than when you need 2000/2000, you still need to earn 4,000 to advance them both) but you only get the progression for the better of the two classes, and you must cut each HD in half. I could have lived with the system if the HP were left alone, Or, like the saves, thaco and WP's, you took the better of the two. Anyway, thats neither here nor there anymore.
But, ultimately, it comes down to taste. Some like 1st, some like 2nd, and some like 3.0/3.5. I can respect a person's decision to stick with one version or another. I mean, as much as I dislike 1st and 2nd, I would willingly play a game using those versions as long as the game itself was worth playing. The story takes precedence to the rules. Heck, if someone comes down with an awesome game system where all resolution is done with rock/paper/scissors. I'd be willing to try. . . until the story proved to be not worth the trouble of the system.
In most cases, I find that Dark Sun is worth the trouble of using 2nd edition AD&D, even if I would rather play using 3.5.
. Rangers in 1e had d8 for hit dice (they started with 2d8). They also received magic-user (wizard) and druid spells as they advanced in level. Also, in 1e the concept of a grand druid did not appear until Unearthed Arcana came out, so initially to advance in the druid class you really were fighting single individuals on an apparently global scale. Glad they changed that for sure .I'm still on 2e.
The cause: Well I'm nearly finishing a loooong campaign, so converting to 3.X edition would be an unnecessary pain. (My other campaigns are 3.Me)
When my current DS game ends, THEN I will convert. ;)
Originally posted by Donblas, the Justice Maker
Nyt:
I'm still on 2e.
The cause: Well I'm nearly finishing a loooong campaign, so converting to 3.X edition would be an unnecessary pain. (My other campaigns are 3.Me)
When my current DS game ends, THEN I will convert. ;)
Now that I can understand.
The arguments about 2e being simpler, better, etc, I don't.
I started out gaming playing 2e, played it for about 7-8 years of my gaming "career", always thought there could have been a better way of doing things but stuck to it because of the group, etc.
Now that 3x is out, I refuse to go back, heh, especially since alot of the changes I made to 2e came about as standard in 3e.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
I actually recently (re)discovered GURPS. Just a much cleaner, less cumbersome system, in my opinion. Given a choice of only 2e or 3e, I'd probably shoot myself. Barring that, I'd use 3e; it has it's issues (feats were mentioned earlier), but it is a cleaner system than 2e
Have they came out with a new version of GURPS yet?
Been awhile since I played, but I will agree that it is cleaner and less cumbersome, just doubt I can get my players to agree, heh.
(no THAC0 - there's a reason my degree was in Art and Psychology: no math).
Same reason I am going into Liberal Arts, heh.
Originally posted by Tha Nomad
My friends and I feel 3/3.5 is a power hungry system.
Ok, going to have to chime in here...
So 2e wasn't? 2e had more holes in it than a good block of swiss cheese.
I dont play and cant back it up besides looking at feats,
I suggest playing a few times. I had my issues with 3x, and almost went back to 2e or went to another system, but then I read it and played it a few times, then ran it a few times afterwards. While I admit that the system isn't perfect (esp the CR system), and the Epic rules definately needs some fine tuning, the system as a whole is pretty sound. With a few tweaks here and there (you play 2e, you must be use to it by now, heh, I am), you can get it to where you really want it.
But with the group I play with 2 types of people play 3rd/3.5. New players, and players that want uber characters.
Don't confuse the optimizers/min-maxers/etc with those of us who genuinely just want a better system.
Alot of those people feel the need to do what they do because they are bored, or for some other strange reason that I can't fathom. Doesn't mean that is why the system was built the way it was, it wasn't. I argue this with a certain player of mine all the time.
2e had the same issue with certain things, it's just seems more prominent cause the net is involved now and you are being exposed to it more.
Now with me, maybe the fact I was good with math is why I dont mind thaco. BUT i will agree the latter two systems had a few improvements
Well, in 3x it's all about the higher the better, and I like that a hell of alot more than guessing like it was with the 2e THACO/roll lower than your stat system.
But as Ive mentioned before, :feats,
I will admit that the feat system has been abused...to death, but things like that or expected I think. The easiest solution is just keep your feat selection to a minimum amount, say, just what is in the PHB.
standard XP table; stink.
I actually like this as a DM, less tables for me to memorize or have to keep up with, always thought the 2e way was a pain.
Also that affective level bit, like thri-kreen being what equivalent to lvl 2 or 3, when They start. ( I understand the concept, but it bogles me.)
As opposed to 2e's xp penalty system, which sucked hairy goat balls, and then finding some races like the TK and such that were supposedly "balanced" and didn't have an xp penalty and could end up being broken and seriously killing the fun out of the game?
Don't believe me? Combine a TK with the powers accelerate and time dilation, and then come talk to me.
Which brings up another issue, the ever famous 2e psionic system, which I gave up trying to fix after several attempts.
Boo!
"The only way to get a pure darksun conversion would be to have the guys that wrote it do it, with considerations to balance and so forth be damned"
So yeah, i play either depending on who i'm with.
Originally posted by Jaanos
"The only way to get a pure darksun conversion would be to have the guys that wrote it do it, with considerations to balance and so forth be damned"
One of the reasons why I'm making my own D20 conversion, don't have to worry about balance as much, or at least just internal balance.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
One of the reasons why I'm making my own D20 conversion, don't have to worry about balance as much, or at least just internal balance.
Originally posted by Jaanos
Exactly. Like i said (many moons ago) a good DM can balance the extra power a deflier *should* have via roleplaying. That's one thing 2e was good for, INMHO
Yeah, I'll give you that. That's one of the things I liked about 2e too, roleplaying disads, made it less more of a heavy combat game, oh well.
Too bad they couldn't translate that over into D&D 3e, oh well, when all else fails, move to the D20 side of things where you can use things like that.
I might just start turing all those hand-written notes into a vauge d20 conversions..... *chews more nails*
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Yeah, I'll give you that. That's one of the things I liked about 2e too, roleplaying disads, made it less more of a heavy combat game, oh well.
Too bad they couldn't translate that over into D&D 3e, oh well, when all else fails, move to the D20 side of things where you can use things like that.
1- 3e shifted game controll from the DM to the players which not only keeps the DM from being as affective but it also keeps the players from enjoying the game as much as they might because they are bogged down by details which should be the DMs job.
2- Way too many rules to cover way too many situations. Things like giving every conditions a name (some of which are crazy like the rules difference between sleep and unconscious), defining exactly how many magic items can go where, and what not.
3- Feats are either overpowered things the character should never have access to or underpowered abilities each character should have automatically.
4- Way too many hit points, which puts even more focus on combat and draws it out much longer than it needs.
5- Overcomplicated systems which slow down the game much more than THAC0 ever did. This is mostly a combat issue but some skills and feats are just as bad.
6- Multiclassing is terrible. It's either worthless or it forces a player to min/max to get any use out of it.
7- The standard xp charts don't help balance the classes at all and xp is gained way too fast. WotC designed 3e to have campaigns which lasted six months to a year (as this is what their research suggested it should be).
8- The expanded information for monsters and the ECL, LA, and EL systems all make adventure writing a chore. You have to focus so much on details like these that the story suffers and it takes much longer to write up notes. Either that or you have to reference books all the time as you play.
9- All characters have multiple attacks which is pointless and one more thing which slows down combat more than it should.
10- Magic item and magic item creation took on the look of a factor floor. Wizards can now pump out certain items with only a few xp points and a bit of money. Magic items also became something to be bought and sold in the core game. This leaves you with too many magic items running around while at the same time taking away the magical flavor of said items.
Ok, now having said all that, we've got some issues with 2e as well....
1- Abilty score restrictions to enter a class are a pain (though I do like racial restrictions such as no dwarven wizards).
2- Dual classing rules for humans were so restricted to be almost worthless.
3- Level adjustments as a way to balance the races is rather foolish. It's either pointless in a low-level campaign or way too much of a restriction at higher levels.
4- The bard and the thief could use some changes. The bard needs to have a little less magical power while the thief needs to be boosted a bit.
5- Lack of base racial balance. 3e gives non-human races abilities like darkvision while humans get a feat and some extra skill points. 2e, on the other hand, uses mutliclassing, dual classes, and level restrictions to balance the races so those systems are almost impossible to change if you don't like them.
Anyway, as you can see, our issues with 2e are fewer in number and a lot less sweeping than our issues with 3e. Of course I hope it goes without saying that ALL of the above (3e and 2e) statements are my group's opinions and not meant as a "this system is better because." It seems this thread has done a good job of staying away from that though so I thought I'd chime in as well.
So my gaming group just fines 2e to be a lot more smooth, balanced, and fast paced. And we never had any problem with THAC0, it's just a number line after all. I can figure a to hit number for 2e THAC0 just as fast as I can for 3e base attack and I could from the moment I started playing. And I'm no math wizard either. ;) Second edition gives the players more chances to be players and allows the DM to do a lot more on the fly calls which adds to the flexibility of the system and keeps him from having to look everything up all the time. Of course if you've got a bad DM this isn't a good thing...but, hey, if you've got a bad DM in 3e your game is going to be bad as well, just in different ways.
And, of course, either system can be changed to suit the group and it's all just a matter of taste. Ah, and one more comment, Unearthed Arcana fixed several of the 3e problems if you decided to use many of those options. But by the time I was done with that I discovered that I was, more or less, rewriting 2e with some minor changes. So after several years of 3.0, 3.5 and countless WotC books I sold it all and we switched back to the system we enjoyed more.
Yikes, sorry for the long post.
Originally posted by vader42xx
My gaming group's top 10 beefs with 3e were as follows...
Mind if I rebutt it a bit? Thanks.
1- 3e shifted game controll from the DM to the players which not only keeps the DM from being as affective but it also keeps the players from enjoying the game as much as they might because they are bogged down by details which should be the DMs job.
I honestly have yet to see ANYTHING even remotely along those lines. If anything, it simplified a lot, and made the game run very smoothly. In fact, I am hard pressed to find a gamesystem that runs so smoothly for RPG's - and I've done a TON of different systems - both as a player and a DM/GM.
2- Way too many rules to cover way too many situations. Things like giving every conditions a name (some of which are crazy like the rules difference between sleep and unconscious), defining exactly how many magic items can go where, and what not.
Ok. And this is harder than making each class basically only "look" like they are playing the same game? As a player and a DM/GM (and well, the entire group of players I've dealt with over the last few years) tends to think of these things as a good idea.
3- Feats are either overpowered things the character should never have access to or underpowered abilities each character should have automatically.
Oh, and I take it that proficiencies were nothing like that. At all. Then again, for some reason, my players seem to like being able to customize their characters and stuff. And Fighters like being able to strategize with feats rather than just doing the same old attack-damage pattern over and over again. But, I guess some people don't like flexability and stuff.
4- Way too many hit points, which puts even more focus on combat and draws it out much longer than it needs.
Heh. Ok - how does 2-3 rounds of combat sound to you? I'm lucky if I ever see MORE than that, in ANY game, as either a DM/GM or a player (and if it's a group of prepared wizards, well, it doesn't even take that long. Usually the creature's gone before they get a turn). You see, the thing is - there's more hit points, but there's also more damage. It all seriously balances out in the end.
5- Overcomplicated systems which slow down the game much more than THAC0 ever did. This is mostly a combat issue but some skills and feats are just as bad.
Please explain this in more detail, how everything in the game operating off the same rule of a d20 + a modifier compared to a Difficulty Class is more complicated than one roll for attacks, another for saves, and another for thief skills, and yet another one for abilities? In fact - the only time in 3/3.5e rules where you don't use that pattern, is well.... damage. And the damage rules are taken straight from 2nd Edition, in that it's variable-sized dice and such.
6- Multiclassing is terrible. It's either worthless or it forces a player to min/max to get any use out of it.
Wow. Wish my players knew that. I have yet to see a single campaign where I have even one player who doesn't multiclass eventually. It's very flexible, and provides a means for more well-defined characters. There are a couple flaws when it comes to multiclassing spellcasters or psionic manifesters, but that's able to be worked around in a few different ways, especially with the book Unearthed Arcana. Honestly, making everyone work off the same multiclassing is good. After all, it's nice when elves and halfelves and humans and other things all play by the same rules - because then everyone can help everyone else, and saves time in a campaign, especially for the learning curve with new players, and keeps the focus more on the campaign and less on the mechanics.
7- The standard xp charts don't help balance the classes at all and xp is gained way too fast. WotC designed 3e to have campaigns which lasted six months to a year (as this is what their research suggested it should be).
Well, I've found that your first statement is false - it does help keep them balanced. And that's from playtesting - even with campaigns designed where the players intentionally look for ways to unbalance everything while remaining in the rules. Now - if they develop too fast, do what I do, either increase the totals needed for each level, or decrease the amount of XP you dish out. Or both. This is hardly a worthy complaint, in my opinion.
8- The expanded information for monsters and the ECL, LA, and EL systems all make adventure writing a chore. You have to focus so much on details like these that the story suffers and it takes much longer to write up notes. Either that or you have to reference books all the time as you play.
Hardly - I can generate creatures on the fly up to about level 25 before I start to need to break everything down. I can glance at an art book and come up with creatures based on something I see in it immediately. Heck, the other GM of my old group and I would actually go through a movie and start breaking down the characters and creatures in the movie into d20 stats to each other. It's not a chore, unless you are so determined to make it a chore that you just put up the mental block. I don't use notes in my campaigns. I reference books primarily outside the campaign, and with the concept of organization in the books for 3/3.5e, it makes finding things rather quick, unlike some other game systems I can think of.
9- All characters have multiple attacks which is pointless and one more thing which slows down combat more than it should.
Actually, I've only seen it slow down combat when you start dealing with situations like Thri-Kreen. And multiple attacks are hardly pointles. My players like to feel like they can accomplish things - and that even the Wizard can do something in combat other than cast spells and cry like a little girl.
10- Magic item and magic item creation took on the look of a factor floor. Wizards can now pump out certain items with only a few xp points and a bit of money. Magic items also became something to be bought and sold in the core game. This leaves you with too many magic items running around while at the same time taking away the magical flavor of said items.
In a Dark Sun settin, I do see this as a problem. In a Forgotten Realms setting - I don't see the problem. And I've always thrown in monkeywrenches anyway on how to handle these things when needed.
Ok, now having said all that, we've got some issues with 2e as well....
Cool enough.
1- Abilty score restrictions to enter a class are a pain (though I do like racial restrictions such as no dwarven wizards).
I actually am completely opposed to the idea of racial restrictions on base classes. This was my #1 complaint about class-based game systems, with AD&D being at the forefront. Personally, I don't see why, mechanically, that a race would be restricted and another wouldn't. Especially when you deal with a good roleplayer who wants to take a shot at being an outcast or orphan member of his race, and end up in a class that normally wouldn't be found amongst his people. But to me, flexability of a game system is what makes it worthy to play in, or run a game in, any more.
2- Dual classing rules for humans were so restricted to be almost worthless.
No arguement there.
3- Level adjustments as a way to balance the races is rather foolish. It's either pointless in a low-level campaign or way too much of a restriction at higher levels.
I'm unfamiliar with 2e Level Adjustments.
4- The bard and the thief could use some changes. The bard needs to have a little less magical power while the thief needs to be boosted a bit.
Never cared for either of those classes in 2E. Funny tho, I like them in 3/3.5E.
5- Lack of base racial balance. 3e gives non-human races abilities like darkvision while humans get a feat and some extra skill points. 2e, on the other hand, uses mutliclassing, dual classes, and level restrictions to balance the races so those systems are almost impossible to change if you don't like them.
Well, I think Balance was a foreign word to TSR. I mean, the Complete Psionics Handbook was well.... an excersize in unbalancing maneuvers - all by itself.
Anyway, as you can see, our issues with 2e are fewer in number and a lot less sweeping than our issues with 3e. Of course I hope it goes without saying that ALL of the above (3e and 2e) statements are my group's opinions and not meant as a "this system is better because." It seems this thread has done a good job of staying away from that though so I thought I'd chime in as well.
My honest opinion - your gripes about 3e are based on the natural human nature to be unwilling and unaccepting of change. Your mind is set on 2e - which isn't a bad thing, if this is what your group likes, and as such, it has set your perceptions. Your perceptions of 3/3.5e rules are colored by your predisposition towards 2E rules, and thus, you see many things that may or may not be necessarily "true" or "valid" to anyone other than you or your campaign group. My suggestion is - if you dislike 3/3.5e so much, then fine - nobody's forcing you to play it. But understand - your dislike for 3/3.5e isn't going to change the fact that it is the present and future of D&D, and what the people at Athas.org will be using for their releases, and what many of the people in the community will prefer.
So my gaming group just fines 2e to be a lot more smooth, balanced, and fast paced. And we never had any problem with THAC0, it's just a number line after all. I can figure a to hit number for 2e THAC0 just as fast as I can for 3e base attack and I could from the moment I started playing. And I'm no math wizard either. ;) Second edition gives the players more chances to be players and allows the DM to do a lot more on the fly calls which adds to the flexibility of the system and keeps him from having to look everything up all the time. Of course if you've got a bad DM this isn't a good thing...but, hey, if you've got a bad DM in 3e your game is going to be bad as well, just in different ways.
Well, I see 2nd Edition as being a hodge-podge of disperse rules that on the surface, may give the impression everyone's playing the same game, but in actuality, they aren't playing by the same rules. It produces the strongest and most forceful restrictions of the Roleplaying Game "crutches" (sic) that state everyone's a specific class, and for the most part, can never change. It promotes a continuous life-defining steriotype and locks players into predestined paths. It has very little flexibility, and is extraordinarily restrictive. There are other systems which are more restrictive than 2nd Edition AD&D, but it's enough that I simply would never run a campaign in it. I always felt limited and that I didn't have much of a choice with my characters when I played. Levels meant very little to most characters, and quite honestly, the games I played in it would die off as everyone felt ineffectual over time.
And, of course, either system can be changed to suit the group and it's all just a matter of taste. Ah, and one more comment, Unearthed Arcana fixed several of the 3e problems if you decided to use many of those options. But by the time I was done with that I discovered that I was, more or less, rewriting 2e with some minor changes. So after several years of 3.0, 3.5 and countless WotC books I sold it all and we switched back to the system we enjoyed more.
Yikes, sorry for the long post.
I use a LOT of the things from UA. And before that, I had adapted many of the rules which I later found in the UA - but were built off of ideas from WotC's Star Wars RPG. I like a more cinematic approach to my games, and so I retorfit my rules to increase this feel. I also like to focus on fun and the enjoyment of my players- which if I'm not careful, I've completely wandered away from the original intent of my campaigns - but I do that in any game system.
Honestly, the major gripes I have with the d20 system myself are:
1. Classes
2. Experience Levels
3. Single die rolls
I feel these are unrealistic "crutches" (sic) that have been integrated into a number of gamesystems. And as such, I have frequently moved to systems that simply don't have that. 3/3.5e helps alleviate many of my concenrs, with the flexible multiclassing system, and with Unearthed Arcana's Variable Modifiers & Bell Curve Rolls systems. Levels are something I just cope with, as there is something that I simply haven't found in other systems as are in 3/3.5e D&D - organized rulebooks, with layouts that make finding things very simple, and mostly intuitive. I'll stick with their system until another one comes along that's as simple to use and find rules in (don't get me started about White-Wolf's spend-a-hour-looking-up-one-rule-in-thirty-books systems, or I.C.E.'s charts-to-roll-on-other-charts-to-roll-on-other-charts system, or even FASA/Wizkid's prerequisite of needing a Calculus degree to comprehend their magic system). GURPS was OK, but honestly, it's too disorganized for my tastes.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
I'm just really curious on why a few of you out there haven't made the switch.
Let me sum it up as this: I have come to view reading anything in 3e as a chore, due in part to the writing being so unimaginatively boring. I get 0 enjoyment from picking up a 3e book. On the other hand, I really enjoy 1e/2e books. The writing is very evocative, and makes me want to game. That's just my opinion
While I do like the 3.0/3.5 system much better than 2E, I do find that reading the core and other WOTC books about as fun as reading the 'How to Program Your VCR' section of the instruction manual . . . in Japanese . . . upsidedown. Its not the learning curve for 3E that gave me a rough start, it was more of the boring curve. 2E did have much better writing, but it also had less cohesive structure in formating, so its a tradeoff.
Ok 1 some one tell me how to quote.
On the fly Thrikren attacks slow down games (mentioned above)
The only reason that slows me down is cause Im telling the dm How I attack. YOu know, "I stabb my dagger in the gut, Sworle my sword above my head, and cut his skull in half (Nat 20) The other sword goes next to the dagger (in the gut) etc... Other than that throwing 4d20's (4 , 11, 11, 20) 4 misses his ac is nt 14 or more, 20 thats a givin, 11 base Thac 20, hits 9 I miss.... No big deal, my players mostly know there generall numbers any wya, IE. they now after bonuses they need a 13 to hit AC ten.
Dark helms correction to Number three:
Give me one example of a basic prof that over powers a character...
Combat and tactic Tower of Iron will might be used, but that is bad A$$ and difficult to do.... I cant think of one
Dark helm and number 7:
I have also accused 3/3.5 ers of being power hungry
D H and 9 (mages)
Mages are sopposed to be weak toe to toe to give multiple attacks isnt cool, they got magic... Besides, That is what the war mage, and blade singer was for.
DH and (2nd) #1
Again dwarves, and halfling, and orc, and alot of other stuff are nonmagical (wiz) Paladin was a human class, dwarves have battleragers, elves had baldesingers, gnomes had breach gnomes, and halfling had well they had sheriffs.... Also a dwarf is more likely to turn a forest to firewodd, then to preserve it. (Rangers)
Now dawn steeler, I do appreciate you responding to my post, But to the first thing you corrected... Any system can be abused, 3.5 makes it alot easier, but I understand what your sayin about holes, my brother new them all
I said
quote:But with the group I play with 2 types of people play 3rd/3.5. New players, and players that want uber characters.
Dawnsteel Said
Don't confuse the optimizers/min-maxers/etc with those of us who genuinely just want a better system.
Come on the book sais if your +/- dont equall +1 or better rerole... Me you can give me the min I need to make a class, But Ill do it. The last game I played was Uber, every one either had 18 att/rnd, low AC, or did a 1000 dmg spell (they were 12) They roled 4d6 reroll 1,2,3,4,5, (exaggeration, but they were pretty gay) I rolled 3d6 straight down and made a first level kobald witch docter... And you know what faor a 3 str, 4 con, he kicked ass. literaly he knocked the mess out of a fith lvl barbarian... Thats how I am ... I can do whatever, needs to be done, with whatever, I am givin. I would write more but this will be to long anyway... One more thing Long live pres bush...... That should brake the monotonay
Oh yea, dont try to use my poor spelling as an attack
Originally posted by Mach2.5
Gawd, Nightdruid, I don't think I could agree with you more!
While I do like the 3.0/3.5 system much better than 2E, I do find that reading the core and other WOTC books about as fun as reading the 'How to Program Your VCR' section of the instruction manual . . . in Japanese . . . upsidedown. Its not the learning curve for 3E that gave me a rough start, it was more of the boring curve. 2E did have much better writing, but it also had less cohesive structure in formating, so its a tradeoff.
Heh, that's a lot more enjoyment than I get! ;)
Don't get me wrong, there's things I like/dislike about both. But I'm not going to argue the symantics; I'm no ruleslawyer. I just happen to think 2e is more enjoyable to read, and will read 3e only when I have absolutely no other choice.
Again dwarves, and halfling, and orc, and alot of other stuff are nonmagical (wiz) Paladin was a human class, dwarves have battleragers, elves had baldesingers, gnomes had breach gnomes, and halfling had well they had sheriffs.... Also a dwarf is more likely to turn a forest to firewodd, then to preserve it. (Rangers)
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but this was perhaps (and still is) my biggest gripe about 2E, that the mechanics of it enforced certain aspects of flavor in a setting. Of course, one could argue that you could change whatever you wanted to in your game, but that could also be true in reverse when applied to 3E. Why couldn't you have magic using dwarves? Or why were paladins only humans? And why can a human mage attain near godlike power (unlimited levels), but yet an elf living a few hundred years would be cut off from higher magic? Because the rules said so. Sorry, that's just a gimped aspect of 1E and 2E that I had tossed out the window long before even TSR or WOTC were even thinking of a new edition. Using kits to fill in those aspects . . . kits are as lame as prestige classes. Also, the enforced alignment aspects as well, which have been losened up a bit in 3E but are still very much present in the core rules (good paladins only, no lawful barbarians, etc).
Those certainly are not high selling points for an arguement espousing the virtues of 2E. Simply hate it when something tells me 'No, you can't do that' without any firm basis. Once again, not trying to thrash anyone's opinions, just sharing my own here.
I initially resisted the changeover from 2e to 3e because I smelled corporate ratfink all over the new edition. I go back to the white box so have seen editions come and go and something about the 3e smelled of marketing ploy to high heaven. I bought the three core books and sat back to watch. Hardback upon hardback followed, splatbook upon splatbook at a rate that would have shamed TSR even in its heyday, all adding new tweaks and rules and classes and whatnot. So when they announced 3.5 it was no real surprise, having seen the exact same thing happen three or four times over with the original D&D rules, and then AD&D 1e to 2e to 2.5e as well. Still don't get why so many folks are still carrying on like 3.5 was such a huge shock or something
I was also busy with finishing a long 1e/2e campaign dating back to '83 so was in no rush to convert all my stuff over to 3e when it came out. I liked what I saw of the 3.5 stuff and bought that (along with the 3e stufff I wanted on the cheap from disgusted 3.0 players, heh heh) and have been running a 3.5 Dark Sun game for about a year now.
I don't really care for edition comparisons. Gaming is a subjective thing and what works for Jack simply doesn't work for Jill. As the old saying goes: opinions are like backsides. Everyone has one. And everyone's but mine stinks. :D I do think it's possible to make a few value judgements, but they are pretty general imho. I definitely find 3e to be more rules-intensive than earlier editions, and its rules systems are more tightly integrated with one another than previously. I really think that this is the single major difference between the editions and one that completely changes the way one must approach the game.
Under earlier editions of the game the DM could fiddle with several aspects of the system, tweaking them to suit his tastes (or his players'). The DM could do this to a considerable degree before the game as a whole would start to suffer because the various subsysytems of the game were not as tightly connected as they are now. And if such tweaking went too far, the DM would be able to swing the game back on target with a few more tweaks. Under 3e, you cannot do this as easily without first digesting the system as a whole because each part of the system links into each other part of the system. You need to take on board the rules system as a whole to be sure that fiddling with stat A will not adversely affect stat M. Until he grasps the rules, the DM has much less freedom than in earlier editions.
The 3e designers called this "rewarding rules mastery" - it changes the way you need to approach the game in order to get the most from it. Earlier editions did not incorporate this concept - it has genuinely evolved along with the rpg industry - and it is not everyone's cup of tea. I can only take it in sensible doses, after which I need to go indulge myself in something less crunchy. World of Darkness is good for that (rules? what rules??) and there's always the beautiful Moldvay edition of D&D.
(If you want a really killer system, check out Torg. All other systems are puerile tripe left to fester in the feeble light of a faded sun when compared to the unitary majesty that is Torg. No, really, they are.)
So dawnsteeler YOu agree that feats are a bogus. My friends and I feel 3/3.5 is a power hungry system.
I do kind of think it dumbs the whole thing down (not necessarily a bad thing, though), but it also favors power-gamers. Thankfully, I broke my players of that tendency long ago, so it's not as big an issue. Even so, Feats are just goofy. The whole "bag of rats" trick got a bit old, and the fact that it was possible at all says a great deal about the types of gamers this system was aimed at.
Personally, I don't think there's a better system out there than the Shadowrun system. In combat, you have to be careful no matter what level you are, but more experience gives you a better chance to survive. The downside being combat takes a bit longer (there are at least two rolls for each attack - attack, defend, resist damage if necessary). Good for small groups, but sucks with larger groups.
So far, GURPS is the smoothest of the lot, but still not perfect. A combat system from SR and the rest from Gurps would be just about perfect.
Go fig.
But since people were looking for more details I decided to post what my group thinks. Beyond that I've no desire to debate it or agree/disagree on various points. Third edition and second edition are just two different ways of playing the same game and I prefer 2e myself.
Originally posted by Tha Nomad
D@mn dark helm wont let us have our oppinions.... Its like politics or religion.... Lets see alot was said while I was at work,
Please don't put words in my mouth. I said I was rebutting it - responding according to my own opinion. At the end, I even listed my own gripes against the system. I just find it absolutely amazing that one group's gripes against the system is another group's reason for playing in it. Kam was right - it's subjective - people have a lot of opinions about different systems. To me, d20 (3/3.5e) keeps the powergaming more controlled, and provides a very detailed combat system - leaving me to be able to handle the roleplaying aspects of a campaign of my design.
Honestly, I don't use vanilla 3.5e rules for my games, I have vitality/wound points, armor damage reductions & defense bonuses, my own system for experience points & levels that award people for more than just killing things (like roleplaying XP awards); I even use a bell-curve roll system (3d6) instead of the d20 roll, and a variable modifier system in it. Action Points are another thing I have. In fact, there's a lot of changes to my rules that makes it really not seem like a d20 game. I have considered restructuring it to eliminate classes and experience levels all together.
But, at the same time - I disliked 2E rules so much that long before 3E was out, I had determined I would never run a AD&D campaign. 2E rules were... well.... convoluded, in my view. Overly complex, apparently for the sake of complexity, and it just took too much of an effort to get anything done in it. I tried many, many different gamesystems, including developing my own. Then 3.0 was released, and I really, [i]really[/ii liked the changes in it. I've basically run d20 games since. I ran one White-Wolf-based game since the 3e mechanics came out, but I had stopped it, because of the frustrations I have with that system's layout and disorganization within it's books.
Heck, I've even been working on converting my homebrew campaign setting worlds across to d20 3.5e rules - which is not an easy task, considering the one setting has four worlds, one of which is a science fiction setting rather than fantasy. I'd never have considered putting it in AD&D 2E. in 3.5E, everything's flexible enough for me to work with it and mold the system to fit my setting.
"D&D is what it is. Very often, when I see people upset with how awful D&D is, they do not appreciate D&D for what it is and does. Rather, they're upset with what D&D isn't and doesn't do. I say that because I have done that (including some of my earliest game designs). I didn't appreciate D&D for what it was, having lost sight of the fact that I was blaming it for things it never tried to accomplish. 'D&D sucks because it isn't realistic.' Or, 'D&D is terrible because it keeps screwing up my story.' I was barking up the wrong tree.
Is D&D flawless? Of course not! Like all games, it has noticeable flaws. Is D&D 'good'? I say that it is, if you enjoy the kind of play it encourages. In fact, I think D&D 3rd ed. is a very well done game that accomplishes what it tries to do."
I'd say all that also applies to the version wars between fans of various editions, from 1st to 3rd.
3rd Edition D&D is a very coherent, tightly (and unapolagetically) Gamist design, possibly the most coherent vision of "what D&D is" (as a system and a game genre) to date. Unlike 2nd Edition, it isn't trying to be "the answer" to everyone's gaming needs, it's trying to be D&D -- monster killin', treasure lootin', power-gainin' fun.
This is what ticks 2nd Ed. fans off most about the recent version of D&D, I think -- the refocusing on the game itself (what is derogatorily and disingenously referred to as powergaming, munchkinism, etc), rather than a focus on characterization and setting exploration. Which 2nd Ed. doesn't support mechanically, either, but likes to think it does (and rules are often bent to make it play that way).
So, 3rd Edition is a cleaner, more focused design than 2nd Edition was...it just may not be focused in a way that some amount of 2nd Edition players particularly enjoy, which is a perfectly reasonable reason not to use or prefer it.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
While I do like the 3.0/3.5 system much better than 2E, I do find that reading the core and other WOTC books about as fun as reading the 'How to Program Your VCR' section of the instruction manual . . . in Japanese . . . upsidedown. Its not the learning curve for 3E that gave me a rough start, it was more of the boring curve. 2E did have much better writing, but it also had less cohesive structure in formating, so its a tradeoff.
Surprise: the core rule books actually ARE instruction manuals. To the rules, I mean. So first priority to them is to be clear, comprehensive and a good and easy source of reference, so you don't have to check through long, evocative readings when you would like to find a rule during the middle of a combat scene. For good reading experience people should read novels, that's what they are for.
An axe is a perfect tool to cut trees, but a terrible tool to wash your clothes. Everything has its own usage which are intended and suited the best for.:D
Originally posted by Tha Nomad
Come on the book sais if your +/- dont equall +1 or better rerole...
Why, is it better if a book says if you don't roll high enough you can't have the class? 2e did that exactly...
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
To me, d20 (3/3.5e) keeps the powergaming more controlled, and provides a very detailed combat system - leaving me to be able to handle the roleplaying aspects of a campaign of my design.
I agree with xlorep here. It's much better if a game system makes everything possible (like dwarf wizards), and then the DM says "OK, but I don't allow it" than a system that has holes. Because filling theese holes with stuff later can bring the game and the balance in a totally wrong direction very easily. General example to this: tons of broken house rules. An official example to this: the dream of every munchkin/powergamer a.k.a. 'The complete psionic handbook for AD&D 2nd edition'.
Creating balance and order from a chaotic situation is much harder than vica versa.
Surprise: the core rule books actually ARE instruction manuals
Errr . . . no real surprise here. But then again, so were the 1E Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide as well, but they were alot easier to digest due in part to the way they were written. However, they lacked the nice, tight format that the 3E books have. Case in point, sit down with the Shadowrun core book, Earthdawn, White Wolf's various system core books, or even Rifts for that matter; all systems in my opinion are slightly much more clunky, but yet they are still alot easier reads and easier to digest because they are written less like a dry instruction manual and more like . . . well, more like a game book. I expect dryness from colledge text books, since I'm not reading them for fun but to advance my knowledge for getting a degree or a better job, not for an amusing pastime/hobby. Previously, the industry standard was to write in a flowing method that was reminicent itself of a novel format. This was, is, and will always be an easier, more simple system for a general reader to understand (debate that as much as you want; there's enough studies done on it to prove its true for the vast majority). The trend now, perhaps not started by but certainly brought to the forefront by 3E, is for a tighter, less wordy format. This saves space, is much simpler to write, and allows even more rules themselves to be crammed into as little space as possible; the end result is actually a cheaper to produce product (once again, studies show this to be financially sound). There's more to say on this, but I'm about out of time.
Originally posted by Nagypapi
Why, is it better if a book says if you don't roll high enough you can't have the class? 2e did that exactly...
Hmm, Ok Ima start with the ranger, a woodsman, kinda like louis and clark, this class knows how to survive, and make the most outa woodlands. So to me it only makes sence that you would/or need to be healthy fo this life style, It also makes since that you would need to be more intoon with the natural cycle of things... A person with a descent wisdom (say 10 or better) knows not to mess with a growling bear, but a 5 or less would think it is a big dog. They have a lack of common sence. Dex now I cant give a good answer, But Strength is another thing a woodsman would need/or gained to survive in the wilderness. Paladins and druids, with charisma I cant explain. But the rest I could go on with. Now why a halfling couldnt be a ranger fathomed me but still. So if you really want me to expalin, why I agree with Chp 2 and 3 oh the 2e PH in detail I will But only if you ask.
Oh and my originall post that you replied to I was talking about in character chreation, the book sais to reroll if you dont have +1 or better. reroll "...are 0 or less, or if highest score is 13 or lower." 3ed PH page 4, subsection 1, last sentence.
And ya'll probly thought my group didnt have one.
And dawnsteeler, shadowrun does kick ass:D
Damn, I said I wasn't going to rain on anyone's parade. My bad. I'll stop.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Well, now - you see, 2e AD&D pretty much locked the Ranger into a specific steriotype. You really couldn't leave it, and had to follow a certian course. If you didn't like that course, you had to choose one of the umpteen-million kits found throughout multitudes of books - and had to do it at 1st level. So, you better hope you got it right the first time, because there's no going back.
That's the same problem the original D&D box set rules. (Usually referred to as OD&D with the O meaning "original" or "old".) Basically, you're not playing a character, you're playing a characturiture of of a class. All elves are fighter/wizards, all dwarves and halflings are fighters, clerics all have the same potential spell loadouts, fighters have no specializations they're just good with everything, and thieves have the same skill levels by level. No wonder people played magic-users, at least you could customize SOMETHING other than your name.
Most of the house rules of 1st and 2nd edition were designed to break out of the severely limited environment created by the rules set. We often said that in order to play AD&D, you had to fix it first. I'm happy to say 3.5 doesn't have that problem, it's now an issue of what kind of campaign you want to run that decides what books and rules to use.
Adamantyr
Originally posted by Adamantyr
you're playing a characturiture of of a class. All elves are fighter/wizards, all dwarves and halflings are fighters, clerics all have the same potential spell loadouts, fighters have no specializations they're just good with everything, and thieves have the same skill levels by level.
Adamantyr
Ok maybe some people arnt as imaginative as others
Fighter: YOu could create a big bear knuckle box, a slinder stealth archer. A bugbear with an 18 str, master of a sword, but is a passifist because "he hates all the killing" YOu could play a character like Joxer (hercules miniseries) YOu could declare your attacks in a fashion that people can see you fighting like achilles on Troy. And for the basics, 9 is considered bottom of average.
Cleric, well if you and the DM get into the character religion that would say alot. YOu could have the big cleric that converts at the end of a mace, a wise man, the heritic (low wis) he could be a witch hunter, because magic (wizardly) is against the teachings. Or you could have a cleric, who is not in the social order, but rather a layperson (one of the flock whats that word) thats blessed by the gods. Ok, now I could continue, if you want but there are 9 base classes.
On the originall note I dont care what your mama sais, not everyone can do what they want. I cant be a politician, I lack the charm and social graces. Someone might not have the apptitude with math to be an engineer, and another, might not be good enuff with english to edit. To me the same hold true for characters, YOur ranger would die during the first hard freeze(low con) Twist his ankle on a root (low dex) And eat a berry that was poisonis, (low wis) So have these characters existed? Sure but they either died, or decided to go home. Is it time to judge a nother class yet?
Originally posted by Tha Nomad
Ok maybe some people arnt as imaginative as others
Fighter: YOu could create a big bear knuckle box, a slinder stealth archer. A bugbear with an 18 str, master of a sword, but is a passifist because "he hates all the killing" YOu could play a character like Joxer (hercules miniseries) YOu could declare your attacks in a fashion that people can see you fighting like achilles on Troy. And for the basics, 9 is considered bottom of average.
What about the fighter who isn't strong at all, but is very dexterous instead? What about the Ranger who uses intelligence rather than Wisdom to figure things out. What about the Paladin who decides that the best way for him to follow his calling is to become able to withstand a lot of damage (high Con), rather than raise a hand in anger, and thus is not strong, but tough. These are all a few of the myriad of examples that just aren't feasable in 2e. What about the Elf who was raised by humans, and thus develops in classes based on the human culture around him? 2E is simply WAY too restrictive in such things.
Cleric, well if you and the DM get into the character religion that would say alot. YOu could have the big cleric that converts at the end of a mace, a wise man, the heritic (low wis) he could be a witch hunter, because magic (wizardly) is against the teachings. Or you could have a cleric, who is not in the social order, but rather a layperson (one of the flock whats that word) thats blessed by the gods. Ok, now I could continue, if you want but there are 9 base classes.
Clerics, being spellcasters, are, in effect, one of the very few customizeable characters in 2E. And, all clerics of a certian god seem to have the same list of abilities. Yep, it's the cookie-cutter school of prayer.
On the originall note I dont care what your mama sais, not everyone can do what they want. I cant be a politician, I lack the charm and social graces. Someone might not have the apptitude with math to be an engineer, and another, might not be good enuff with english to edit. To me the same hold true for characters, YOur ranger would die during the first hard freeze(low con) Twist his ankle on a root (low dex) And eat a berry that was poisonis, (low wis) So have these characters existed? Sure but they either died, or decided to go home. Is it time to judge a nother class yet?
Not everyone can do what they want - I mean, someone who has developed a character who has a low wisdom of 9, isn't about to all of a sudden be able to start out being a Cleric and be able to cast many spells. But even though it's not the smartest thing for them to choose - shouldn't such decisions be up to the player who is developing the character be able to make up his own mind on it? People in Real Life change careers mid-way, switching to something more to their liking, pick up new skills and abilities, and simply put - do not fit into the molds that steriotypical structures provide. Your example - someone might not have the aptitude with math to be an engineer, and another might not be good enough with english to edit.... Well - what if you have someone who IS good with english, and is a pastor, but then decides that he'd rather edit - see, the possiblity is there. In a 2E-concept system, this would be an impossiblity - once you start down a path, you can't change midway (unless you are a Human, but that's a different arguement). In 3E/3.5E, this idea is possible. Characters grow, and players develop them. As such, I like to provide as many options as are feaseable, so that they don't all end up being the same thing.
A prime example of this was a campaign I had run which consisted of 4 Wizards and 1 Sorcerer (non-Dark Sun). They all started out with basically the same type of characters (one player wanted to try a Sorcerer). Now - by the end of the campaign, one character was a Wizard//Archmage, another was a Wizard/Rogue/Arcane Trickster, Another was a Wizard/Monk/Fighter/Druid/Rogue/Psion(egoist)/Planeshifter/Archmage (this player never could make up his mind...), Another was a Wizard/Fighter/Eldritch Knight, and the last was a Sorcerer/Cleric(nerull)/True Necromancer who became a Lich. 5 characters, 4 started out very much alike, and became radically different types of characters. The campaign was a lot of fun, and it was impressive to watch each mold their characters in different directions.
Now - true, the guy who couldn't make up his mind ended up... well.... suffering for it. But overall, everyone ended up having a lot of fun, and really enjoyed the flexibility of the system. The Wizard/Archmage character's player is a long-time 2E DM, who had been DM'ing D&D since the mid 80's - and he pretty much sold off all his 2E books for 3E (and now 3.5E) because, in his own words, "It makes much more sense."
"Well - what if you have someone who IS good with english, and is a pastor, but then decides that he'd rather edit - see, the possiblity is there. In a 2E-concept system, this would be an impossiblity " Xplorehelm somethinarouther
So have these characters existed?
Actually, these types of characters have existed in literature for a few hundred years, and most wind up not only living to see the ending of the book, but quite a few are even the 'heroric protagonists' of the story, even with their faults, flaws, and failures. Sure would have been nice to be able to play out some of these types of characters in 2e, but it simply wasn't possible until you tweak the rules a bit (which of course many people, myself included, did).
Now, I will admit that this is still a fault of 3E as well. Granted, it does allow much more freedom when creating the type of character that you want to play, but any class based system will eventually break down into generic molds. With 3E, you simply have a lot more molds to chose from.
or untill I actually wright up 2.5e
I'd still love to see D&D, the classless game ;)
Actually to tell you the truth you want a classless system try shadow run
I consider myself a veteran rigger specializing in polyceramic recon drones. If you want my credentials . . . well, let's just say that my last employer wasn't very prompt with chargin' up the cred stick.
I've still yet to find a good enough classless system to convert all my games over to (I've found a few good ones, but never good enough though).
Originally posted by Tha Nomad
Granted 2ed and changing classes wasnt the greatest. Human had to have a 15 and 17, and Multi classing wasnt much better. But it was good. So Im not going to argue that, But to the originall point of min, ability scores per class. I stand by my point. And in your example it made since, but did nothing to "discourage" my defence
Well, actualy - you still avoided the rest of my response. Like the example of a Fighter who focuses on Dexterity instead of Strength.
Xplorehelm somethinarouther
Impressive. I understand that I have "obnoxiouslylongusername", but.... WOW. Nobody has ever mangled it like you have. Here's a hint I've given to some people - copy & paste are your friends. I've posted once or twice in this thread, and when you make a reply, all the previous posts magically appear under your reply box, in reverse-chronological order. Finding the name, highlighting, and copying it, then pasting can save a lot of grief. Of course, the mangled version's quite comical too.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
Now, I will admit that this is still a fault of 3E as well. Granted, it does allow much more freedom when creating the type of character that you want to play, but any class based system will eventually break down into generic molds. With 3E, you simply have a lot more molds to chose from.
I'd have to agree. Which is one of the reasons I'm not fond of class-based systems. To me, Class & Level require an extra amount of suspension of disbelief - Classes tend to define characters based on steriotypes, and levels infer that there is simply a pre-defined power system that is tangible within a game world - when there really isn't such a thing in Real Life - at least, nowhere near the scale of Levels. Luckily, when I incorperate many of the rule variants I use, this problem is mitigated a bit (like, for instance Vitality/Wound Points).
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Well, actualy - you still avoided the rest of my response. Like the example of a Fighter who focuses on Dexterity instead of Strength.
Unless your a halfling 9 is already a weak stat and with that YOu could play your weak fighter with a high dex, or intelligence. Anything lower and you pretty much have the onset of multiple schlorousis anyway.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Impressive. I understand that I have "obnoxiouslylongusername", but.... WOW. Nobody has ever mangled it like you have. Here's a hint I've given to some people - copy & paste are your friends. I've posted once or twice in this thread, and when you make a reply, all the previous posts magically appear under your reply box, in reverse-chronological order. Finding the name, highlighting, and copying it, then pasting can save a lot of grief. Of course, the mangled version's quite comical too.
Thanks I try, YOu didnt answer my off subject question, about your service time. Me Im just a humble deserter.
And Mach2.5 optomized shadowrun is good.... But thats as close to classless as they come... But it is good:D
2e definately had its problems, I'll easy admit that. And I'm still trying to decide if I like proficiencies or skills more. But that's the only thing from 3e that I like as much. Multiclassing tends to weaken a character over time (that truly weird Storm Silverhand [wrong setting, I know] build anyone?), unless very carefully managed. And even then, spellcasting prestige classes either cripple a character (original bladesinger build, where the wizard spell advancement pretty much stops) or catapult their power (Red Wizard).
And regarding fighters as was mentioned somewhere above: I haven't seen any real flexibilty in 3e fighers. I played a front-line, dwarven fighter, from 3d to 11th level, and no matter how I moved the feats, all he ever was was a tank. I never had any real options in combat aside from "hack the thing some more and hope I roll well." But then again, my favorite class is wizard, specifically due to its flexibility, so maybe I'm biased.
Finally, I run my games under the principle "life isn't always fair." There are no level caps in my games, just to start with. That's part of the reason I liked the 2e psionics. Sure they were over-powered, but they felt natural. I think that's the core of why I don't like 3e. It doesn't feel right. And, since our coin is imaginary, its the feelings that count.
That's part of the reason I liked the 2e psionics. Sure they were over-powered, but they felt natural
Okay, this I can't argue with at all. 2E psionics were as unbalanced as you could possibly get, but they felt like they were psionics. 3E has balanced out the psionic abilities (and added some nice touches that I like), but they just feel like wizards in psionicist clothing. Now, I've not yet gotten the XPH, but from what I've read, most of the changes made to it aren't going to alter the feelings of misgivings I have about 3E psionics. One of my players was talking about revamping the entire psionic system to be a kind of hybrid of 2E/3E; if he ever get's anywhere with it, I'll post it.
Psionics in 3e, however, have always been overpowered in my eyes. And the XPH just made that worse. They can heal, do as much direct damage as wizards, and still have the unique psionic style powers. So not only do they combine at least some of the powers from three different classes they also don't have to memorize powers and feel way too much like wizard 2.0.
I will note, however, that the psion's power increase in 3e might be due to the overall power increase of the D&D game in this edition. So maybe it fits in, I'm not the best one to judge that (though I personally think it's overpowered even for 3e) but whatever the case the psion as presented certainly feels too much like a spell point using wizard.
I've never been real big on psionics in general (I only allow them in my DS campaigns) but if I had to pick a more balanced system I'd go with 2e for sure. And the 2e feel is almost certainly better in regards to making the class stand on its own feet.
Don't get me wrong. I wish the psionic attack and defense modes could have stayed, but the basic fact is that it creates a combat system where you're either completely ineffective or totally effective. And restricting it so only psionic characters can affect one another further makes it a "tack-on" system. Converting them to straight-forward powers works better.
My only aversion with the XPH is that psionics are a bit more flashy than I like. In my campaign, psioncis have NO visibility, it all happens in the mindscape of the characters, unless you use augmentation, which creates a physical effect of some kind. And I'd like to figure out a way to intergrate the harbingers and constructs of the Will and the Way into the system somehow... Either as powers or feats, perhaps.
Adamantyr
Originally posted by Nytcrawlr:
Now that 3x is out, I refuse to go back, heh, especially since alot of the changes I made to 2e came about as standard in 3e.
Same here. 2e had so many loopholes that made me sick :D
Originally posted by Jaanos:
Exactly. Like i said (many moons ago) a good DM can balance the extra power a deflier *should* have via roleplaying. That's one thing 2e was good for, INMHO
I agree with that, but for each good DM there are a dozen really bad ones that never even considered some kind of RP compensation for powerfull classes...
Mach2.5:
Ever read the original Deadlands: the Weird West books? It was full of rules (and I find the system a bit clunky) yet very fun to read.
Originally written by Mach2.5:
Okay, this I can't argue with at all. 2E psionics were as unbalanced as you could possibly get, but they felt like they were psionics. 3E has balanced out the psionic abilities (and added some nice touches that I like), but they just feel like wizards in psionicist clothing.
So true. 2e psionics had a unique feel to them, in 3e they are a new type of magic. Sure the XPH made the classes and powers a little more unique, but not in the same way they were in 2e.
I have played games with the WoD storytelling system for DS, but it's Dark Sun, a bright, burning desert, not a world of darkness.
Also, I have played DS with the Earthdawn system. It was a good game, but it was not as realistic for me.
Ever read the original Deadlands: the Weird West books? It was full of rules (and I find the system a bit clunky) yet very fun to read.
While in the end, I guess I'd have to say that I much rather run a fun game that read a well written but crummy system book, that doesn't mean that I actually want to read a poorly written but well worked system book either. I just don't understand why designers today favor writing system books in a style reminiscent of reading obscure scientific journals. Earthdawn was alot like Deadlands, even in the rules sections. Fun as heck to read, which made it much easier to learn.
Originally posted by CSK
Speaking of the Storyteller system does anyone have a conversion of DS into that ruleset (specifically the Mage rules)? I'm planning a DS campgain and that is the only system my group is familiar with.
I did, but they have been lost to time. All I remember is that we used Rage for fighters. Anyways, it would be better if you ran Dark Sun as a Mage game, for Magic-users.
I'd run mages as Order of Hermes with preservers having to store Arete(?, I think that is what powers spells) while defliers can just take it from living plants and then on from people as their spheres and Arete increase.
Clerics would require something from their plane of worship as foci.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
But, at the same time - I disliked 2E rules so much that long before 3E was out, I had determined I would never run a AD&D campaign. 2E rules were... well.... convoluded, in my view. Overly complex, apparently for the sake of complexity, and it just took too much of an effort to get anything done in it. I tried many, many different gamesystems, including developing my own. Then 3.0 was released, and I really, really liked the changes in it. I've basically run d20 games since. I ran one White-Wolf-based game since the 3e mechanics came out, but I had stopped it, because of the frustrations I have with that system's layout and disorganization within it's books.
Heck, I've even been working on converting my homebrew campaign setting worlds across to d20 3.5e rules - which is not an easy task, considering the one setting has four worlds, one of which is a science fiction setting rather than fantasy. I'd never have considered putting it in AD&D 2E. in 3.5E, everything's flexible enough for me to work with it and mold the system to fit my setting.
My 2e gripes, at least some of them.
Layout it took forever to find something in the books. Need a quick reference? You can try the index but that sometimes have you an essay on the theory of the subject you were looking up instead of the actual game modifiers.
Thac0 Not simply thac0 by itself, but modifiers. Some modifiers were listed as modifiers to the dice rolls, some to thac0, and some to AC. When you have a + number that could be either good or bad depending on just what number it is modifying, that is useless complexity.
Defender is Off Balace, your attack roll gets a +2.
Using a slashing weapon against Full plate, your thac0 gets a +4.. which could be easier said as your attack roll gets a -4.
With Thac0, you generally had to know what the AC of the target was before you could determine whether you hit. I mean, you could make your roll, and then say "well, I rolled a 13, Thaco 16, so I hit, ummm, Everything with AC 3 or worse." in 3.0/3.5, it's Rolled a 12+4..16" Granted, either way you eventually learn the AC of the target, when you discover that a 14 hits while a 13 doesn't, it's just a bit needlessly complex with having to deconstruct your roll, cross-examine your thaco and try to figure it out.
Saves vs Checks I pointed this out above. Dice rolling is a very superstitious process. Many people have many different dice "I need to roll high, so I am gonna use my speckled green d20 with a lightning bolt as the 1" or "I need to roll low, so I am gonna roll the crappy stock red d20 that has never gotten above a 5 for me" in D&D, the DM sometimes tells a player "Roll a d20 for me" without specifying why. I mean, you say make a save, and the players get paranoid, you tell them to make a check and they know you are trying to slip something in. . just so much can be given away with a reason. Which is why some DMs make some rolls for their players. I have no problem with this either, and sometimes it is necessary. But in 2e, the DM says roll a d20. . well, do you roll your I-really-need-a-20 d20.. or your never-rolls-higher-than-5 d20? At least in 3.5 you know that you always need to roll high. There is none of the "Well, if you were trying to resist a wand you need to roll high, but since you were actually trying to stay on your horse by making a ride check so you needed to roll low" type things. in 3.5 higher is better, period.
Single/Multi/Dual Classing This is a joke. Dual classing is so restrictive.. "You need to not use any of your formal knowledge for the entire level before you can advance. You ex-fighters out there can never pick up a sword to defend your life now that you are mages, or else you gain no experience for the encounter."
Demi Humans multiclassing got mega benefits in the beginning and then it was so slow from then out out. How do they limit the demi humans? Level restrictions. Which made absolutely no sense in game at all.
Racial Restrictions? Just because Dwarves don't commonly make wizards, why should they be outlawed completely?
I like the customizabilty of 3.5 You don't have to worry that the class you are choosing is absolutely right for you, because you can multiclass if you feel that you would like to learn different fields.
Feats. Yes, some are very powerful, but many of those have prerequisites to compensate for this. WPs and NWPs in 23 were a joke. And even powergaming was just as prevalent in 2e as it is in 3e. Min/Maxers are everywhere.
Now, to drift a little. I Like Rolemaster/Merp. Nice detail, but the charts do definitely bog down the game after a while.
I loved Deadlands (after a while) The deck of cards being integrated into initiative made the game so unique. in D&D, the rogue with improved Initiative and a Dex of 24 is always going to go first, but in Deadlands, a good initiative roll gave you more cards. You could still end up with low cards, thus meaning that you act later in the round (granted, you still get a few more actions, but the quirkyness was great)
Interlock/Fuzion. Cyberpunk 2020 will probably be my all time favorite RPG. Skill based instead of Experience/level based, you could easily branch out and learn other areas of expertise if you wanted to. Very simple combat/skill resolution system. D10+attribute+skill = total. Compare totat versus a Target number, etc etc. Since you know what attributes and skills you are using, you often have these totaled up beforehand "Hmm, using my .50 cal desert eagle is a 15+d10. However, my 7.62mm FN-FAL total is 18+d10. And with the advent of Fuzion (which suggested the 3d6 for the bell curve rolls instead of straight d10) and simplistic ways of creating magic/psionic/power armor/cybernetic systems. . it is a very diverse system.
GURPS. Never played it. Read through a book once and just never got into it.
R.I.F.T.S. (and all of the palladium systems) Talk about complex. PP was the only stat you really had to worry about to survive combat, multiple attacks, in which you had to roll an attack, roll a dodge or parry if you chose (which used up attacks), etc. MDC vs SDC was a choppy system at best, which left very little room for survival when Mega Damage weapons were used in conjuction with normal every day people. Ablative armor. Your armor can stop 20 points of mega damage, but if you are hit with 21 or more, you are toast usually. Every supplement that was released had to improve on technology/weapon damage/character powerscale by at least 50%, usually averaging a 100-150% increase in power scale.. so the party that was created with Book #6 information is toast when the badguy created from book #7 appears because his powerlevel is just that much higher. And then when the party makes replacement characters from book #8, they are simply gods, because again the power scale jumped up.
White Wolf. Gads, if there was ever a series of books that needed an itemized index it's these. the layout jumps from fiction to clans/tribes/creeds/whatever to drama systems to combat to powers to roleplaying to a different sort of powers system to. . . you get the point. You Could level D&D characters up to 10th+ in the time is takes to find the right entry in a White Wolf book. And the index they have is useless. Look up an item and it directs you to a page. A Page that mentions the topic in brief context, but not in actual game/system context. Overall, I think the games have some decent story put into them, and if you don't mind the rolling massive amonts of D10's a few times while subtracting certain numbers, or dice because of opponents rolls and such just to determine if you hit a guy, its not bad. Just put post-its in all the pages you think you will need, because without them you will never find the information again.
AEG (7th Sea, L5R) Not bad. Not quite as bad as WW, I mean, here you roll a lot of dice based on one attribute, but a skill or what not determines just how many of them you can actually count for your roll. Had the benefit of being intuitive, but the downside of being a relatively new name in a crowd of old faces.
So, overall, I still say Cyberpunk (and most of the fuzion systems) are my favorite game. But D&D now comes in a close 2nd. Whereas when we were relying on 2nd edition AD&D.. I would rather have gone and had teeth pulled that willingly subject myself to another AD&D game. (With the exception of the darn good Dark Sun game we were playing when 3.0 came out, but we were alreay making 3.0ish modifications even then, and Planescape. I would run a planescape with a system that relied on flipping coins if I had to, I like the genre so much)
Please forgive the long post.
Originally posted by Ral of Tyr I have played games with the WoD storytelling system for DS, but it's Dark Sun, a bright, burning desert, not a world of darkness. [/b]
This is quite unlikely, since the Storytelling system (their new rules) have not been released yet. The Storyteller system was a bit convoluded. However, Dark Sun does have many elements in it that could apply to World of Darkness. But - to make the system work for Dark Sun, you'd have to design a lot of rules specific to it. Don't forget, the Storyteller system originated with Street Fighter: The Roleplaying Game. Hardly a World of Darkness.
Originally posted by Tha Nomad
Thanks I try, YOu didnt answer my off subject question, about your service time. Me Im just a humble deserter.
Oh, this question -
so off subject xlorp I read some of your blog, what branch and MOS were you when YOu served in the military. I went in Army(regular) 11B (Infantry), but I deserted in 99. so my career was short lived
I think I overlooked it, which is...odd...
I was Army, from '93 - '00. I had 3 MOS'es - 74B (Information Systems Operator/Analyst - i.e. Computer Geek), 73C (Finance Specialist i.e. he who made sure you got paid), 71L (Administrative Specialist - i.e. Typist) I was stationed in Germany for the last 4 of those years (which were my active duty years). Ended getting out on a Medical/Honorable Discharge, because I have a couple disks in my back slowly disintegrating (Degenerative Disk Disease). A program I wrote for the Army is still in use, and is saving them about $4 Million/year (used my computer skills to make a program that simplified and organized the most convoluded part of the finance offices in Europe).
Originally posted by Ral of Tyr
I did, but they have been lost to time. All I remember is that we used Rage for fighters. Anyways, it would be better if you ran Dark Sun as a Mage game, for Magic-users.
I'd run mages as Order of Hermes with preservers having to store Arete(?, I think that is what powers spells) while defliers can just take it from living plants and then on from people as their spheres and Arete increase.
Clerics would require something from their plane of worship as foci.
spells are powered by Quintessence in MTA. Arete is basic magical strength.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
Earthdawn was alot like Deadlands, even in the rules sections. Fun as heck to read, which made it much easier to learn.
True, it was fun and easy to learn them.
PS: BTW, I have not played Earthdawn since '96.
-Die Rolls: Justifying the paladin with the high CHA requirement, for example. This keeps certain classes rare but not necessarily balanced. 2nd edition was concerned with making sure everyone didn't play class A and not class B. Both classes A and B were necessary, not necessarily equal.
-Experience point tables: weaker classes are balanced by more favorable experience point tables; exchanging power for instant gratification. This benefit can be lost depending on how your DM handles EXP. I have known groups to tally XP after every battle, others who do it session-by-session.
-Weaker classes promise a stronger character at later levels: Wizard is a prime example. A 1st level wizard is essentially a guy walking around with a single heat-seeking bottle rocket. At higher levels, he is clearly one of the strongest classes in the game; if not THE strongest class. This isn't class balance; this is bait. ;)
-stronger lower level characters must pay it back: essentially the reverse of the previous. A dwarven fighter is clearly superior to a human one, but at some point the dwarf can learn no more and the human can continue to progress. Few campaigns go that far, and this rule is frequently ignored.
I think the current 3e philosophy, that all characters should be equal to one another all the time is more fair.
Originally posted by Tha Nomad
So are you pro 2ed or 3rd?
I, um, abstain?
I prefer 3rd; it offers more balance and more freedom.
However, I do have a soft spot for 2nd edition. I miss it in a lot of ways. There wasn't as large a focus on rules. Dungeon magazine didn't have a new class and a new kit every issue. That I can remember, anyways...
there was certainly a lot more flavor. It goes back to the cruch v fluff debate. 2E was fluffier, and I miss that. 3e is so crunchy I find myself going back to 2e settings like dark sun, but not wanting to give up the smoother system.
so sad I'll admit that I wasn't too happy with 3.5, though, and have never been a huge fan of the multi-dice technique and the more limiting factors of the D&D system (classes, specific skills that only that class can use, etc). Lately, I've been playing around with different game systems to see how they handle it, even trying out the old Traveler game.
So far, as I stated before, it's GURPS. 3d6 for all the rolls, you level up without really having "levels," your "class" is defined by which skills you take (and even then, it can be a bit murky), and so on. Granted, the books leave something to be desired, but using the Wanderer's Journal and Chronical as bases, who needs fluff?
Been working pretty well, so far, but the characters are still relatively "low level" at this point. Not sure how the balance will work when they get more powerful. Converting the critters has been a pain, but not overly difficult; nothing a GM with 20 or so years of experience can't handle. If it gets worse, I'll let you guys know.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
I'd have to agree. Which is one of the reasons I'm not fond of class-based systems. To me, Class & Level require an extra amount of suspension of disbelief - Classes tend to define characters based on steriotypes, and levels infer that there is simply a pre-defined power system that is tangible within a game world - when there really isn't such a thing in Real Life - at least, nowhere near the scale of Levels. Luckily, when I incorperate many of the rule variants I use, this problem is mitigated a bit (like, for instance Vitality/Wound Points).
It's true that classless systems give the most freedom in character creating, but their weak side is balancing. I played a lot of d6 Star Wars, which is a classless system, and the main problem with NPCs always was "how in God's name could that guy get that much character point to have such skills?". Good example is our famous peasant-boy from Tatooine at the beginning of Episoe IV. In d6 system he gots such skills that our veteran team (playing 3/months for two years) didn't have! On the opposite side check it out in d20 Star Wars: he is a simple 2nd level character (with a little boost regarding the Force, but it's not too much). So put the whole thing (including NPC's) in balance a class based system is a better frame. E.g. a 6th level character can be only that powerful. In a classless system it's very easy to "fly off".
Originally posted by Nagypapi
It's true that classless systems give the most freedom in character creating, but their weak side is balancing. I played a lot of d6 Star Wars, which is a classless system, and the main problem with NPCs always was "how in God's name could that guy get that much character point to have such skills?". Good example is our famous peasant-boy from Tatooine at the beginning of Episoe IV. In d6 system he gots such skills that our veteran team (playing 3/months for two years) didn't have! On the opposite side check it out in d20 Star Wars: he is a simple 2nd level character (with a little boost regarding the Force, but it's not too much). So put the whole thing (including NPC's) in balance a class based system is a better frame. E.g. a 6th level character can be only that powerful. In a classless system it's very easy to "fly off".
True, many of the classless systems have the option of people becoming very 2-dimentional in design. However, I simply don't permit it, and am always looking for a better system. White-Wolf got it right more than others, but their disorganization disgusted me.
Originally posted by ardnutz
another aspect for me on the 2e Ds gaming is the fact that i can own everything DS right now and never have to buy another thing. call me a cheap skate or what not, i commend you folks with athas.org with making a 3e DS for people to play but i'm just not going to do it b/c before too long we will be at 4e and so forth and so on. i drew the line in the sand with 2e it is what i enjoyed the most so that made the most sense. i can tweak the game as i see fit. for me it's a matter of not wanting to keep up with the joneses so to speak, so for the original posters the money is not an excuse i tend to disagree and my drum set thanks me for it.
4E, luckily, is so far down the line, that WotC doesn't even see it.
3/3.5E, to many of us, is superior to 1/2E. I know that beofre 3E came out, I would refuse (I am using the word refuse here to help define my disgust) to run a AD&D game. Any other sstem was better - and less convoluded than 2E for me, so I did Rolemaster, Middle Earth Roleplaying, Paranoia RPG, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, etc. Each had their problems I didn't like (far too many charts, still too many charts even though it is "Rolemaster Lite", Not very easy to build a world in, and organization of materials is a completel\y foreign concept, all respectively). 3E made me rethink my disgust for D&D, and switched to it instead.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
So far, as I stated before, it's GURPS. 3d6 for all the rolls, you level up without really having "levels," your "class" is defined by which skills you take (and even then, it can be a bit murky), and so on. Granted, the books leave something to be desired, but using the Wanderer's Journal and Chronical as bases, who needs fluff?
And once again GURPS proves to be the best universal system out there.
Xlorep DarkHelm:
It's not only that I don't want to DM AD&D2e, it's my players that refuse to play. Like I said in the beggining of the thread, we're finishing our campaign using 2e rules, only to not have the pains of converting the characters.
Yet, my players find the system almost unbearable (is this a word?).
Sorry for any mistakes in grammar or spelling,
Donblas
Originally posted by Donblas, the Justice Maker
And once again GURPS proves to be the best universal system out there.
Heresy! Hero System 4 Evar!!!11!!!
Ahem
Now that one of my players is actually wanting to play a Fire Priest, I'm having to actually put together enough information that I might be able to create a Dark Sun Hero conversion...
Speaking of recent ponderings I have actually been toying with the idea of running a campaign with the Mutants and Masterminds rule set. If I ever get it past the idea stage maybe I will share some of my idea's with you guys.
All other gaming systems, at the end of the day, are simply different coloured types of toilet paper. They may seem nice and shiny when you start out but sooner or later...
Torg.
Man, I've been wanting to get into that game since it came out. Too many games, too few banks to rob to keep up.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
Man, I've been wanting to get into that game since it came out. Too many games, too few banks to rob to keep up.
Same here.
I like the wound system. I like the combat system. You can ADD so much into it for example; feats cost 25 points each; 'unique' skills have a x4 cost (ie combat sense for non solo's) and so forth...
Might be worth doing a DS conversion using 2020 rules - have a 'key' skill for each class....
intriquing...
Originally posted by Jaanos
Might be worth doing a DS conversion using 2020 rules - have a 'key' skill for each class....
intriquing...
Actually that's already implemented under the name of class and cross-class skills...
Originally posted by Tha Nomad
Now I understand why yall didnt feel bad when I killed the 319 thread... There comes a time when a thread must die.
Oh, you have no idea :D
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152090
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70770
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186318
The Threads That Cannot Die!
The Threads That Cannot Die!
These aren't threads but threats.
Anyone used or played Conspiracy X by Eden studios?
Another semi-classless system, but geared more towards intrigue influence based games.
Combat system though is one of the most quick and deadly I have ever used. Combat characters are for once the weakest of all characters.
Anyone used Aria? We have it but haven’t quite got around to using it yet, it's slightly intimidating, (more than Rolemaster).
One of my favs is Amber diceless. Probably the coolest system we've ever used.
Cyberpunk was so easily rorted it wasn't funny. When you have a skill advancement system that is based around use of skills and a class only skill that dramatically improves that classes proficiency in combat, guess which class dramatically outstrips all others very carefully. Then there was the class only skills leading to only one class only ever able to use the 'net. The system was okay, but all the setting rules really let the game down, too much damn chrome. I think the best description would be that Cyberpunk 2020 was 'shiny' and clean.
GURPs suffered from the single stat prob, where high Dex allows a char to spend far less to become quite proficient quickly. And if not policed carefully the advantages/disadvantages could be used to heavily min/max a char.
But with all of this the biggest thing I found was although the system can and will influence the direction of a game, the rules are there as guidelines, we spend much of our time ignoring rules and deciding outcomes on the fly. The rules give you a framework to work from when the decision is too hard. They're something to go back to when you are not too sure how something should pan out, like precedents in law; you have something to ground yourself too. The better and more experienced you are, the more you leap off the frame for periods of time.
It doesn't matter how good/bad the system is, but the way the system works will influence the way you run your game.