PDA

View Full Version : 2e vs. 3e



Ozreth
2010-10-14, 03:29 AM
So I know they are vastly different systems, but I was wondering why it is you prefer one over the other?

I have only ever really played 3.5. I dabbled in 4e for a bit but it didn't suit me. lately I've been looking into 2e and it sounds like a really fun game. I love the settings, the artwork, the insane amount of support it go. My local used book store has hundreds of d&d products for sale and most of them are 2e so I get to browse through a lot of it but haven't had a chance to actually sit down and ingest the rules, let alone play a game.

So if you prefer 2e, why? Or, if you prefer 3.5, why? Or if you like them both for different reasons, what would one be able to get out of a 2e game?

Thanks :)

Kaun
2010-10-14, 03:44 AM
2e was fun, was a bit more deadly then the later ed's.

The rules fit together like half an ikea book case but they were fun none the less.

If you can get your hands on the books on the cheap i would give it a crack.

holywhippet
2010-10-14, 04:52 AM
3rd edition makes yours stats more meaningful - in 2nd ed you didn't really need great strength to be a fighter for example, or great intelligence to be a wizard.

3rd edition made multi-classing/dual-classing more logical (in that anyone could do it, not just humans). Admittedly this has lead to some of the most exploitive stuff you could imagine.

2nd edition had some really nasty spell requirements or side effects. Raising someone from the dead cost a point of constitution for example. The haste spell made you a year older after it was cast. Identify required 8 hours of preperation time, had only about 5-10% chance of working per level and required 8 hours of rest to recover from temporary consitution damage.

In it's favour though, 2nd edition required XP to gain a level dependant of class - this is a bit more balanced than 3rd edition where the classes aren't evenly balanced.

Eldariel
2010-10-14, 05:03 AM
By 2e, I assume you mean AD&D 2e? Regardless, that's what I will be referring to as 2e henceforth in this post. They're two very different games. I personally like both and it isn't a matter of which I like more or less, but which I like when I want something. Just like with all games, I use D&D's different editions to cater to different styles.


I play D&D 3e when:

I'm interested in some mechanically complex character concept, or a character that does something very specific.
I'm interested in using Psionics (not using anything remotely resembling 2e Psionics...no, not even then).
I want a martial type who does something more specific than "wave pointy thing at X" with a mechanical impact.
I feel like letting loose and doing something crazy, like playing a Beholder Mage.
I wanna use billions tons of homebrewed material.


I play AD&D 2e when:

I want out-of-the-box balanced system.
I want a gritty feel.
I feel nostalgic.
I want to move the focus away from character creation.
I'm running a world either without magic, or one Vancian magic fits.



In other words, I feel the strengths of 3e are PrCs, unified character growth, the alternative martial and magical systems, the open-endedness and ease of homebrew and the insanely high ceiling for potential power. Its weaknesses are, on the other hand, require heavy homebrewing to patch creating a semblance of balance, and much of the same stuff that makes it awesome in the first place.

2e is more fair and balanced, and runs great mostly out of the box as long as Vancian magic fits the world being used. It's definitely less versatile and expressive than 3e and has a narrower scope of what you want to represent with it, but it does that piece incredibly well.


3rd edition makes yours stats more meaningful - in 2nd ed you didn't really need great strength to be a fighter for example, or great intelligence to be a wizard.

Whuh? The bonuses increased tremendously towards the maximum values; a Fighter with 18/00 Str left one with 17 in dust. And minimum ability scores meant you couldn't have a very low primary score in 2e even if you wanted to; you simply can't take that class if your score is low (though of course, "standard" classes like Fighter & Wizard have low prerequisites, but if you e.g. want to be a specialist or a Paladin...).

Indeed, "middling" scores like 10-13 had little impact in anything but extreme scores made a huge difference (and exceeding 18-19 in anything tended to come with goodies).

Kurald Galain
2010-10-14, 05:13 AM
I want to move the focus away from character creation.
I think this is a big one. In 3E it's tempting to plan your character ahead five to ten levels in advance, because you'll generally need this to qualify for that prestige class you want.

What I also like about 2E is the lack of WBL (you aren't expected to have a Trinket of +2 to primary ability score, or a weapon +1, just because you're level X).

And I like spells being less "uber" overall because of drawbacks, better saving throws, and so forth.

Finally, I like getting XP for good roleplaying, good ideas, and so forth. Sure, this is easy to add to any other system, but 2E was the last edition to explicitly codify this in the rulebooks.

Eldariel
2010-10-14, 05:25 AM
I think this is a big one. In 3E it's tempting to plan your character ahead five to ten levels in advance, because you'll generally need this to qualify for that prestige class you want.

What I also like about 2E is the lack of WBL (you aren't expected to have a Trinket of +2 to primary ability score, or a weapon +1, just because you're level X).

And I like spells being less "uber" overall because of drawbacks, better saving throws, and so forth.

Finally, I like getting XP for good roleplaying, good ideas, and so forth. Sure, this is easy to add to any other system, but 2E was the last edition to explicitly codify this in the rulebooks.

Agreed overall; it's in general a more balanced system. That's pretty much what I meant by that; Warriors were more equipped for their job, Clerics were Clerics, Magic Users had actual weaknesses, and yeah, items weren't assumed. Oh, and none of the epic failure that is CR.

But one thing I didn't like is how much the system encouraged high ability scores. Honestly, a Fighter with 18/00 Str has +3/+6 attack/damage; one with 17 is +1/+1! And 18 Dex is -4 (good thing with THAC0) AC compared to -0 of 14. And only Warriors got any benefit of Con above 16, but they gain +4 HP/level from 18 vs. +2 from 16! +5 at 19 if someone gets that high; with AD&D system, that bonus is huge.

And a Magic User with Int under 18 will never learn a 9th level spell! Oh and then there's the whole XP bonus for having a high primary score, as if the usual bonuses of just being awesome weren't enough. The difference between 18/00/18/18/8/8/8 and 16/16/16/10/10/10 Fighter is just insane; +2 to hit, +6 to damage, 2 points of AC & 2 points of HP/level (and tons upon tons of misc bonuses like 100% resurrection survival, 99% System Shock success, +2 reaction & missile weapons, and ability to basically force your way through everything inc. 6/20 chance to force your way through magically barred doors). The only penalties are 1 less language, -1 henchman base & -1 base loyalty from 8 Cha. 8 Wis vs. 10 Wis literally has no mechanical impact for them.


Percentile Strength is quite possibly my biggest gripe with this system, especially given what a huge impact it has.

EDIT: Though I forgive the system much 'cause Elves are awesome in AD&D 2e. Indeed, I can count the number of non-Elf characters I've run in the system with one hand, though I can't deny that my fondness for the race has probably factored in more than the mechanical aspects there. And one was a Paladin.

Yora
2010-10-14, 05:36 AM
Recently, I've come to quite dislike all d20 systems for being too complex and attempting to make rules for everything. While I only have a basic understanding of 2nd Ed., it seems much more simple, so I'd rather play that.
Use BAB indtead of THAC0, and I'm sold. :smallbiggrin:

oxybe
2010-10-14, 05:52 AM
you were generally expected to have some magic items eventually in 2nd ed.

remember that the original 3.0 DR/[weapon of +X] was based off the fact that some of the higher level monsters in 2nd ed were flat-out immune to weapon damage below a + of X.

if you weren't equipped with a +3 or better weapon, good luck with that Balor (who's special defenses state it requires a +3 or better weapon to hit). heck, your standard elementals required +2 weapons to hit. these monsters might not have been all over the place but there were enough of them that it's very possible to find yourself dealing a lot of damage but not doing any progress when it comes to actually felling the beast.

all in all, the core rules as presented by the PHB are a bit less cohesive then 3.5 and generally presents less options (by this i means class-based options that affect gameplay other then combat stats) to the players, so if you don't mind a slightly higher reliance on player skill over character skill and you can muddle through some of the rules that might seem arcane compared to more modern ones, you'll probably have fun with 2nd if you enjoyed the 3rd ed experience overall.

Eldariel
2010-10-14, 05:57 AM
if you weren't equipped with a +3 or better weapon, good luck with that Balor (who's special defenses state it requires a +3 or better weapon to hit). heck, your standard elementals required +2 weapons to hit. these monsters might not have been all over the place but there were enough of them that it's very possible to find yourself dealing a lot of damage but not doing any progress when it comes to actually felling the beast.

Yeah, it's true that a magic weapon and generally magic armor were expected eventually. You left out on an epic quest to find that legendary sword; that made an adventure in and of itself. Cloak of Protection was rather convenient too. That said, you generally weren't expected to have stat boosts, various AC bonus sources, items of flight, items of teleportation, items to cancel magic fields, etc.

Yora
2010-10-14, 06:01 AM
all in all, the core rules as presented by the PHB are a bit less cohesive then 3.5 and generally presents less options (by this i means class-based options that affect gameplay other then combat stats) to the players, so if you don't mind a slightly higher reliance on player skill over character skill
I don't mind, as these are the reasons I don't like 3rd Edition. :smallbiggrin:
Once the current adventure arc is over, I'll ask the players if we could switch systems. We really don't need all those skills and feats for the way our campaign plays.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-14, 06:05 AM
you were generally expected to have some magic items eventually in 2nd ed.
Sure. But you were not expected to have 19000 gp worth of magical items by level 7, which is generally assumed for 3E.

jmbrown
2010-10-14, 06:41 AM
Sure. But you were not expected to have 19000 gp worth of magical items by level 7, which is generally assumed for 3E.

And even then, only other worldly or magical creatures had resistances like that. If you wanted a low magic game, simply axe all the extra planar creatures and you still have hundreds of choices of fantastic-but-still-deadly creatures to choose from. You could also write another weakness for the monsters, like saying their true name would negate their weapon resistances.

With that said, 2e is a highly modular system. Remove all the optional rules from the book and you get a very, very lean product that's easy to modify. There were a ton of rule bloating books but the beauty is that you can pick and choose without having to worry about pre-written material make assumptions based on your choices.

There were a butt ton of settings books from the historical books that took you into the crusades or ancient Rome all the way to quirky, Gonzo material like Spelljammer and Planescape. If you wanted variety, 2e was your system. The fact that it was backwards compatible meant that all of your AD&D (and even Basic) adventures weren't absolutely worthless.

3e and 2e have their ups and downs but I enjoy both systems for different reasons. 2e is more "romantic" fantasy where everything is more idealistic and clearer than 1e's sword-and-sorcery style play but 2e is still more "down-to-earth" than 3e.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-14, 06:48 AM
Oh yeah, let's not forget that "running like hell" was considered a valid tactical response to a monster in 2E. Most players of later editions seem to expect that every enemy you meet will be a level-appropriate challenge.

Matthew
2010-10-14, 06:55 AM
There are a number of threads around here with detailed discussions on the subject, but if I had to summarise it would be that D20/3e is a highly structured and complex game where building characters and monsters is practically a subgame in and of itself, and the character and his capabilities are the focus of attention. AD&D is considerably less structured and complex with a low emphasis on building the character and an open approach to creating monsters and scenarios that is generally a lot less work for the game master. Arguably, the character races and classes also do what they are supposed to for longer, largely because magic has more limitations and is less defined. In short, if you want a structured and complex version of D&D then D20/3e offers that, whilst if you want a less of those things then AD&D is a good option. Neither are without their charm or drawbacks (as mentioned above, the tendency to disproportionately reward high attributes is an annoying aspect of AD&D for me), but I prefer the simplicity of AD&D on the whole, as it best suits my style of play and the limitations on my free time.

Eldariel
2010-10-14, 06:55 AM
Oh yeah, let's not forget that "running like hell" was considered a valid tactical response to a monster in 2E. Most players of later editions seem to expect that every enemy you meet will be a level-appropriate challenge.

Naw, that's some strange player fabrication. DMG specifically tells you ~5% of the encounters should be pretty much unbeatable in a fight.

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 07:04 AM
Recently, I've come to quite dislike all d20 systems for being too complex and attempting to make rules for everything. While I only have a basic understanding of 2nd Ed., it seems much more simple, so I'd rather play that.
Use BAB indtead of THAC0, and I'm sold. :smallbiggrin:

Um...:smallconfused:

BAB is the child of THAC0. As a matter of fact, it pretty much is THAC0, just on a scale of 1 - 20 instead of -10 - +10.

Fighter's THAC0 decreased 1/level. (20, 19, 18, 17, etc.)
Rogue/Cleric was 2/3 levels. (20, 20, 20, 18, 18, 18, 16, 16, 16, etc.)
Wizard was 1/2 levels. (20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 17, etc.)

EDIT: Almost forgot why I came here: 2e rulz, 3e droolz! :smallbiggrin:

Not kidding, there. I'd much rather play 2e than 3e (non-cohesive rules and all). Of course, I'd rather not play than play 3e. Why? I'm old. I grew up on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Then along comes 2e with just a few minor tweaks, ok, no problem. 3e comes and vastly changes (and pretty well breaks) the DnD brand. Didn't like it. Played it for a while, then siwtched to RM, since I couldn't find a 2e game anywhere.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-14, 07:07 AM
Naw, that's some strange player fabrication. DMG specifically tells you ~5% of the encounters should be pretty much unbeatable in a fight.
That's why I said "most players expect" rather than "the rules mandate".

Yora
2010-10-14, 07:18 AM
Um...:smallconfused:

BAB is the child of THAC0. As a matter of fact, it pretty much is THAC0, just on a scale of 1 - 20 instead of -10 - +10.

Fighter's THAC0 decreased 1/level. (20, 19, 18, 17, etc.)
Rogue/Cleric was 2/3 levels. (20, 20, 20, 18, 18, 18, 16, 16, 16, etc.)
Wizard was 1/2 levels. (20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 17, etc.)
That's my point. Make all improvements to AC a positive value, substract -20 of the THAC0, and multiply by -1. And now you can make attack rolls like any sensible person would. :smallbiggrin:

Also, is there something like OSRIC for 2nd Edition?

Tengu_temp
2010-10-14, 07:27 AM
I dislike the lack of customization and combat options in AD&D. Each character with the same class is almost completely the same mechanically, the only differences being ability scores and the weapon you use, and unless you happen to be a spellcaster all you can do in combat is move around, auto-attack enemies and use items. 3e at least gives everyone access to feats and other options.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-14, 07:35 AM
I dislike the lack of customization and combat options in AD&D. Each character with the same class is almost completely the same mechanically,
That's what Kits, Secondary Skills, and Nonweapon Proficiencies are for.

Interestingly, the complaint that non-casters do the same thing every round is also common for 3E (except tome of battle). It is not the case in 4.0, but apparently there were so many complaints about this that it has been reversed for 4.4. Talk about an unpleasable fanbase :smallbiggrin:

Yora
2010-10-14, 07:37 AM
It really depends on what you want from the game. Do you want to have complex and exciting encounters, or do you want to spend a lot of time with the story and don't want to take too long breaks to determine if an enemy gets killed, captured, retreats, or takes the PCs prisoner.
D&D in general, and d20 in particular is all about the encounters, that's what the game is designed for. But in a game in which you want to keep the flow of events and interaction from being be disrupted as much as possible, simplefied combat mechanics are actually a benefit.

I'm right now in the middle of preparing the encounters for this evenings game, and I don't even bother with skills and equipment for the NPCs: AC, hp, saves, and attacks are all I really need; just throw in two feats to allow them to make some special attack. And I don't even expect most of them to get into a fight anyway.
And just now I notice that this would also pretty much sum up an AD&D stat block for NPCs and Monsters. :smallbiggrin:

jmbrown
2010-10-14, 07:39 AM
Naw, that's some strange player fabrication. DMG specifically tells you ~5% of the encounters should be pretty much unbeatable in a fight.

Resources were more limited and monsters gave out next to no experience points for the effort it took to defeat them. Battling in pre-3e, which stressed monsters = xp farms, was almost always unnecessary. If you didn't need to fight you were better off running or avoiding the encounter. I like how OD&D had rather detailed rules for avoiding monsters like dropping food (or treasure) or turning sharp corners to lose them.


That's my point. Make all improvements to AC a positive value, substract -20 of the THAC0, and multiply by -1. And now you can make attack rolls like any sensible person would.

Look at THAC0 this way: roll 1d20, add modifiers, subtract THAC0 from that roll. The score the best AC you can hit. Easy, no fuss, no muss.


Also, is there something like OSRIC for 2nd Edition?
Why, yes there is! (http://feysquare.com/?page_id=3)

disclaimer: system is about 98% complete but there are still discrepencies with the OGL, formatting, and writing that need to be hammered out before the final version. Gentleman's agreement, distribute at your own risk, etc.


I dislike the lack of customization and combat options in AD&D. Each character with the same class is almost completely the same mechanically, the only differences being ability scores and the weapon you use, and unless you happen to be a spellcaster all you can do in combat is move around, auto-attack enemies and use items. 3e at least gives everyone access to feats and other options.

What else do you expect out of combat? There are grappling rules which most certainly don't favor monsters and are generally a good idea especially when you outnumber a single, strong opponent. Spell casters can always contribute with throwing pots of oil. Thieves need to hide and sneak up to make use of their special abilities. You can always improvise traps by rolling objects down hill and such. Since your weapons deal variable damage based on enemy size, it's best to swap out to piercing weapons when fighting larger creatures or setting your pole arms to receive a cavalry charge. You can make a called shot to disarm someone or smash an object in their hands.

The options may not be clear and in writing, but they're there if you ask for them. I find it ironic that 3e covered all these subjects like tripping and disarming but these fast become useless past 5th level because common enemies either don't use weapons, fly, or have multiple legs. Grappling fast becomes useless because every monster is instantly better than you. Bull rushing, overrun, and sunder? Good if you specialize your character in it but again most monsters don't need weapons and fly around anyways.

Yora
2010-10-14, 07:44 AM
Look at THAC0 this way: roll 1d20, add modifiers, subtract THAC0 from that roll. The score the best AC you can hit. Easy, no fuss, no muss.
While it's the same complexity on paper, most people have a much easier time to make simple additions in their head on the spot, than substractions. Takes maybe half a second less time, but much less effort. :smallbiggrin:

And thanks for the link, too bad the game starts in 3 hours, or I might have shown it to the players.

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 07:44 AM
What else do you expect out of combat? There are grappling rules which most certainly don't favor monsters and are generally a good idea especially when you outnumber a single, strong opponent. Spell casters can always contribute with throwing pots of oil. Thieves need to hide and sneak up to make use of their special abilities. You can always improvise traps by rolling objects down hill and such. Since your weapons deal variable damage based on enemy size, it's best to swap out to piercing weapons when fighting larger creatures or setting your pole arms to receive a cavalry charge. You can make a called shot to disarm someone or smash an object in their hands.

The options may not be clear and in writing, but they're there if you ask for them. I find it ironic that 3e covered all these subjects like tripping and disarming but these fast become useless past 5th level because common enemies either don't use weapons, fly, or have multiple legs. Grappling fast becomes useless because every monster is instantly better than you. Bull rushing, overrun, and sunder? Good if you specialize your character in it but again most monsters don't need weapons and fly around anyways.

Oooh...I just remembered the old grappling table...:smallbiggrin: (But maybe that was for 1e.)

Yora
2010-10-14, 07:57 AM
Also, what do melee type characters do in novels and movies? They run around and hit people with swords. When it's something more fancy, they kick stuff over or jump over furniture, but you don't need any more complex rules than Strength or Dexterity rolls for that.

jmbrown
2010-10-14, 08:20 AM
Oooh...I just remembered the old grappling table...:smallbiggrin: (But maybe that was for 1e.)

2e had the same unnecessary pugilist rules for right hooks and pile drivers/whatever but you can also overbear your opponent and drag him to the ground. It's recommended when you have like 5 PCs, 6 hirelings, and you're fighting a lone hill giant who would otherwise make mush out of you if you fought him by exchanging die rolls.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-14, 09:25 AM
What else do you expect out of combat?

To put it simply: Tome of Battle, DND 4e, Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds. I want combat that can be interesting mechanically as well, not just narratively. 3.x still haven't achieved this level (apart from ToB), but it's closer to it than AD&D.

The Big Dice
2010-10-14, 09:49 AM
To put it simply: Tome of Battle, DND 4e, Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds. I want combat that can be interesting mechanically as well, not just narratively. 3.x still haven't achieved this level (apart from ToB), but it's closer to it than AD&D.

Don't play D&D if you want combat that is interesting mechanically. D&D combat is all about roll to hit, roll for damage, check up on status effects. Admittedly I never played Exalted so I can't comment about that, but for mechanical interest as well as narrative interest, I haven't found anything to beat GURPS.

Want to punch a guy in the nose, stab him in the kidney from behind, break a finger or kick a bully in the gentleman area? It's all catered for, with much much more. And it's consistent. You know that to chop a head off takes a certain amount od damage and a failed roll for the guy being hit. You also know that if you see an attack coming, you have a chance to defend against it.

Of course it's also the gaming equivalent of eating a huge bown of plain white rice. But for character generation and combat, it is certainly one of the best systems out there.

Lapak
2010-10-14, 09:53 AM
Neither are without their charm or drawbacks (as mentioned above, the tendency to disproportionately reward high attributes is an annoying aspect of AD&D for me), but I prefer the simplicity of AD&D on the whole, as it best suits my style of play and the limitations on my free time.Another difference is that 3e has created a much stronger expectation of 'RAW is law', where 2e pretty much expected that you'd change what didn't sit well with you. If you hate the high modifiers, switching them back to 0e-ish (EDIT: or 3e-ish!) modifiers (say, 12-14 = +1, 15-17 = +2, 18 = +3, no exceptional Strength) doesn't do nearly the violence to overall balance that it would in 3e.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-14, 10:03 AM
Don't play D&D if you want combat that is interesting mechanically.

Which I why I don't play pre-4e DND.

And yes, I've heard that GURPS has a good combat system. I'm not very familiar with it though, so I won't comment on it.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-14, 10:42 AM
I didn't play 2e nearly as much as I played 3e. However, multiclassing was much more awesome in 3e, and the game itself just felt much better put together.

3 to 3.5 was the same feeling, albeit to a much lesser extent.

Yora
2010-10-14, 10:44 AM
Another difference is that 3e has created a much stronger expectation of 'RAW is law', where 2e pretty much expected that you'd change what didn't sit well with you.
That's what particularly bugy me about all d20 games. As there's a rule for almost everything the designers could think of, you very easily slip into a pattern of thinking, that everything a character does has to be done by a rule. Quite often I just say "make a Dexterity check" or "make an attack roll" and after the player has told me the result, I think about it, if this number sounds like a success or a failure. Much easier than to look up break DCs, carrying capacities, or rules for successive fortitude saves.

Wookieetank
2010-10-14, 10:51 AM
My experiences:

2e: Good for actual roleplaying, player and DM creativity and making things up on the fly. If something sounded like a good/fun idea you just did went with it and hoped the DM liked it enough to not kill you. :smallwink:

3e: Its all been about the numbers, min/maxing everything and you have to have a roll for everything. Very little roleplaying, or if there is roleplaying it all happens while you're shopping for supplies :smallconfused:

Matthew
2010-10-14, 11:40 AM
Another difference is that 3e has created a much stronger expectation of 'RAW is law', where 2e pretty much expected that you'd change what didn't sit well with you. If you hate the high modifiers, switching them back to 0e-ish (EDIT: or 3e-ish!) modifiers (say, 12-14 = +1, 15-17 = +2, 18 = +3, no exceptional Strength) doesn't do nearly the violence to overall balance that it would in 3e.

Yeah, I am not sure if that is more internet culture, but I guess when you build a more codified game you cannot be surprised when the people who play it treat it that way. :smallbiggrin:

Also true about the way the subsystems interact (or rather do not). Personally, I use the B/X attribute scale:

{table=head]Attribute | Modifier

1 |
−5 |

2 |
−4 |

3 |
−3 |

4-5 |
−2 |

6-8 |
−1 |

9-12 |
+0 |

13-15 |
+1 |

16-17 |
+2 |

18 |
+3 |

19 |
+4 |

20 |
+5 |

21 |
+6 |

22 |
+7 |

23 |
+8 |

24 |
+9 |

25 |
+10[/table]

Damascus
2010-10-14, 11:50 AM
As someone who has played D&D for a little over 10 years, and has done his share of DM'ing, I think that 2nd ed (where I started) was one of the best. Characters were pretty balanced, the system was good; it worked for me. 3rd edition....honestly...was ridiculous. A 10th level character could go out and take down a Dragon alone, if he was built right. 4th ed., in my opinion, is an improved 2nd edition. I was really happy with the turn-around.

hamlet
2010-10-14, 11:51 AM
2nd edition will pretty much always be my go-to game. It just does almost everything I want it to, and the violence I have to do to the system to make those last few things work is minimal. I once tried to houseule some AD&D feel into 3.x, and by the time I was halfway through, I realized I was rewriting 2nd edition anyway, virtually.

I'll always love BECMI as well. The Rules Cyclopedia is, frankly, just about the best single RPG book TSR put out. All hail the RC!

As for THAC0, if subtraction hurts your brain (as it does mine from time to time), it's VERY simple to switch everything around. Instead of decreasing THAC0, everybody gets +'s to hit based on their level calculated as, essentially, 20-THAC0. AC goes from 10 and increases. Done. Have used that system for about 7 years now, and never had trouble with it.

Lapak
2010-10-14, 11:52 AM
Yeah, I am not sure if that is more internet culture, but I guess when you build a more codified game you cannot be surprised when the people who play it treat it that way. :smallbiggrin:You're probably right about communication being a big cause. When I learned to play, the Internet didn't exist. So nobody was there to tell me I was 'playing it wrong' if the party could swap around a Ring of Regeneration to heal damage that they weren't wearing when the damage was taken.

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 11:53 AM
I'll always love BECMI as well. The Rules Cyclopedia is, frankly, just about the best single RPG book TSR put out. All hail the RC!

HUZZAH! RC DND!! HUZZAH!!! :smallbiggrin:

Damascus
2010-10-14, 11:57 AM
All hail the RC!


^ This. Also...



As for THAC0. . .

I never really cared for thaco. I liked the way 3rd ed made AC go up instead of down.

NotScaryBats
2010-10-14, 12:02 PM
(I prefer 4e of all them, but that wasn't your question)

In my experience, as a player, you have more room to work with in 3.5 than in 2. That is, a Fighter can pretty much only ever attack with his weapon. Not really cleave, or trip, or bull rush, its pretty much 'I attack, I do this damage.' Even low-level wizards basically get one or two spells then they are tapped out and must throw darts or beat with quarterstaff. 3.5 has feats and prestige classes to help with this.

Also, the emphasis D&D has put on battle grids has been cool in my opinion. I played 2e years ago and didn't use any miniatures, but my 3.5 and 4 experience has greatly improved due to my use of minis.

Damascus
2010-10-14, 12:06 PM
Also, the emphasis D&D has put on battle grids has been cool in my opinion. I played 2e years ago and didn't use any miniatures, but my 3.5 and 4 experience has greatly improved due to my use of minis.

I have to agree. Having a battle-scene to look at makes the combat experience much more fun. :D

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 12:11 PM
I have to agree. Having a battle-scene to look at makes the combat experience much more fun. :D

And soooooooo much easier to track where everyone is when I fireball the lot of you.

The Big Dice
2010-10-14, 12:11 PM
HUZZAH! RC DND!! HUZZAH!!! :smallbiggrin:

I finally picked up a copy of it off Ebay. And it turns out my players just don't get it :smallannoyed:

Edit:
As for using minis, I hate them. By the time you've set up the scene, reminded the one guy how it all works and then played the fight out, it has gone past midnight and it's time to go home.

Sure, they can be a help in the tactical aspect of the combat, but the ridiculous dependence on them in 4th ed D&D just makes me think of Games Workshop.

Aron Times
2010-10-14, 12:11 PM
A large number of converts to 4e hated 3e and 3.5 but loved 2e, if the official forums are representative of the gaming population.

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 12:17 PM
I finally picked up a copy of it off Ebay.
Awesome job! RC DnD, IMO, is the best version evar.

And it turns out my players just don't get it :smallannoyed:
Really? This makes me...confused? Are they a younger crowd? That might be understandable, since they would have little (if any) experience pre-3.x.

Damascus
2010-10-14, 12:19 PM
And soooooooo much easier to track where everyone is when I fireball the lot of you.

ROFL. Center it behind the enemy, so that it hits what's in front of you, without hitting yourself! Spell Casting 101!!

hamlet
2010-10-14, 12:42 PM
Awesome job! RC DnD, IMO, is the best version evar.

Really? This makes me...confused? Are they a younger crowd? That might be understandable, since they would have little (if any) experience pre-3.x.

Generally, I find that those who "don't grok" RC are typically hung up on optional rules or little quirky things like measuring encumbrance in coins rather than pounds.

It becomes the "white whale" for them so to speak.

Crud. Now I want to run an RC campaign here in Jersey. Need to find victims.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-14, 01:20 PM
4th ed., in my opinion, is an improved 2nd edition. I was really happy with the turn-around.

See, I've never been able to see this. I still have books from 2nd ed laying around, and they are remarkably usable with 3.x and vice versa, if you're not adverse to the odd change here and there.

4e feels mechanically light years away from either of those games. Not trying to derail this into a "which is better", just curious to understand where this similarity is. Settings perhaps? I could see some justification there, as WoTC has been trying to evoke a more oldschool setting feel.

Britter
2010-10-14, 01:27 PM
After my experiences with 3.x and 4e DnD, the only DnD I will run is the 2E AD&D of my youth. I think it is the most flexible, and gives the players the largest degree of freedom in determining how they address the game world. It's lack of definition is it's strength. With a much less granular rule-set and a much easier system for resolving non-combat events (I always used the "roll less than your relevant ability score, with bonuses or penalties based on difficulty" method. I realize that this may be a house rule, but as I am currently AFB I can't reference anything relevant to prove or disprove that theory).

I really feel that the volume of rules minutiae and details really limits the later editions of the game. I will say that 3.x and 4 do a better job of controling the "GM Fiat" factor by having well-defined rules. As I never played under a GM who was out to screw the players with fiat, I never encountered the horror stories one hears about, but I can appreciate how much better it is to play with a rule set designed to minimize that issue.

I will play in 3.x games, and if you twist my arm I will play 4e (though I am not sure for how much longer, too many tiny little rules interacting with each other, it just driveseem nuts) but I don't feel that either system is very good.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-14, 01:31 PM
See, I've never been able to see this. I still have books from 2nd ed laying around, and they are remarkably usable with 3.x and vice versa, if you're not adverse to the odd change here and there.

4e feels mechanically light years away from either of those games. Not trying to derail this into a "which is better", just curious to understand where this similarity is. Settings perhaps? I could see some justification there, as WoTC has been trying to evoke a more oldschool setting feel.

Certainly not the setting.

No, 4E uses 2E design philosophy that 3E discarded. In general, this comes down to Classes.

2E Classes are "jobs" that you get better at over time; they define your character and your role. In 3E there were no "classes" in this sense, just class-levels: at each level you didn't advance in your class, you got a chance to take another class-level and the bundle of powers it granted. Strong Class aesthetics also promote party-adventuring rather than individual-adventuring since no one character can do everything through multiclassing.

There's more, of course, but for me the biggest difference we the treatment of Classes. Some people like a Weak Class system in which "classes" are sliced up into class-levels that you can pick and choose amongst each time you gain a character level. Me, I prefer a Strong Class system where Classes really help to define the character and his role in the campaign world.

Mordaenor
2010-10-14, 01:56 PM
I find it interesting how many people are of the opinion that that the 2e system was both simpler and more balanced than 3e. It's been a long time since I played to 2e, so my memory is hazy, but I recall my first time perusing the 3e handbook, and thinking how refreshingly straightforward and balanced the system was, while providing much greater character flexibility. In 2e there were tables. LOTS of tables. Tables for EVERYTHING. 3e boiled the game down to Roll 1d20, Add Modifier, check the result. Stats had one simple modifier. But in 2E, you got your attack mod, your damage mod, your bend bars, your open doors, your range attack mod, your AC mod, your Divine bonus spells, you Arcane max spell level, your chance to learn a spell, and a whole bunch of other rolls and modifiers that I don't even remember. And didn't anyone else find it bizarre that Elves couldn't be Druids?

Matthew
2010-10-14, 02:04 PM
I find it interesting how many people are of the opinion that that the 2e system was both simpler and more balanced than 3e. It's been a long time since I played to 2e, so my memory is hazy, but I recall my first time perusing the 3e handbook, and thinking how refreshingly straightforward and balanced the system was, while providing much greater character flexibility. In 2e there were tables. LOTS of tables. Tables for EVERYTHING. 3e boiled the game down to Roll 1d20, Add Modifier, check the result. Stats had one simple modifier. But in 2E, you got your attack mod, your damage mod, your bend bars, your open doors, your range attack mod, your AC mod, your Divine bonus spells, you Arcane max spell level, your chance to learn a spell, and a whole bunch of other rolls and modifiers that I don't even remember. And didn't anyone else find it bizarre that Elves couldn't be Druids?

I think that is a normal first impression, but complex and complicated are different. For every oddity that D20/3e removed it added ten "simple" rules. That said, second edition AD&D did not really have very many tables, unless you count the random treasure and encounter generators. The attribute tables were the worst offenders with regard to eccentricity, with saving throws close behind (they actually do have a formula, but it is obscured by the table).



There's more, of course, but for me the biggest difference we the treatment of Classes. Some people like a Weak Class system in which "classes" are sliced up into class-levels that you can pick and choose amongst each time you gain a character level. Me, I prefer a Strong Class system where Classes really help to define the character and his role in the campaign world.
I have not really been able to see much of the supposed relationship between D20/4e and AD&D/2e, but I think that you are right about archetype reinforcement.

Cainen
2010-10-14, 02:10 PM
I find it interesting how many people are of the opinion that that the 2e system was both simpler and more balanced than 3e.
It's not simpler on the whole, but it's blatantly more balanced than 3E is. Most of the reason 3E was imbalanced was because it completely ignored all of the mechanics that kept 2E from exploding(slow-casting spells, spell preparation rules, damage means a lost spell for the round, very low HP compared to anyone else, Fighters doing roughly equivalent damage but every enemy having much lower HP, which also helped blasters, better save mechanic that prevented the game from boiling down to Glitterdust/Black Tentacles and win, CLERICS NOT HAVING STUPIDLY OVERPOWERED SPELLS THAT MADE THEM BETTER THAN A FIGHTER IN EVERY WAY, Druids not having half of the things that made them overpowered in 3E). You don't need a DM to enforce balance on the game until the very end stretch of 2E, and even then the spell preparation rules make it dicier than it is in 3E.

Lapak
2010-10-14, 02:10 PM
I find it interesting how many people are of the opinion that that the 2e system was both simpler and more balanced than 3e. It's been a long time since I played to 2e, so my memory is hazy, but I recall my first time perusing the 3e handbook, and thinking how refreshingly straightforward and balanced the system was, while providing much greater character flexibility. In 2e there were tables. LOTS of tables. Tables for EVERYTHING. 3e boiled the game down to Roll 1d20, Add Modifier, check the result. Stats had one simple modifier. But in 2E, you got your attack mod, your damage mod, your bend bars, your open doors, your range attack mod, your AC mod, your Divine bonus spells, you Arcane max spell level, your chance to learn a spell, and a whole bunch of other rolls and modifiers that I don't even remember. And didn't anyone else find it bizarre that Elves couldn't be Druids?It wasn't mechanically consistent, but otherwise there's about the same number of specific-case rules in both systems. That is, 3e added a single resolution mechanic, but there's still a million things to resolve that all have a different way of interacting with that basic mechanic. (Attacks of opportunity, grapple systems, skill rolls, SR, saving throws, special abilities, etc.)

2e had a different mechanic for each (or many) of the sub-systems, it's true, but that doesn't make it more or less simple in actual play. Particularly since any given character is only going to use a few of those mechanics at most.

hamlet
2010-10-14, 02:14 PM
The attribute tables were the worst offenders with regard to eccentricity, with saving throws close behind (they actually do have a formula, but it is obscured by the table).


Never found the attribute tables difficult, but that's just me as I suppose I'm a bit eccentric myself.

And, really, sometimes it might be nice to have the formula to see what's going on behind everything, but for me, for the most part, all I really want is the information and tables are an effective way of presenting it without clouding things up with math and theory.

John Campbell
2010-10-14, 02:15 PM
I dislike the lack of customization and combat options in AD&D. Each character with the same class is almost completely the same mechanically, the only differences being ability scores and the weapon you use, and unless you happen to be a spellcaster all you can do in combat is move around, auto-attack enemies and use items. 3e at least gives everyone access to feats and other options.

This is only the case if you've bought into the, "A rule for everything, and everything with a rule," mentality... which WotC imposed on the game. TSR provided basic rules for adjudicating simple stuff, and a set of general mechanics that could be adapted to various purposes. It was expected that a player could attempt whatever he could think of to do, and if it was something outside that set of basic options, it was the DM's job to say, "Sure, that works," or, "No, that's impossible," or, "Well, maybe, roll [some check] to see if you can pull it off."

Under WotC's regime, however, the game has become increasingly more tightly controlled. Every time they add a new rule, feat, skill trick, or whatnot, that's one more thing that you could have attempted that you now can't do because you don't have the right feat/skill trick/whatever. Feats don't add options; they remove them.

Britter
2010-10-14, 02:16 PM
See, I don't think that 2e was simpler, per se', and it is DEFINITELY no better balanced (nor did it necessarily care about balance in the way we think of it now). But it is still a superior system, in my opinion. It was incredibly modular. You could cut entire chunks out of it and it runs just fine. It was designed to be adapted and altered to what you wanted for your table, to the extent that, in my experience, people didn't play 2e, they palyed "our DnD". I know that the principle applies to more modern editions of DnD, of course, but 2e could be a vastly different game from table to table.

Don't like class or level restrictions? Don't use them. Don't want to deal with bend bars or lift gates? It's out. Thought non-weapon proficencies were too restrictive? Give them the ax.

You could make the game as simple or complicated as you wanted it to be. There was no inviolate rules that you must follow.

Not saying it was perfect, but for my money there is no other way to play DnD.

Mordaenor
2010-10-14, 02:16 PM
I just point out that I played Both Basic and AD&D 2e for about 6 years before 3e came out, and was probably one of the last people to actually jump on the 3e bandwagon. So I'm not saying I didn't like the system, just that I ultimately liked the 3e system a little more. Side note: What the heck is BECMI? I figured out its a reference to Basic D&D, but I can't for the life of me figure out what the letters stand for.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-14, 02:21 PM
I have not really been able to see much of the supposed relationship between D20/4e and AD&D/2e, but I think that you are right about archetype reinforcement.
It's very hard to describe exactly what it is, but there is a definite aesthetic that the two share which 3.X did not.

Another thing has to do with magic items. Magic Items in 3.X always felt like straightforwards buffs to me - like equipment in a MMO or video game. AD&D magic items are notoriously quirky by contrast - granting IC benefits instead of pluses or SLA (e.g. glowing in the presence of goblins; singing jaunty tunes in combat). 4E magic items still have the MMO-style "buff" components but they also provide additional utility in the forms of situational powers and the like.

hamlet
2010-10-14, 02:25 PM
(nor did it necessarily care about balance in the way we think of it now)

See, that's really the key, there.

There was lots of balance in AD&D, but it wasn't conceived around the numerical (HP damage per round) or activity (everybody has something "constructive" to do at alltimes) models. It was a lot more about trade offs. Gain power in one way, but trade for it in another. Want to be a wizard and bend the cosmos to your whim? Sure. But it's gonna take you a long time to get to that level of power and comprehension while the rest of the party moves quicker, and you'll have the body of a typical book worm to boot.

It was never about everything being equal at all points, but about paying the dues of what you had. It was also, even more so, something that the DM was responsible for above and beyond the rules. The DM created the balance, not the rules.

Yet another reason I love AD&D/BECMI.


Side note: What the heck is BECMI? I figured out its a reference to Basic D&D, but I can't for the life of me figure out what the letters stand for.

BECMI is an acronym for "Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Imortal," i.e., the various boxed sets of rules for D&D. They were, for the most part, compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia, one thick book with everything you ever needed to play that game forever and ever.

It's a good thing.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-14, 02:32 PM
It was designed to be adapted and altered to what you wanted for your table, to the extent that, in my experience, people didn't play 2e, they palyed "our DnD". I know that the principle applies to more modern editions of DnD, of course, but 2e could be a vastly different game from table to table.

I'd say that there is two parts to this.

1. The internet. I actually play with other people in real life who log on here and talk about rules and stuff. This was not the case in 2nd ed. Many of us didn't even have internet, and we certainly didn't bother to see how others played it elsewhere. With communication comes more standardization in interpretations.

2. It still happens a lot. House rules and such are not rare, and even beyond that, it seems quite common for DMs to have a custom setting or two they've been gathering stuff for over years. So, one game may not look very much like another at all, especially when you consider all the possible variant rules and the like.


On 4th Ed. I can see that...much more limiting class structure in both 2e and 4e. Its a similarity I hadn't considered, sure, but I don't think it alone is enough to describe them as similar games overall. The differences are many, for certain.

I would not agree with regard to magic items. It's true that in core, some of the most popular items were buff-like, but there were a great many oddball items, and odd things like the classic bag of tricks were not uncommon. Later supplements added even more of this, and priced them better. MIC is the obvious example of this. Purely static boosts were not a particular focus area, even though they have generally been an option. They were in 2e too, though.

Mordaenor
2010-10-14, 02:34 PM
There was lots of balance in AD&D, but it wasn't conceived around the numerical (HP damage per round) or activity (everybody has something "constructive" to do at alltimes) models. It was a lot more about trade offs. Gain power in one way, but trade for it in another. Want to be a wizard and bend the cosmos to your whim? Sure. But it's gonna take you a long time to get to that level of power and comprehension while the rest of the party moves quicker, and you'll have the body of a typical book worm to boot.

It was never about everything being equal at all points, but about paying the dues of what you had. It was also, even more so, something that the DM was responsible for above and beyond the rules. The DM created the balance, not the rules.

Yet another reason I love AD&D/BECMI.



BECMI is an acronym for "Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Imortal," i.e., the various boxed sets of rules for D&D. They were, for the most part, compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia, one thick book with everything you ever needed to play that game forever and ever.

It's a good thing.
Thanks Hamlet. Actually I think this might sum up why I like 3e better. In my own groups, I always had a very hard time keeping a game going for more than 1 adventure, and if you started off at level 1, there always felt like a lack of balance within the party. If you were a fighter or cleric, great, you could probably plow through the dungeon, no sweat. But if you were a Wizard, you probably burned out your useful spells in the first adventure encounter, or opted to save them, and got smeared across the wall if you found yourself in melee. And Heaven help you if you were a level 1 Thief.

hamlet
2010-10-14, 02:47 PM
Thanks Hamlet. Actually I think this might sum up why I like 3e better. In my own groups, I always had a very hard time keeping a game going for more than 1 adventure, and if you started off at level 1, there always felt like a lack of balance within the party. If you were a fighter or cleric, great, you could probably plow through the dungeon, no sweat. But if you were a Wizard, you probably burned out your useful spells in the first adventure encounter, or opted to save them, and got smeared across the wall if you found yourself in melee. And Heaven help you if you were a level 1 Thief.

Yeah, it's largely a matter of taste most of the time. It's also a bit of a rude surprise to D20 players when they "devolve" to AD&D or BECMI that the game is as much a test of PLAYER skill as it is of CHARACTER skill. Had the most difficult time with a player last year who would continually say things like "I convince the guard that I'm not a thief, what do I roll?" It shocked him when he was asked "What do you say to the guard that so convinces him?"

DMing is, in 3.x and, probably, 4e, a science. That's what the rules help you do. In AD&D and BECMI, it was much more of an art form. It was a skill that was learned even more than in D20. It was about feeling the balance out intuitively. Being able to size things up ahead of time and identifying potential trouble, and either going around it, or smoothing it down somehow.

I realize there can be just as much art to DMing the D20 versions, but really, it's significantly less so as even a modest DM can do very well just by following the rules. AD&D didn't really give you rules for DMing, just . . . advice. It's one of the reasons why the Gygax DMG is so darn thick, and full of stuff that makes a lot of people scratch their heads to this day. It wasn't a rule book, really, so much as it was a massive tome of rambling advice from the guy who had practically invented the act of running a D&D game (leaving aside Arneson for the sake of argument).

Interesting aside: if you're actually interested in the idea of it, but want a D20 book, the Pathfinder Gamemaster's Guide is an EXCELLENT book. It's as good as, I'd say, Gygax's, maybe better in a few ways. Just loaded with great advice and long talks about how things work out. Definately worth the sheckles if you've got them.

Comparing 4th edition to 2nd? Well . . . I can see where people can point and say they're alike. But really, I just don't think that's the way things are. I've played a couple of sessions of 4e, and it really is almost nothing like 2nd in practice. It's very different in my eye in theme, feel, and act. Not bad, though I don't care for it, just not the same. Just like 1e and 2e really weren't the same either, even though they are mechanical twins almost.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-14, 02:56 PM
I would not agree with regard to magic items. It's true that in core, some of the most popular items were buff-like, but there were a great many oddball items, and odd things like the classic bag of tricks were not uncommon. Later supplements added even more of this, and priced them better. MIC is the obvious example of this. Purely static boosts were not a particular focus area, even though they have generally been an option. They were in 2e too, though.
The real issue for me is that there is a drive in WotC D&D to get "booster" items over fun ones.
Stat Boosters, Attack Boosters and Defense Boosters are essentially required to keep up with higher level monsters. In 3.X, if you were a non-Caster you needed to focus on acquiring those items to survive (less so for Casters); using even the barest WBL system meant you didn't really have room for the "fun stuff" you might have in AD&D - not to mention the dearth of quirky weapon enchantments.

4E has the same Booster requirement, but all of the Boosts are secondary to the "fun stuff" - properties and Magic Item Powers. This means that Boosting is an afterthought when selecting items, rather than the primary concern. Heck, my latest 4E character (starting at LV 3) used her LV 2 Item selection to grab an Aftershock Longsword +1: it's just a +1 Longsword that, on a crit, knocks prone the target and all enemies around it. In 3.X, I have no idea what that sort of power would have cost me but I suspect it would be worth at least a +1 - which means I couldn't afford to take it.
Obviously, a 3.X DM could just hand out "fun" items, but the rules just weren't designed with the idea of quirky items being commonly used - taking the quirky path could cripple your character.

EDIT: To be fair, 4E is not the same as AD&D - and hopefully it's clear that I'm not claiming it to be. However, the way the mechanics were structured in 4E has a flavor about them that reminds me greatly of AD&D - when Classes were Classes, Races were Races, and Magic was Magic.

YMMV, of course :smallwink:

Britter
2010-10-14, 03:02 PM
I'd say that there is two parts to this.

1. The internet. I actually play with other people in real life who log on here and talk about rules and stuff. This was not the case in 2nd ed. Many of us didn't even have internet, and we certainly didn't bother to see how others played it elsewhere. With communication comes more standardization in interpretations.

2. It still happens a lot. House rules and such are not rare, and even beyond that, it seems quite common for DMs to have a custom setting or two they've been gathering stuff for over years. So, one game may not look very much like another at all, especially when you consider all the possible variant rules and the like.



I agree re: point 1. The internet has changed the way we all play games, period. The ability to communicate readily with a larger group of people who share your hobby through this medium has made the gaps smaller, the rulings more consistent, and provided us with a much larger body of corporate knowledge upon which to draw.

Re: your point 2. I am not saying that there are not a ton of houserules out there. But I do think that when someone posts about houserules that diverage from most peoples standard interpretation of 3.5 RAW, there is a lot of backlash. As an example, the poster (name unremebered) who not so long ago posted about his casting system which had a % chance of summoning nasty things with every spell cast. Posters fell on that like a box of hammers. "Not fair to casters" "Discourages playing an xyz" "exploitable" etc were bandied about. Because the rule changed what people saw as the RAW of 3.5, the system was disliked. Because 2e lacks a definitive RAW beyond the resolution of attacks and saves, it is more malleable than 3e.

In my experience, this is pretty common. While the flavor of different 3.x world's and different 3.x tables may vary, the intepretation of the rules is very uniform across the board. I feel that I can, with a fair degree of surety, make a 3.5 character using just the SRD that will be easily incorporatable into the majority of extant games with minimal modification. I never felt that I could make a AD&D character without discussing the way the DM ran the table, even though the mechanics of character generation are arguably simpler. Obviously, there are exceptions and I am arguing from experience here, which is not a very strong arguement, but given that this thread is really about tastes and opinion in the long run, it is the best I can do.

Please note that I am not saying 2e is out-and-out better overall. There is NO single best system, just best systems for the group and players in question. If 3.5 turns someones crank and they have a table full of happy players, well thats great! For me, frankly, I would rather play Burning Wheel any day of the week than any DnD system, even my beloved 2e. As a gamer, I was very unhappy with the direction DnD took after WotC grabbed the reins, so if someone says "Hey, run DnD for us" they get my 2e, and they darn well better like it! :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2010-10-14, 03:03 PM
Well, that held more true in 3.0 than 3.5. The silly magical bonus based DR meant that you couldn't afford to let your magical weapon fall behind, even if you had full BaB, and hit reliably. Fortunately, they fixed that.

Your objection mainly only applies to core, as MIC was amazing at fixing pricing issues. Plus, static bonuses tend not to come up that frequently. To take my second to last 3.5 character, I had a handy haversack, an iconic and frequently selected item that certainly isn't just a stat buff, as well as a few of the various set items out of MiC, all of which had handy abilities(part of the rainment of four, part of the prismatic wall series), and best of all, a survival pouch. It's amazing how many problems can be solved by dropping donkeys. A belt of gender changing made a notable appearance, as did all sorts of other dohickies. Cursed items are always a delight.

Sure, static buff items were bought, but these were generally a result of "I have a lot of money and nothing special to do with it". Half the time, spells with enhancement bonuses made those items irrelevant anyway.

You CAN play with just static buff items in 3.5, but it's not because the system makes you play that way.

Eldariel
2010-10-14, 03:12 PM
Well, that held more true in 3.0 than 3.5. The silly magical bonus based DR meant that you couldn't afford to let your magical weapon fall behind, even if you had full BaB, and hit reliably. Fortunately, they fixed that.

Naww, it just meant you wanted Greater Magic Weapon twice as bad. Indeed, 3.0 was the world of casters doing all the party buffing since Animal's X line lasted hours/level too and could go up to +7 with Empower.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-14, 03:21 PM
Your objection mainly only applies to core, as MIC was amazing at fixing pricing issues. Plus, static bonuses tend not to come up that frequently. To take my second to last 3.5 character, I had a handy haversack, an iconic and frequently selected item that certainly isn't just a stat buff, as well as a few of the various set items out of MiC, all of which had handy abilities(part of the rainment of four, part of the prismatic wall series), and best of all, a survival pouch. It's amazing how many problems can be solved by dropping donkeys. A belt of gender changing made a notable appearance, as did all sorts of other dohickies. Cursed items are always a delight.

Sure, static buff items were bought, but these were generally a result of "I have a lot of money and nothing special to do with it". Half the time, spells with enhancement bonuses made those items irrelevant anyway.

You CAN play with just static buff items in 3.5, but it's not because the system makes you play that way.
I'm impressed. I needed both a magic weapon and STR gauntlets to enable my Fighter-Rogue to keep hitting baddies. I'd have killed for some DEX boosters to help my AC (and Reflex) too, but I just got used to getting hit on the rare occasions that someone made an attack roll. Meanwhile, our Cleric was salavating for a WIS Booster to get more bonus spells and increase her save DC.

Of course, we didn't have lots of spare gold so I couldn't just buy them when I got bored. Nor did we have a party buffer - the Cleric was our only Caster.

But, like I said, in 4E I don't have to worry about any of those things - the bonuses come along with the fun stuff, instead of making it an either/or situation. This is how I remember playing AD&D, so I associate the two.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-14, 03:51 PM
Yeah, party buffs were always more welcome than spending all your money on. 3 did have some great buff durations...granted, persist spell in 3.5 was even more awesome, but either way, magic items are usually tied to enhancement bonuses, and blowing low level spell slots instead is generally considered preferable if you have a full caster.

Eldariel
2010-10-14, 03:57 PM
Yeah, party buffs were always more welcome than spending all your money on. 3 did have some great buff durations...granted, persist spell in 3.5 was even more awesome, but either way, magic items are usually tied to enhancement bonuses, and blowing low level spell slots instead is generally considered preferable if you have a full caster.

3.0 Persist was only +4 :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2010-10-14, 04:02 PM
3.0 Persist was only +4 :smallbiggrin:

Heh. I never actually used the 3.0 persist...

However, the 3.0 incantatrix got the capstone at 9th level, instead of 10th. Ahhh.

holywhippet
2010-10-14, 04:18 PM
There was one interesting feature that 2nd edition had, but later editions have tried to avoid. If you ever managed to get your constitution up to 20 or higher, you character would regenerate their wounds over time. Given the cost/scarcity of healing this was an extremely useful thing. Catch is, you'd need magic to do it as a rule - unless you were allowed to play a race with a +2 bonus to CON and you rolled and assigned an 18 to that score.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-14, 04:22 PM
There was one interesting feature that 2nd edition had, but later editions have tried to avoid. If you ever managed to get your constitution up to 20 or higher, you character would regenerate their wounds over time. Given the cost/scarcity of healing this was an extremely useful thing. Catch is, you'd need magic to do it as a rule - unless you were allowed to play a race with a +2 bonus to CON and you rolled and assigned an 18 to that score.

Yeah, I was never that fortunate. In fact, I distinctly recall the dice trying to kill me in 2nd ed. Not that they stopped in 3, mind.

2nd was good overall. And it had spelljammer, which I like. Probably the only 2e stuff I actually use still, but so far as Im aware, they never did spelljammer for 3.5, so it's a good reason to bust out the old stuff.

hamlet
2010-10-14, 04:24 PM
There was one interesting feature that 2nd edition had, but later editions have tried to avoid. If you ever managed to get your constitution up to 20 or higher, you character would regenerate their wounds over time. Given the cost/scarcity of healing this was an extremely useful thing. Catch is, you'd need magic to do it as a rule - unless you were allowed to play a race with a +2 bonus to CON and you rolled and assigned an 18 to that score.

The general rule of thumb was that a score of 18 was nearly superhuman, and that scores beyond that were reserved for horrific monsters (i.e., a troll could be assumed to have a very high CON score maybe) or the gods. The absolute maximum was 25, and even the gods themselves could be no greater. Getting a PC to CON 20 would be, as you say, difficult without very powerful magic or a phenomenal quest.

I'm convinced to this day that WOTC is infatuated with the concept of "bigger is better" and lots of big numbers after they took the caps off ability scores. There's a HUGE amount of number inflation in the D20 games, and it's up for grabs whether that's good or bad or neutral.

Eldariel
2010-10-14, 04:51 PM
The general rule of thumb was that a score of 18 was nearly superhuman, and that scores beyond that were reserved for horrific monsters (i.e., a troll could be assumed to have a very high CON score maybe) or the gods. The absolute maximum was 25, and even the gods themselves could be no greater. Getting a PC to CON 20 would be, as you say, difficult without very powerful magic or a phenomenal quest.

Now, mind, there were some great monsters which simply had "immeasurable" stats. Say, Tarrasque. They just told you how hard they hit and how tough they are to hit. 25 Str was a Titan's strength if I remember correctly; anything higher just simply will not be marked. Of course, figuring these individuals out was a bit hard since they weren't given stats in the MM (Monstrous Manual :smallbiggrin:) anyways.

hamlet
2010-10-14, 04:57 PM
Now, mind, there were some great monsters which simply had "immeasurable" stats. Say, Tarrasque. They just told you how hard they hit and how tough they are to hit. 25 Str was a Titan's strength if I remember correctly; anything higher just simply will not be marked. Of course, figuring these individuals out was a bit hard since they weren't given stats in the MM (Monstrous Manual :smallbiggrin:) anyways.

Titans and I think Storm Giants were rated at 25 STR.

Past a certain point, things just kinda got silly, just like in 3.x. Yeah, the Tarrasque was probably one of the biggest baddest monsters going, but did many of us use him seriously? Probably not.

Besides, I've always found that 25 goblins were much more of a threat than a single 10th level caster.

dsmiles
2010-10-14, 05:41 PM
Wow, this thing asploded on my drive home...lemme see. Im'ma let you finish, but...


Generally, I find that those who "don't grok" RC are typically hung up on optional rules or little quirky things like measuring encumbrance in coins rather than pounds.

It becomes the "white whale" for them so to speak.

Crud. Now I want to run an RC campaign here in Jersey. Need to find victims.
Really? They still measured by G.P. weight in 2nd? I thought that went out with AD&D...

There was one interesting feature that 2nd edition had, but later editions have tried to avoid. If you ever managed to get your constitution up to 20 or higher, you character would regenerate their wounds over time. Given the cost/scarcity of healing this was an extremely useful thing. Catch is, you'd need magic to do it as a rule - unless you were allowed to play a race with a +2 bonus to CON and you rolled and assigned an 18 to that score.
Ahhhhthe good ol' days. Regenerating wounds and 18/00 Strength...

Yeah, I was never that fortunate. In fact, I distinctly recall the dice trying to kill me in 2nd ed. Not that they stopped in 3, mind.

2nd was good overall. And it had spelljammer, which I like. Probably the only 2e stuff I actually use still, but so far as Im aware, they never did spelljammer for 3.5, so it's a good reason to bust out the old stuff.
Spelljammer for the win! I love me some Spelljammer. So much so that my 4e campaign setting has recently discovered spelljamming (though it's through SCIENCE rather than magic).

Matthew
2010-10-14, 05:56 PM
Really? They still measured by G.P. weight in 2nd? I thought that went out with AD&D...

Nope, but the continued to use "coins" for BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia. AD&D/2e was probably the only TSR era D&D to use the straight weight (which created problems, as two-handed swords went from "encumbrance 250 coins" to "weight 25 lbs", or whatever). AD&D/1e was always rather vague on the subject, though.



Never found the attribute tables difficult, but that's just me as I suppose I'm a bit eccentric myself.

And, really, sometimes it might be nice to have the formula to see what's going on behind everything, but for me, for the most part, all I really want is the information and tables are an effective way of presenting it without clouding things up with math and theory.

Not really difficult, but quirky and complicated to remember as compared to a more formulaic method. I can tell you that strength 16 yields +1 to damage, but do minuses begin at strength 6 or 7, damage or hit rolls? No idea off the top of my head.



It's very hard to describe exactly what it is, but there is a definite aesthetic that the two share which 3.X did not.

Another thing has to do with magic items. Magic Items in 3.X always felt like straightforwards buffs to me - like equipment in a MMO or video game. AD&D magic items are notoriously quirky by contrast - granting IC benefits instead of pluses or SLA (e.g. glowing in the presence of goblins; singing jaunty tunes in combat). 4E magic items still have the MMO-style "buff" components but they also provide additional utility in the forms of situational powers and the like.

I do sometimes catch glimpses of what you mean when looking at some of the D20/4e products. It is also true that D20/3e was purposefully looking back to AD&D/1e, so I suppose that a tiefling warlock in the PHB is more in line with the aesthetic of AD&D/2e in some ways.

WitchSlayer
2010-10-14, 08:07 PM
To add onto the discussion of items: Eternal Chalk is by far the greatest item ever conceived by man kind.

holywhippet
2010-10-14, 08:31 PM
The general rule of thumb was that a score of 18 was nearly superhuman, and that scores beyond that were reserved for horrific monsters (i.e., a troll could be assumed to have a very high CON score maybe) or the gods. The absolute maximum was 25, and even the gods themselves could be no greater. Getting a PC to CON 20 would be, as you say, difficult without very powerful magic or a phenomenal quest.


I don't think you really need very powerful magic (although a wish spell would help), just a lucky dice roll and an accomodating DM. Basically you need a dwarf with 18 assigned to CON, which goes to 19 due to their racial bonus. Then you just need an item to give you another +1 to CON - I suspect an ioun stone might work but I'm not certain.

The Big Dice
2010-10-14, 09:30 PM
The thing I love most about AD&D/BECMI, and that I rediscovered with getting the Rules Compendium and a bunch of retro clones is how much early editions of D&D beg to be homebrewed and tinkered with. Where current iterations of D&D are all about The Rules and The Book, pre WotC editions are more about customising the game to suit the people sat round your table.

I'm thinking my next D&D undertaking is going to be based around stealing some classes and spells from AD&D, in the form of OSRIC. Then changing a couple of things like how Saves work based on ideas from Swords and Wizardry. Throw it it all in a pot with the Rules Compendium and see what happens. Maybe even see if there's anything in the way of SRD concepts that can be adapted to things.

After all, a Cleric with no spells at first level, or a Magic-User after he casts his single first level spell, really does need all the help he can get.

And as an answer to people wanting a little more balance between melee characters and casters, I seriously suggest looking at the RC rules on Weapon Mastery.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-14, 09:44 PM
2E was good in some ways
Bad
AC (thac0 is derived from this fact)/ ability checks were backwards: you wanted lower.

You had no idea which rules you were following 2E was largely houseruled. You were told which were the same rather the reverse.

Creating permanent items 5% chance lose Con.

Good:
Multiclassing (like 3E gestalt)
Dual classing (like 3E multiclassing)
Specialization
Level limits for non-humans
Scrolls/wands could be crafted (no feats) and gave you XP for doing so.

3E was good in some ways:
Good:
RAW was RAW and DM told you which specific ruiles he changed (unless he forgot to mention it)
BAB/AC was higher = good.
Multiclassing
Crafting stuff codified.

Bad:
Multiclass Penalty
CR's are bocked

Psyren
2010-10-14, 09:54 PM
My favorite thing about 3e is the wealth of class concepts you can get from all the base classes, prestige classes, racial subs, and power sources contained in both official and 3rd party splats. Every time I read a new book I think of some other combination I want to try.

Doing away with race/class restrictions did a lot to open those floodgates as well.

The Big Dice
2010-10-14, 10:09 PM
My favorite thing about 3e is the wealth of class concepts you can get from all the base classes, prestige classes, racial subs, and power sources contained in both official and 3rd party splats. Every time I read a new book I think of some other combination I want to try.

Doing away with race/class restrictions did a lot to open those floodgates as well.

Try making Aragorn. It literally can't be done as a starting D&D character. The last descendant of a noble family line, raised by Elves, skilled at living in the wild and healing, but also having the tact and diplomacy that a ruler needs. You can't even lay the groundwork for it. What you end up with is a character concept that the character you're playing doesn't really resemble for 6-8 levels.

What D&D doesn't do is encourage to to play a Who instead of a What. And that's one of the reasons why it's a step backwards in RPG design.

Reverent-One
2010-10-14, 10:16 PM
Try making Aragorn. It literally can't be done as a starting D&D character. The last descendant of a noble family line, raised by Elves, skilled at living in the wild and healing, but also having the tact and diplomacy that a ruler needs. You can't even lay the groundwork for it. What you end up with is a character concept that the character you're playing doesn't really resemble for 6-8 levels.

Why should you be able to make Aragorn as a starting D&D character? Starting D&D characters aren't meant to be that powerful.

Psyren
2010-10-15, 01:26 AM
Try making Aragorn. It literally can't be done as a starting D&D character.

Was he ever really 1st-level though? What with that blood of Numenor and the crazy feats Men (capitalized) were capable of and all the other weird Tolkien vagaries.

Throw a bloodline on him and sure, he's doable.

edit: He's also got some Ruathar in him for sure. (Or maybe Arwen made him one, if you catch my meaning)

Skaven
2010-10-15, 03:48 AM
3.0/3.5

Like:

Ability to customise my characters properly, multiclass to what fits theme.
Sorcerers
Feats
The Kobold appearance / lore changes :P
The simplicity of the system at its general level (d20 really)
No level limits on nonhumans (this made no sense)

Dislike:
Designer prejudices to Sorcerers
Weapon imbalances
Monks (too weak, i'm tired of the enforced monastic monk background and no multiclass)
Grappling rules

AD&D
Like:
The magic and magic items. Magic was more powerful and mysterious and felt right that way.
Darksun :P
Krynn :P

Dislike:
Level limits on non-humans? Really? That makes no sense whatsoever. There is nothing super special about humans in the setting other than humans wrote the system. Absurd.
The stats. They were all or nothing, it was absurd.
Skills
Game/character killing limitations on classes. I.E All druids of this level have to spend a year or whatever as an archdruid or whatever it was? absurd. Cannot advance beyond the level unless you have? We're trying to run a game / adventure here!

holywhippet
2010-10-15, 04:35 AM
I believe the level limit on non-humans was meant to balance out the fact that non-humans got certain bonuses - like elves getting certain resistances/immunities and the ability to see in the dark. I'm not saying they shouldn't have had some kind of penalty, but that particular penalty was really stupid. As soon as the rest of the party went above their maximum level you might as well scrap your character as they have essentially hit a brick wall.

They should have increases the XP required by certain percentage or something.

jmbrown
2010-10-15, 04:37 AM
I don't understand how people balk at the level restrictions for demihumans. The difference in power between a level 15 fighter and a level 20 fighter are negligible. For those that don't know, your THAC0 capped at 1 and AC capped at -10 (the equivalent of BAB +20 and AC 30). No matter what magic you used or item you had this number wouldn't be improved. Also, your hit dice capped at 9 or 10 so you gained a flat bonus past then. The hp variance for a level 20 fighter with 10 constitution was 42-123. In 3e, the variance with 10 constitution could be 29-200! In AD&D, the higher your level the slower you advanced in terms of power.

Here, I'm going to design a level 15 dwarf fighter and a level 20 fighter using average rolls across the board and a 10 in every ability score.

Human Fighter level 20
Hp: 9HD + 33hp (82hp assuming 5.5 average)
THAC0: 1
Save vs. Paralyzation/Poison/Death: 3
Save vs. Rod/Staff/Wand: 5
Save vs. Petrification/Polymorph: 4
Save vs. Breath Weapon: 4
Save vs. Spell: 6

Dwarf Fighter level 15
Hp: 9HD + 18 (67hp assuming 5.5 average)
THAC0: 5 (4 against goblins, orcs, half-orcs, and hobgoblins)
Save vs. Paralyzation/Poison/Death: 4 (+3 bonus against poisons for having constitution 11)
Save vs. Rod/Staff/Wand: 6 (+3 bonus for having constitution 11)
Save vs. Petrification/Polymorph: 5
Save vs. Breath Weapon: 4
Save vs. Spell: 7 (+3 bonus for having constitution 11)
-4 AC when fighting giants
Infravision
Mining abilities

Seems to me like being a dwarven fighter has more benefits than being a human fighter. Shoot, lets look at the difference between a dwarf cleric and a human cleric.

Human Cleric level 20
Hp: 9HD + 22hp (62hp assuming 4.5 average)
THAC0: 8
Save vs. Paralyzation/Poison/Death: 2
Save vs. Rod/Staff/Wand: 6
Save vs. Petrification/Polymorph: 5
Save vs. Breath Weapon: 8
Save vs. Spell: 7
1st level spells: 9
2nd level spells: 9
3rd level spells: 9
4th level spells: 8
5th level spells: 7
Turn special undead on 13, liches on 10, ghosts on 7, vampires on 4, automatically turn spectres and mummies, destroy everything else.

Dwarf Cleric level 10
Hp: 9HD +2 (42hp assuming 4.5 average)
THAC0: 14 (13 against orcs, half-orcs, goblins, hobgoblins)
Save vs. Paralyzation/Poison/Death: 6 (+3 bonus against poison)
Save vs. Rod/Staff/Wand: 10 (+3 bonus)
Save vs. Petrification/Polymorph: 9
Save vs. Breath Weapon: 12
Save vs. Spell: 11 (+3 bonus)
1st level spells: 4
2nd level spells: 4
3rd level spells: 3
4th level spells: 3
5th level spells: 2
Turn special undead on 19, liches on 16, ghosts on 13, vampires on 10, spectres on 7, mummies on 4, automatically turn ghasts and wights, destroy everything else.
-4 AC when fighting giants
Infravision
Mining abilities

Our dwarf cleric with average constitution is about 10% worse than a human cleric 10 levels above him in terms of saving throws, about 30% poorer in turning undead and combat. Spells take a hit but the dwarf cleric still gains access to powerful spells like raise dead. Now, because I said I was using average rolls including a 10 in every ability score, the poor unfortunate human cleric didn't gain access to 6th or 7th level spells because he lacked wisdom 17 and 18 respectively.

While dwarves can't excel at clerics, they can dual-class as them which instantly mitigates the restrictions. A dwarven fighter/cleric is certainly more powerful than a straight human fighter and if the human wanted to dual class he would need ridiculous qualifiers and have to start advancement from level 1.

The point of this long rant is that I simply don't understand the qualms towards level restrictions on demihumans. I hate the fact that in 3e and 4e I'm picking a race not because I want to roleplay it but because I want the benefits associated with being that race. Why play a gnome rogue when a whisper gnome is better? Why play an elf wizard when a gray elf wizard is better? Even humans fall into this trap because you play them not for their unrestricted advancement but because they get a free feat and extra skill points allowing you to qualify for that prestige class earlier.

To continue my rant:

Game/character killing limitations on classes. I.E All druids of this level have to spend a year or whatever as an archdruid or whatever it was? absurd. Cannot advance beyond the level unless you have? We're trying to run a game / adventure here!

The advanced classes are just that. Advanced. They're not a right but a privilege. When you qualify for one you assume the responsibilities of properly roleplaying it. You don't need to be a paladin to act like a paladin. Sure, you get a handful of neat parlor tricks but the heavy restrictions of always being good and never carrying too much stuff are there for an extra challenge. When I played 2e and I qualified for an advanced class like Paladin or Ranger, I almost always declined because I didn't want to deal with the extra roleplaying challenge of giving up what adventurers are pretty much expected to do:

Kill things and take their stuff.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-15, 05:07 AM
I don't understand how people balk at the level restrictions for demihumans. The difference in power between a level 15 fighter and a level 20 fighter are negligible.And also, most campaigns don't come that high in the first place.

jmbrown
2010-10-15, 05:48 AM
Regardless of how high a campaign normally becomes, very, very, very, very, very, very few monsters ever achieve a level of power that the PCs do. The tarrasque breaks the rule with THAC0 -5 but I honestly think the monster is a joke and nobody ever fights the thing one on one. A balor has 13HD, 7 THAC0, and -8 AC. A level 15 dwarf fighter with maximum THAC0 (not difficult to reduce your THAC0 by 4 points at that level) and a level 20 fighter will hit a balor 60%. Above level 10, when hit dice aren't a concern for PCs, your equipment is more important than your level will ever be.

Skaven
2010-10-15, 10:34 AM
The advanced classes are just that. Advanced. They're not a right but a privilege.

They an an option in game.

And we are trying to play a game to have fun.

There is literally no reason for such a metagame concept intruding on play.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-15, 11:12 AM
They an an option in game.

And we are trying to play a game to have fun.

There is literally no reason for such a metagame concept intruding on play.
In AD&D, Classes were not a metagame concept; they were very much a matter of fluff. For example, Druids weren't just a bundle of powers - they were a particular type of priest that worshipped in The Old Ways and were organized across the world to maintain those traditions.

Classes only became metagame concepts in WotC D&D, where you could pick up a class-level in anything you could qualify for.

The Big Dice
2010-10-15, 11:13 AM
There is literally no reason for such a metagame concept intruding on play.
There is also no reason for them not to. In fact, it stretches verisimilitude if elite organisations as represented by PRCs don't intrude on in-character play.

LibraryOgre
2010-10-15, 11:29 AM
Others have covered a lot of the ground on the differences between the two, so I'll throw in my traditional plug:

If you like some of the concepts of 2e (character creation taking place largely at the beginning, races being of long-term impact, lesser magic item and closer spell control), but want to avoid some of the downfalls (excessive benefits from high stats, an allergic reaction to ThAC0 and descending ACs), take a look at Castles and Crusades. I've run 1e/2e/0e adventures right out of the box, with no more alteration than I'd normally do (inserting NPCs, tweaking a couple things), and could likely do the same with a 3e adventure.

The system is simple yet flexible (roll d20 and add modifiers), and you can customize characters to their backgrounds just by declaring some abilities as being things they add their level to. For example, a ranger normally has no specific horsemanship ability; that's the domain of a Knight. Our party ranger, however, is a Tuigan... he was more or less born in the saddle with that kind of background. When he makes horsemanship tests, I let him add his level to the total. Our nobleman fighter gets to add his level when appraising jewelry, because it's something his background says he'd be good at.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-15, 11:31 AM
There is also no reason for them not to. In fact, it stretches verisimilitude if elite organisations as represented by PRCs don't intrude on in-character play.

How so? I see no particular reason why verisimilitude is tied to the existance of elite organizations, each of which is locked to a PrC.

In fact, too rigid of an approach in that direction would seem to be at more risk of being harmful. The real world is messy, and full of exceptions. Expecting large groups of people to be basically clones of each other would seem odd.

EvilJames
2010-10-15, 11:35 AM
I run a weekly 2nd ed Planescape game and will likely be running a spelljammer when that ends. it's interesting because 1 of my players learned
3rd first (another may or may not have played 3rd first I can't remember but he is a 3rd ed player mostly)

I actually dislike the fluff changes for kobolds. Kobolds were the nasty little scaly yipping goblinoid equivalent of a platypus (what with the egg laying and all). No noble heritage here just a nasty little bugger with something to prove.
And alas their poor cousins the urd.

Most people house ruled away level limits on the demi humans it was rarely an issue but some of the limits on humanoids were just silly also the kits that were intended to be the humanoid versions of the ranger and bard classes but significantly weaker were equally silly. it's like they didn't want the humanoids to be viable choices (now granted a few like the ogre magi were a little over powered, but the orc? The orc barely gets anything and gnolls had absolutely no benefits besides a few bonus hit points at first level there is no reason to penalize them in such a way.

I also tend to house rule elves able to be druids and everyone can be bards (every culture has something similar)

Many monsters got beefed up in third (you should beef up the dragons when you run a 2nd ed game) but a few got debuffed, Alaghi got there fist damage reduced from 2d6/2d6 to 1d4/1d4 and grell no longer make you make multiple saves (10 paralyzation tentacle attacks are scary even with +4 bonus every one gets because a 1 auto fails, now you just make one save with a DC increase for each additional tentacle that hits so it generally remains easy to avoid being paralyzed. Also the grell patriarchs went from huge to large in 3rd.

Ok that was more rambly than I intended better stop here.

The Big Dice
2010-10-15, 11:41 AM
How so? I see no particular reason why verisimilitude is tied to the existance of elite organizations, each of which is locked to a PrC.

In fact, too rigid of an approach in that direction would seem to be at more risk of being harmful. The real world is messy, and full of exceptions. Expecting large groups of people to be basically clones of each other would seem odd.

So Navy Seals don't go through the same training as each other? Students at RADA don't learn the same acting techniques and students of MIT that graduate in the same field don't take the same courses?

If you want to be part of an elite organisation in the real world, there are paths to take to become a prospective member and training you must complete before you are one of the elite.

The real world is messy, and D&D doesn't model the real world particularly well at all. I'd say that typing PRCs into establishments in your game world makes perfect sense. They represent advanced training in specific areas, so why not integrate them into your game world a little more plausibly?

Then again, I like the way Advanced Schools are handled in Legend of the Five Rings. They are much like PRCs, in that there are certain requirements that must be met mechanically before you can join. But they are also a part of the game world in that membership might place roleplaying restrictions on you.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-15, 11:56 AM
So Navy Seals don't go through the same training as each other? Students at RADA don't learn the same acting techniques and students of MIT that graduate in the same field don't take the same courses?

Negative. Oh, they'll all have the same foundation, but each one specializes in different things. Navy Seals have a number of specialized schools available to which not everyone goes, and students typically have a wide number of electives to select between. The higher the level of education, the more they diverge, as specialization is a huge part of education.

And those are groupings, not organizations as a whole. Seal teams have support staff. Colleges have all sorts of people.


If you want to be part of an elite organisation in the real world, there are paths to take to become a prospective member and training you must complete before you are one of the elite.

Yes. However, the fact that every military member goes to basic does not imply that they are anything alike. The guy who specializes in communications is entirely different than the guy who charges up hills. This difference is very similar to the differences of taking different classes.

The fact that they spent six or so weeks learning how to march and stuff is relatively minor, and can be shown by skill points or the like.

Historical organizations were no more uniform than are modern ones. Arguably much less so, in most cases.

[quotThe real world is messy, and D&D doesn't model the real world particularly well at all. I'd say that typing PRCs into establishments in your game world makes perfect sense. They represent advanced training in specific areas, so why not integrate them into your game world a little more plausibly?[/quote]

Why is something inherently unrealistic plausible? It doesn't stem from any of the necessary conceits for fantasy(ie, its not enforced by magic, gods, etc), so it remains unexplained why this must be so.

You claim that not tying prcs and organizations inextricably together damages verisimulitude, but you have not shown WHY this is the case.

dsmiles
2010-10-15, 12:00 PM
You claim that not tying prcs and organizations inextricably together damages verisimulitude, but you have not shown WHY this is the case.

I have to admit, I tie some PrCs to an Organization, but only the ones that have it in their fluff, and one or two homebrewed ones.

Kylarra
2010-10-15, 12:02 PM
If I was going to run 3.X again, which I'm not, and was planning on having existing organizations provide benefits, I would probably do something akin to the magical sites in CScound and the like, and have the training provide some sort of feat or similar marginal ability.

Yora
2010-10-15, 01:35 PM
I think the factions in Planescape worked like that. The benefit of being a member was about the same as a feat, but the lack of feats in 2nd Ed. probably made it more valuable.

The Big Dice
2010-10-15, 02:48 PM
You claim that not tying prcs and organizations inextricably together damages verisimulitude, but you have not shown WHY this is the case.
Giving flavour and differentiation to different nations and races is one simple and obvious reason why PRCs could be, and in my opinion, should be tied to in game organisations.

Because there's nothing more boring than everything being the same. And if every country, race and faction has access to everything across the books, what is there to say that Northerners are different from Southerners? In what way other than racial bonuses are Elves different from Orcs?

If everyone, regardless of background and origin has access to all the same things, right across the game world, how do you separate anything from anything else?

Tyndmyr
2010-10-15, 03:10 PM
I think you're putting an undue amount of weight on class to make that differentiation.

For instance, let's look at those racial modifiers. At low levels, those matter quite a bit, and low level people make up the general mass of society. Culture is pretty strongly affected by what they're good at. You could do worse than to imagine the effects on a society created by some bonus stats and skill bonuses. Trade is only one area dramatically affected by this.

Next, culture and traditions. This really isn't encapsulated by class, or anywhere in D&D statistics. Two characters with identical numbers on their sheets can behave in very different ways due to their personalities, their upbringing, and the place in which they live. Personality is not prescribed by character sheets except in the very broad and subjective area of alignment.

Also, you have history, geography, etc...these will form major influences on any given area. If you like, they could certainly have organizations as a result of any of these, but the importance of this is not necessarily attached to a PrC. In fact, a great many book organizations have no PrC attachments whatsoever. Break out Complete Adventurer for a variety of possible organizations that encompass players of a wild variety of classes.

Kaervaslol
2010-10-15, 07:28 PM
The only thing I know is that having to fight your superior to gain more levels is badass as hell.

And the fact that you have to kill the Archdruid to get his title is even more badass.

As a do, I see this as an opportunity to adventure.

As a player, I see it as carrot at the end of the stick.

I beat the Archdruid and took his title, killing him in the process because I'm that badass. Now this has an effect on the game world, since the organization is tied to the world. This initiates a shockwave of events that ultimately leads to something cool as hell happening.

This to ME is what roleplayins is all about, cause and effect, exploration and shaking the fundation of the world. A living entity that reacts to the actions of the players. Not some linear chain of encounter.

Of course, you are free to ignore the part that druids are tied to any sort of organization. The game won't fall apart.

But I'll take the druids with organization over any other lame druid with no ties to the world but ones of an adventurer.

God, I need to play D&D so bad. :smallbiggrin:

Starbuck_II
2010-10-15, 07:47 PM
The only thing I know is that having to fight your superior to gain more levels is badass as hell.

And the fact that you have to kill the Archdruid to get his title is even more badass.


Drawback, you have to fight someone stronger than you to win this title. Pretty sure that is difficult by yourself.
Hope you had good magic items (better than the Archdruid).

Kaervaslol
2010-10-15, 07:53 PM
Drawback, you have to fight someone stronger than you to win this title. Pretty sure that is difficult by yourself.
Hope you had good magic items (better than the Archdruid).

I have a party :smallbiggrin:.

Seriously, what's with that kind of attitude?

That seems the kind of comment that would come from someone with some kind of grudge from 2e or a crappy dm.

See it as a challenge to overcome, it's supposed to be hard, because it's supposed to be rewarding.


Creator of comic xkcd went to my college

This explains a lot, sorry about that :(.

Psyren
2010-10-15, 08:15 PM
But I'll take the druids with organization over any other lame druid with no ties to the world but ones of an adventurer.

Whereas I would argue that the solitary druid is far more in tune with his class than the ones that play politics, and meet every eclipse in the mushroom ring to bicker over whose sacred deer ate whose blessed flower.

Flash Beagle
2010-10-15, 10:05 PM
Not that i will get involved with the current Druid debate, but I will say well said Psyren you took words from my skull.


okie, here is my take on the overall picture.

I will agree with many of you that when Wizards of the Coast took the reigns of DnD it was changed...a lot. And in some ways allowed for more options, and in others refined the structure, and to some of our tastes to the point of annoyance. And that in turn did affect the more rules = less creative Dming, and in some cases less creative players. However I will say this.

I have been Dming for 13 years and after playing and Gming many systems, and many party make ups, I have found my exceptionally creative (and role-playing focused) players have an easier time creating their PC concept in the 3.5 or pathfinder scope than in 2e or 4th. (*especially* Pathfinder)

As a side note.
Aragorn =Scout with Able learner
or
Aragorn = Pathfinder + Scout

4e in my opinion, and that of most of my players, encourages a combat concept far more than a character concept, and a set of dungeoneering/combat encounters, rather than a role-playing campaign. Which don't get me wrong, if you like that sort of thing then all for it, to each there own. This I find though is both the fundamental difference and similarity to 2e. Think back all of you who played in the good old days...to the scary pits and winding tunnels of the terribly trapped lich's castle or Dragon's cave. Even when Ravenloft came out, scary combat, drama, and danger. Though the potential is there in 3.5 and Pathfinder I don't see nearly this trap and monster duet as in 2e and 4e. However I do not see the almost demanding foundation for a living breathing character in 4e as I do in 2e.

(I will not use skills and feats in the following examples or the post will be a book, therefore I will stick with basics)

In 4e. If you want to play a Barbarian you pump up x stat or x stat and focus on x build or x build. You may be able to supplement a character concept with hybrid classing but even that doesn't cover most concepts that come up in my party.

In 3.5 or P you do have to choose which level to put your experience into, and your caster level isn't full as it is in 4e, however it is modular which tends to fit the personalities and backgrounds of my players.

In 2e it alllllll depends on the rule set. Do you go with standard multiclass and dual class? Are you using kits, or alternative skills and powers? There were things in supplement 2e books that range from percentile wild talents to abilities that in some ways are extremely similar to combat feats. (In fact its my theory that Wizards of the Coast based much of 3.0 on taking things they liked and thought meshed from the supplements, threw those together and then "balanced" it.....not so great on the first try, but they did try.) Anyways my point is that though the main classes in 2e are limited in specifics and feel streamlined...because they are, you always have the option of reading up a little more and making the concept you want. But again it makes it home brewed version, because as some of you have said its a different game depending on the GM.

All versions of 3 tried to streamline the rules to make it more of an accessable market. And then 4 is super streamlined. I think that it is also greatly influenced by computer games in general, and especially MMORPGs. No offense to anyone here, I am not saying all 4e players are MMO fanatics, but everyone I know who likes 4e best are MMORPG players.
The rules and game play are structured as one of my friends put it "like programming code."

My idea of fun though is not raiding or grinding. And as fun as it is getting the cool magic items they put together, that also in some ways remind me of 2e...it is not overall the majority of my players' idea of fun.
But this is the market of the day, Wizards of the Coast is a company trying to make money and WOW makes lots of money. Therefore I believe that internet hasn't just affected the way rpgs and rules are made and followed, but changed it almost entirely.

People loved the supplements of 2e, then 3e's reflect many of those options that people used and wanted to see more of, and now 4e has as many special powers as a person could want.

But the core of roleplaying I feel was lost in translation.

I started in 2e. And though I no longer play or Gm 2e (much because of classes/Prestige classes, some mechanics, and combat tweaks) I am still inspired by the way 2e made me feel. The depth that was brought to great sprawling ruins and fighting for your life, the nuance of a bard trying to talk his way out of being eaten by a vampire, or the prince in self exile who was avoiding capture by his own family. The danger felt near real, as did the characters. I have home rules, some made up, and some just tweaks. I have restrictions and allowances, magic items that are your basic buffs to crazy eccentric items that are practically everlasting party favors. Hell I had a mecha dragon detach from a castle wall that was once part of a spaceship rise in perimeter defense against another dragon. It took some work and a leap of faith but it happened.

But with every good game its all tailored to the story and party. Its what you can do with a system that makes it really special. And I have found that I made that happen with 3.5, but especially and now exclusively for my fantasy campaigns with Pathfinder. But I never forget 2e, and I really think that its a game worth playing and Gming if you've never done it. You can get lost there, and have much fun. I encourage anyone to play it at least once.

As for me I am running 2 pathfinder campaigns, one world of my own making that was transferred from 3.5, another which is my version of Ravenloft based on the 2e and 3e supplementals. And my third is still being hatched. My version of Dark Sun, one that will be far more like 2e than the other independents that have been shared. With the best bits of 2e and the best bits of pathfinder.

That might sound crazy but so far its working, and I have all the old Dark Sun box sets and adventures to draw from. Man I love the Dark Sun setting.

God Bless TSR. :smallsmile:

Ps I tremble at what Dark Sun will be like for 4e...I'm sorry if that offends people but it really does scare me.:smalleek:

The Big Dice
2010-10-15, 10:32 PM
I think you're putting an undue amount of weight on class to make that differentiation.
I'd say you're underestimating the usefulness of class as a form of shorthand for expressing culture.

Scouts and Rangers basically fill the same role in the world, but in slightly different ways. Questions of duplication of niche aside, they can make a perfect example for what I'm talking about.

Supose you have a world where Elves live in the forest. Kind of traditional, but I'm not going to get too outlandish here. Anyway, you have two classes that basically provide precision damage in an outdoors setting. So wearing your world building hat, you decide that Elves don't train scouts, and that all Elven Rangers are missile style rather than two weapon style.

It's a minor limitation, but you just gave your wood elves some flavour. Nothing that breaks RAW or RAI, but something that makes them sit in your game world a little better. And it provides an archetype that you can explain to your players in very simple terms.

Dwarfs are another one. You could simply say, because Dwarfs are a highly civilised race, there are no Dawrf Barbarians. And because they are highly community minded, any Dwarf Rogues are exiles from their homeland.

Again, you're not actually breaking the rules in any way, shape or form. What you are doing is using metagame constructs in a metagame fashion to define asects of in-game culture.

Aron Times
2010-10-15, 11:44 PM
One thing to keep in mind is not to get too hung up on class names.

Take the fighter, for instance. In 4e, the fighter class is a martial defender. Basically, fighters protect their friends from the bad guys. The "fighter" class is different from the word "fighter" in the English language. You could call a cancer survivor a "fighter," but that doesn't mean that he spends all his time fighting.

I've run into some people who complain about how you can't make a stealthy or ranged fighter in 4e. A stealthy fighter falls into the rogue class, while a ranged fighter is a ranger.

Perhaps a better example would be the barbarian in 4e vs. the ones in previous editions. The 4e barbarian is a warrior who channels nature's fury (Rage) to vanquish his foes. He is not necessarily an illiterate savage on the fringes of civilization.

And finally, I cannot emphasize this more, the various D&D classes through all editions represent adventurers. They were not meant to represent everyday people who don't go out and fighter monsters and quest for fame and fortune. A character that doesn't go adventuring is basically an NPC. D&D assumes that the party is made up of adventurers.

WitchSlayer
2010-10-16, 04:24 AM
Flash Beagle, two comments: You can't grind in 4e, as there is no table for random encounters, unlike, say, 3e, so there will be no encounter that your DM will not specifically design for you to fight. Secondly. 4E Dark Sun? Pretty awesome and fairly deadly.

dsmiles
2010-10-16, 07:04 AM
Whereas I would argue that the solitary druid is far more in tune with his class than the ones that play politics, and meet every eclipse in the mushroom ring to bicker over whose sacred deer ate whose blessed flower.

I don't care who you are, this is FUNNY. (But I completely agree, don't get me wrong.)

@WitchSlayer: Is it as deadly as the original 2e, where you had a 'character tree' and started at 3rd level? Just curious, as I haven't played it yet.

Skaven
2010-10-16, 07:25 AM
In AD&D, Classes were not a metagame concept; they were very much a matter of fluff.

I was talking about level.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-16, 10:15 AM
Since 3.0 came out, my AD&D books have only ever come for for me to steal the stats for a converted AD&D module, or to reminese on some points for a few minutes. I have found 3.x to be such a completely better system for me that I've simply never looked back at all.

However, AD&D was never my primary system in the first place; that was Rolemaster until the advent of 3.x. AD&D had some good points (the flavour), but on the whole, I have found 3.x to be a mechanically better system in all regards, even including 3.x's many flaws. However, I had plenty of houserules to fix AD&D's flaws (including eliminating multiclass and dual class restrictions entirely (so any one could choose to multiclass or dual class any character classes), and removing level limitations. I balanced the race by stealing Rolemaster's background options, which basically amounted to getting a number of not-quite-feats; the weaker races (like humans) get more background options). I have lots more for 3.x, but that's mostly due lots of lists of stuff and the fact there's more rules to balance. (Even with all the AD&D Complete [Class] stuff, most of that wasn't rules mechanics like much of 3.x's supplements are.)

I also find 3.x much more conducive to homebrewing, which I do for preference. (And often to excess...!)

I have never not used minatures in my RPGs, so that was never an issue. (My first RPG was HeroQuest, then Rolemaster, the Warhammer; AD&D was, what the forth RPG I ever played.)

4E I'm not really fussed about either (ditto Pathfinder, though I'd prefer the latter to the former). They did have some nice ideas to nick for my own games, though (and 4E does mechanically achive the goal it set out to; it's just that it's goal and mine are very different.)

LibraryOgre
2010-10-16, 11:24 AM
I have a party :smallbiggrin:.

What makes you think he doesn't? He didn't get to 14th level by grinding orcs. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though, the level fights are kinda interesting, but can also be a pain. Since you're fighting against someone higher level, you have to be smarter, tougher, and wiser to win... and that assumes a duel to the death. After all, Druids have high charismas... they may debate for level.



Ps I tremble at what Dark Sun will be like for 4e...I'm sorry if that offends people but it really does scare me.:smalleek:


It's not that bad. While I haven't fiddled about with it mechanically, the 4e Dark Sun book is, in many ways, what the 3e FRCS is to Forgotten Realms players of all editions... a useful resource on the world as a whole, even if playing prior to the period set. You'll ignore half the book, but it's still useful if you're using other games or editions to play.

Damascus
2010-10-16, 11:32 AM
See, I've never been able to see this. Not trying to derail this into a "which is better", just curious to understand where this similarity is.

When I say that they're similar, I mostly refer to the flow of game-play. 3rd Ed. really screwed up, by making every character a power-character. In the group I played in, it went from everyone having a good time and enjoying the game-play, to a power-struggle to see who could make the most powerful character.

For example: I played in a campaign which ended in fighting a Terrasque (saw the mention of the monster above). Four level 8 characters killed the Terrasque.. or at least lowered it down to O, anyway. We didn't have Wish handy. How is it that FOUR level 8 characters can take it out? Simple: 3rd ed = power characters.

Another example is this: I rolled up a 10th level character, and simulated a 1-on-1 battle between him and an adult Red Dragon. My character won. 2nd Ed and/or 4th ed, he would have been smashed.

4th edition shies away from that. It goes back to gameplay and character -building- as opposed to a super-character with little option for RP and/or battle.

Hope that cleared it up. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2010-10-16, 11:37 AM
That doesn't really clear it up, though. AD&D wasn't about power characters either. E6 isn't about power characters. All sorts of games exist with a lower power curve than 3.5 allows. In fact, games within 3.5 can exist on many points with regard to power, depending on setting, character classes, etc.

Being less powerful than D&D 3.5 is a superficial similarity at best, and one shared by most game systems that are not Exalted.

Damascus
2010-10-16, 11:41 AM
That doesn't really clear it up, though. AD&D wasn't about power characters either.

That's exactly what I said. 2nd edition was an equal style of play; characters were killable, role-play was good. 3rd edition, they jacked all classes up so that every character was a super-character. 4th edition, they lowered them back down.

2nd and 4th ed are alike in the fact that the characters are balanced. They're not insanely tough to kill... one guy can't kill a dragon alone. It increases the value of the campaign itself.

Why run an adventure when the monsters pose no threat?

jmbrown
2010-10-16, 11:44 AM
Whereas I would argue that the solitary druid is far more in tune with his class than the ones that play politics, and meet every eclipse in the mushroom ring to bicker over whose sacred deer ate whose blessed flower.

But the latter IS a druid! Druids aren't a class of their own but a sub-class of clerics. You don't worship a god nor do you worship nature; you protect nature and the hierarchy is part of a druid's role much like any D&D religion has its own inter-church relations. This is how its been since druids appeared as a class in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry and then WotC in 3e said "Nah, druids are a class all of their own, they worship gods instead of being agnostic, they can be any neutral alignment, and they're members of whatever organization is related to the god they worship." It's this change in thinking that has people believing that a druid is some independent class that can have their own varying motivations and agendas. No, in AD&D if you were a druid you were always neutral, always a member of the organization, and always protected nature. Period.

I'm not arguing whether or not this was a good idea or whether or not people should just be allowed to play whatever they want, my point is that the advanced classes aren't a class of their own but a sub-class. When you play a paladin, you're part of a like-minded order and have to obey the tenants of that order. When you play an assassin, you have to follow all the rules of the guilds filled with other assassins who do the same. When you're a druid, you're automatically a member of the entire druidic organization. If you choose not to do these things, you were kicked out and lost the benefits of your sub-class to become the primary class (fighter, wizard, cleric, thief).

tl;dr version: Pre-3e, a druid is literally Cleric + Nature Magic.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-16, 11:46 AM
Going with the assumption that 2e was balanced...it certainly was not balanced anything like 4e is. Merely saying they are more balanced than 3.5 is not saying much. 3.5 has pun-pun.

It's a similarity that would also apply to say, 7th Sea. It's so broad as to encompass essentially everything.

Yora
2010-10-16, 12:01 PM
I don't know if anyone ever claimed that 2nd Ed. was balanced. More like it didn't really matter that much that it wasn't.

Gametime
2010-10-16, 12:07 PM
I have a party :smallbiggrin:.



I may be misremembering, but I believe you had to defeat the higher-ranked druid yourself or it didn't count.

jmbrown
2010-10-16, 12:12 PM
I may be misremembering, but I believe you had to defeat the higher-ranked druid yourself or it didn't count.

Yes, it had to be one-on-one but not necessarily combat. It was supposed to be any challenging physical competition. Even if it was a fight both druids could transform into animals so even if you were physically weaker you could just turn into a bear and let the dice decide.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-16, 12:23 PM
"Nah, druids are a class all of their own, they worship gods instead of being agnostic, they can be any neutral alignment, and they're members of whatever organization is related to the god they worship." It's this change in thinking that has people believing that a druid is some independent class that can have their own varying motivations and agendas. No, in AD&D if you were a druid you were always neutral, always a member of the organization, and always protected nature. Period.

No, that was FR, only in Faerun did Druids worship gods.

In 3.0/3.5, you worshipped nature. I don't know where you are getting your data, did you read 3.5 yet?

Psyren
2010-10-16, 01:04 PM
No, that was FR, only in Faerun did Druids worship gods.

In 3.0/3.5, you worshipped nature. I don't know where you are getting your data, did you read 3.5 yet?

And Faerun's faith system is pretty ridiculous anyhow.

"I think you gods are all asses. The evil ones are clearly jerks, and the good ones are either doing nothing about it or actively enabling them."
"You're probably right. Anyway, to the Wall with you!"

jmbrown
2010-10-16, 01:23 PM
No, that was FR, only in Faerun did Druids worship gods.

In 3.0/3.5, you worshipped nature. I don't know where you are getting your data, did you read 3.5 yet?

3.5 PHB

"She gains her magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity."

3e insinuates it can come from either or. AD&D druids received their spells from their devotion. AD&D druids are aloof and uncaring even of natural things. They wouldn't stop someone in the process of cutting down a tree but would instead punish them at a later date for doing so. They wouldn't care if a beholder moved in next door but scare away the adventurers who made a forest fire to try and smoke the beholder out. The druid would be hostile towards dwarves trying to chase off wyverns in the mountains because the wyverns are natural creatures and need to be protected.

The Complete Druid's Handbook is a really fascinating source for druids in AD&D and how absolutely alien they are when you play them correctly. Playing a real druid as written is stupidly difficult because being True Neutral (and no, not "neutral with good tendencies") is hard not to take sides.

Psyren
2010-10-16, 01:27 PM
3.5 PHB

"She gains her magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity."

3e insinuates it can come from either or.

The point is not that your druid CAN get powers from a nature god/dess, but that s/he isn't forced to.

(Except in Faerun, which is stupid as I mentioned before.)

Gelscressor
2010-10-16, 01:28 PM
I prefer neither.

I think, in general, 2e has better fluff, while 3e(3.5/PF even more so)has better crunch.

On that note, I'd also say that 2e has more fluff and 3e has more crunch. 2e has an amazing amount of books that were nearly all fluff(for instance, the various Planescape books that dealt with the planes). Or just look at how many settings 2e officially supported, compared to 3e. 3e on the other hand, has a near endless supply of new mechanics, new classes, new spells, etcetera. It's likely that the respective editions were simply focused differently.


So what do I do? I play 3e mechanics, but with 2e fluff. Best of both worlds, IMO.

Psyren
2010-10-16, 01:35 PM
So what do I do? I play 3e mechanics, but with 2e fluff. Best of both worlds, IMO.

What do you do when they clash? For instance, race/class restrictions in 2e are a combination of fluff and crunch.

jmbrown
2010-10-16, 01:48 PM
If I may quote some of my favorite aspects from the Complete Druids book:

Excerpt from the Adviser kit
"At the same time, the druid subtly manipulates his master to serve his own ends. For example, Elam might encourage his lord to hunt in a beautiful forest the druid wishes to protect. Why? Because Elam knows the lord is a jealous man. Once he sees the beautiful forest and its fine animals, the lord will pass a law making the forest a royal game preserve. As a result, the lord’s foresters will keep poachers away and prevent peasants from cutting the trees down. The ruler and his courtiers will hunt there only once or twice a year-not enough to threaten the animals seriously."

As for druids on nature deities, they can view them in one of different ways that the character decides on.

Nature is supreme to the gods (this is the default method for most druids)
Nature is the creator of gods
Nature as a god
Nature is everything (all deities are merely the force of nature that intelligent creatures name differently)
The gods are unnatural and therefor threaten nature (nature deities claim mastery over nature which is a very big no-no to druids)
Nature is equal and balanced with magic and entropy

On the true neutral alignment:
"Despite their neutral status, druids don’t resent being pulled into the struggle between alignments. Neutral individuals do not lack interest, ambition, or passion-they value their own well-being and that of friends and loved ones. They may struggle passionately on behalf of themselves and others, as well as feel a compassion blanketing everything that makes up the Nature they swear to protect. Never doubt that druids will act for their own
goals and the Order’s."

"Clearly, playing a druid true to alignment is no easy task. The character must consider carefully all the variables in a situation before acting. Remember that, when faced with a tough decision, a druid usually stands behind the solution that best serves Nature in the long run. So, [a druid] could have an equally valid reason to join a band of evil adventurers hunting a lawful good dragon as she has to join a good party hunting an evil dragon."

Druids in war

"And remember, [a druid] has no obligation to use ”honorable” tactics. If he has chosen to fight, it is because he believes his opponents have failed to compromise. A druid’s actions in war may range from jubtle tricks, like stealing some or all the local plow animals and war horses, to something direct but nonviolent, like shapechanging into a bird, sneaking into the offending lord’s bedchamber, and taking his first-born hostage for his good behavior."

On revenge

"Vengeful druids must consider this question carefully: Who is the intended object of revenge? For example, a druid may immediately target as foes trappers massacring winter wolf cubs for their fur. But, upon investigation, the druid discovers that the trappers are merely poor yeomen or peasants simply trying to earn money to support their families. The real enemies become the gentleman furriers who grow rich off the sale of the pelts, and the lords and ladies who demand winter wolf fur as this year’s high fashion. The druid should take revenge on these people. A character seeking vengeance will wait patiently and make careful plans. This behavior sometimes makes them seem coldblooded, but the druid has a long memory-a foe who appears too strong today may prove weaker tomorrow."

On monsters

"Druids usually stay on good or neutral terms with local monsters, opposing them only if they threaten the entire area or the druid personally. For instance, a beholder that uses a woodland cave as its sanctuary makes a fine neighbor for a druid; one that tries to enslave large numbers of sylvan folk to conquer a nearby elven kingdom means trouble and should be eliminated before it engulfs the forest in a devastating war. In general, the druid will act more favorably to creatures that “belong” in an area. A green dragon, a native of woodlands just as much as an elf or bear, finds it only natural to prey on elves and men. A druid has no argument with this tendency. After all, the humans and elves can always send a knight to slay the dragon."

Yep. Really good book IMO. 2e had the best "Complete" books.

wumpus
2010-10-16, 01:52 PM
One thing I'd like to point out is that as an old 1e AD&D hand, I can't stand the idea of "builds". First, it is obvious metagaming. Past that, I've had trouble understanding just what is wrong with it. Later it hit me.

3.x turns heros into consumers. This makes plenty of sense, if WOTC wants the customers to buy the splatbooks, they need to get the players to want the characters to buy the magic items/spells/feats/class levels. This opens a wide world of opportunity to make the character your own. While 2e did a lot to fix this problem in 1e, it doesn't come close to 3.x. I remember ranting [on a BBS no less] about this specific flaw in 1e AD&D way, way, back in the day (16/8/10/14/14/10 4th level human fighter, 32 hp, AC 0 +2 plate mail, +1 shield, +2 sword: This is more than enough to play an AD&D character. You might find it a bit limited.)

What is lost is that a hero isn't known for what items are draped over him like a Christmas tree, a hero is known for his deeds. A sufficiently whimsical player could easily create a name and title for his character longer than what was used for sample players given in plenty of 1e adventures (typically these were used in tournament play when the module was introduced). I feel that having a huge character sheet that has to be maintained (either to fit the right level of optimization or to hold true to a character concept) using rules across way too many books is going to get in the way of defining a character by something like "I seek the Holy Grail."

The mechanics of 3.x is by far superior to anything previously made by TSR. This is almost impossible to argue (although maybe some 2e people can try, my experience with that game is limited to Baldur's Gate: it felt like home to a 1e type). I would claim that much of the reason balance exists in AD&D is that DMs know it is supposed to be there and won't allow it to get unbalanced. The whole concept of RAW didn't exist in 1e and I doubt it occured to anyone in 2e. As far I can tell, Gary Gygax edited the DMG by writing about 500 pages of "cool stuff" and then cramming as much cool stuff into however many pages his publisher would let him get away with. When they all agreed it fit, it shipped. Readability suffered, finding the exact rule is almost impossible unless you know it (and where it is located) off the top of your head. There are rules for sixguns and sorcery. There are rules for rolling to see if you came down with a disease this month (so much for the traditional city sewer crawl). If you think that killing the Archdruid and taking his place was bad, try leveling a monk: after level 9 you have to defeat another monk and take his place every level My favorite ignored rule is that you need a set amount of time and money for training after each level. According to the rules, this means you will acquire several times the (already much higher than 3.x) amount of xp (thieves really get hit) to level the first time, and it scales a bit better later. In the forward Gary Gygax even tells the DM flat out that he will be building his own set of rules (though he cautions against changing much) try seeing if any 3.x trained DM would really believe that is required to DM D&D.

If I was going to start a D&D campaign tomorrow, I'd probably download the SRD into a word processor and select and delete everything that wasn't in 2e. I would then slowly add back as much cool things as I could without weighing down the game with metagaming. Any feat that included the words "[cool thing] can't be done without this feat" would be the first to go. Anything that implied options didn't exist unless a specific rule was applied would go. This might mean that many things would wind up getting "plot armor" (ranged sunder works really well on the noose of someone the party needs to save, somewhat well on chandeliers that mooks are standing under, and not at all against BEEG). I wouldn't care if RAW no longer worked (anyone complaining would be invited to face Pun-Pun "he's legal by RAW...") and I had to rebalance on the fly.

The books Gary Gygax wrote showed you how to make a world and let heroes adventure in it. Later books showed you how to run a mechanically superior game, but the spirit of the game suffered. Think of how "fluff vs. crunch" is treated in reviews and discussions, and why you are sitting around the table anyway.

Gelscressor
2010-10-16, 01:54 PM
What do you do when they clash? For instance, race/class restrictions in 2e are a combination of fluff and crunch.

That really depends on the subject in question. In this particular example though, it's 3e and beyond; as I very much like versatility and rarely see the need to impose race or alignment restrictions for most classes. I'd, for instance, would have no issues with a Lawful Neutral Inevitable Paladin.

But on the other hand, if I'd be running an FR campaign; it would take place before the Time of Troubles. As a result, the Strifeleader PrC would be banned simply because Cyric isn't a deity. Likewise, if I'd run a Planescape game, it would be pre-Faction War and thus, PrC's that are tied to Factions that don't exist; would not be allowed either(at least, not without a rewrite).

jmbrown
2010-10-16, 01:57 PM
I also second Castles & Crusades as good middle ground. It's a shame the game suffers from a poor release schedule but the core material is solid.

LibraryOgre
2010-10-16, 02:08 PM
I also second Castles & Crusades as good middle ground. It's a shame the game suffers from a poor release schedule but the core material is solid.

Who needs a release schedule when you have backlog of modules you want to run? :smallwink:

"Hey, we haven't done the slavers trilogy yet! The end will be a cakewalk, because you level up differently in this game!"

Kurald Galain
2010-10-16, 02:19 PM
I don't know if anyone ever claimed that 2nd Ed. was balanced. More like it didn't really matter that much that it wasn't.

This, really. To my knowledge, 3E and 4E D&D are the only non-computer-based roleplaying games that believe balance is a big deal in a cooperative storytelling game.

Matthew
2010-10-16, 03:44 PM
This, really. To my knowledge, 3E and 4E D&D are the only non-computer-based roleplaying games that believe balance is a big deal in a cooperative storytelling game.

I would tend to agree. OD&D and AD&D do talk about balance and play testing and so on, but they do not seem to mean the same thing as what we have come to think of as balance in the last ten or twenty years, which is everybody contributing more or less equally to the success of the party in more or less every encounter.

hamlet
2010-10-18, 10:05 AM
I would tend to agree. OD&D and AD&D do talk about balance and play testing and so on, but they do not seem to mean the same thing as what we have come to think of as balance in the last ten or twenty years, which is everybody contributing more or less equally to the success of the party in more or less every encounter.

Well, I agree with you, but will quibble that if you define it thus, you have to recognize that a problem is that WOTC (and a lot of players) have identified "contributing more or less equally to the sucess of the party in more or less every encounter" as "if the wizard isn't casting a spell, he isn't being a wizard."

It's one thing that I'll never really understand. Why isn't the wizard holding up a light source so the humans can see, dragging woundedback from the front line, or chucking flaming oil contributing equally as the fighter smashing his foe in the face and a thief backstabbing from the darkness?

It's really just a matter of differing play style, and one that has led to a significant number of edition conflicts over the years.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-18, 10:16 AM
Well, I agree with you, but will quibble that if you define it thus, you have to recognize that a problem is that WOTC (and a lot of players) have identified "contributing more or less equally to the sucess of the party in more or less every encounter" as "if the wizard isn't casting a spell, he isn't being a wizard."

That's a very good point. And, "if the rogue isn't sneak attacking, he isn't being a rogue". The notion that rogues should be a highly damaging frontline combatant is new in 3E and absent in 1E/2E.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-18, 10:27 AM
I would tend to agree. OD&D and AD&D do talk about balance and play testing and so on, but they do not seem to mean the same thing as what we have come to think of as balance in the last ten or twenty years, which is everybody contributing more or less equally to the success of the party in more or less every encounter.
I disagree - this continues to be what balance means, even in the degenerate world of modern RPGs :smalltongue:
The trick is that in AD&D, "balance" was mainly a DM perogative because there were precious few rules to balance with. Out of the box, the rules that governed classes did not grant a lot of intrinsic power - they were either situational (e.g. backstabbing), inherently dependent on DM Fiat (e.g. spell researching/discovery) or loaded with powerful drawbacks (e.g. spellcasting). As written, AD&D (and TSR D&D generally) assumed that the DM would balance the rules and wrote them such that they weren't really intelligible without a DM to interpret what they would mean in a particular game. By using these tools, the DM was supposed to create a rules system that allowed everyone to contribute equally.

In WotC D&D, the rules are written to be the master; the DM is supposed to focus on running adventures, not constructing a "balanced" ruleset. The rules now constitute a full game; as a result, the rules must be written to provide "balance" between the classes. Rather than having the DM determine how hard it is to gain new spells, or how useful diplomacy or trap-finding is supposed to be, the rules tell the Players (and, to an extent, the DM) what it means to play a game of D&D.
tl;dr
In TSR D&D the rules system was designed with the idea that a DM would ensure that everyone contributed equally; most "class powers" were written with the idea that the DM would determine how they would actually work. As a result, Players had no idea what their classes' abilities meant without consulting their DM.

In WotC D&D the rules system was designed to function on its own; anyone could read over the Core Rules and know what playing a game of D&D meant. However, this approach meant that the designers needed to write rules as though they were the DM for every game; they needed to make sure the rules allowed every character could contribute equally.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-18, 10:43 AM
Players had no idea what their classes' abilities meant without consulting their DM.

Whuh?

This fails Occam's Razor big time. A far simpler explanation would be that most players and DMs did not consider it a big deal if something was not completely balanced.

If anything, this mentality appeals more to me than the notion that it's a crippling drawback to miss even one little +1 on your character's to-hit roll.

hamlet
2010-10-18, 10:45 AM
That's a very good point. And, "if the rogue isn't sneak attacking, he isn't being a rogue". The notion that rogues should be a highly damaging frontline combatant is new in 3E and absent in 1E/2E.

It's slightly more nuanced than that.

In BECMI/0eD&D/AD&D1e, "rougues" were very specifically thieves, i.e., people who took the property of others illicitly.

By AD&D2e, with the advent of the ability to apply percentage points to thief abilities as the player wanted allowing a character to specialize, we started to recognize that not all thieves were, in fact, "thieves" and some of them would end up being scouts, security experts, frontline fighters, etc. Still, thieves worked best, as a class, when they operated within certain parameters which generally molded them as the aformentioned takers of other people's things.

And we know what happened after that.

I think one of the things that WOTC did that bothered a lot of people the most was not changing how the rules worked. After all, we'd been doing that pretty much since we got the little brown books. Instead, it was that they redefined things so that they could fix "problems" that just werent' problems before. Wizards were "too weak" at low levels, and so WOTC gave them a huge boost (riduclously huge IMO) to "fix" this. Ok, so now wizards are bigger and better, but that had the unintended consequence of turning fighters into a joke class that pretty much NOBODY will use except as a stepping stone to something else.

WOTC, in essence, defined the way they (WOTC) played as the way we all played, and set about making the rules fit that mind set. Wizards should be throwing spells around all the time. Thieves should be stabbing people in the back from the shadows. Druids and clerics should be incredible engines of divine/natural destruction. Everybody should be able to have at least this much by the time they hit level 3 or 4 or whatever.

Whether you liked it or not, WOTC redefined a lot of the underlying assumptions of the game, and a great many people either gnashed their teeth or rejoiced, depending on where they sat.

AllisterH
2010-10-18, 10:52 AM
1e/2e are supposed to be balanced over the length of a CAMPAIGN.

The belief was that you had a large cast of characters constantly moving in and out of the campaign and that players would be constantly rolling up new characters so you wouldn't get tuck with a bad character.

(Keep in mind, in Gygax's own personal home campaign, many of the players would play their magic using characters AND would be playing their henchme. Furtherore, I distinctly remember Gygax mentioning that in hiw own home campaign, nobody actually named/had a backstory for their characters)

The last point is an interesting point I've found different in WOTC D&D and TSR AD&D. If you read both the 3e and 4e PHB, there's a big emphasis on constructing your character...stuff like "why are they adventuring/their family etc"

In AD&D, given the lethality of the system, it didn't make much sense constructing an elaborate backstory for a 1st level character...You MADE your story as you adventured.

dsmiles
2010-10-18, 10:55 AM
If anything, this mentality appeals more to me than the notion that it's a crippling drawback to miss even one little +1 on your character's to-hit roll.

+1 to this. (Get it, +1? :smallbiggrin: HAHAHAhaahheheh...awwww you guys are no fun. :smallsigh:)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-18, 11:00 AM
Whuh?

This fails Occam's Razor big time. A far simpler explanation would be that most players and DMs did not consider it a big deal if something was not completely balanced.

If anything, this mentality appeals more to me than the notion that it's a crippling drawback to miss even one little +1 on your character's to-hit roll.
No no, you see this sort of thing all the time in older RPGs.

Consider oWoD.
In general, the "special abilities" of the various supernaturals were so loosely defined that a Player couldn't know how they could be used without asking the ST. As an example, oWoD Mage's most powerful mechanic - Ritual Magic - wasn't a mechanic at all: the rules told you a little of what it did (i.e. allowed for extended rolls on magic) but not how it worked (e.g. how long it took, what effects it could or could not be used on). Before a Player used a Ritual he would have to ask the ST "can I do this?" instead of reading the rules and figuring it out for himself. This was a deliberate choice by WW: the true power of a Ritual was explictly in the hands of the ST to decide - what worked in one game was in no way implied to work the same way in another.

Importantly, this was all true without the concept of "house rules" or "homebrewing" as wel understand them today; the ST defining how Rituals worked in a given game of oWoD Mage was part of the game not an optional choice by a given ST.
In AD&D you saw this more in the availability of magic items, the ease of acquiring new spells, and even the effectiveness of any given class in a game. An AD&D Thief's "Listen" ability was only important if the DM normally made it hard for people to hear things - there were no rules governing how easy or hard it was to hear things. Likewise, find/disable traps was only useful if the DM decided to make traps hard to find or disable normally - there were no rules for non-thieves finding or disabling traps by other means.

Also: DMs & Players always cared about "balance" in the way we've defined it in this thread - that everyone can contribute equally to the success of the party. Few people are happy in games where their character does little to contribute to the success of the party; it's boring to see your abilities go unused and demoralizing to feel "useless" while everyone else is doing things.

The fact that this "balancing" is done by RAW instead of DM Fiat is a change in form only, not a new concept brought on by degenerates :smalltongue:

hamlet
2010-10-18, 12:25 PM
Actually, OH, comparing to oWOD is probably not a good idea since back in the day White Wolf advertised themselves specifically as an "antidote" to D&D type gaming.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-18, 12:33 PM
Actually, OH, comparing to oWOD is probably not a good idea since back in the day White Wolf advertised themselves specifically as an "antidote" to D&D type gaming.
I'm aware, but the two systems shared some traits - DM Balancing over Rules Balancing being one of them.

Don't believe ad copy kid, it'll lie to you :smallwink:

Ashiel
2010-10-18, 01:18 PM
I've tried playing 2E outside of computer games like Baldur's Gate I & II, and honestly I can't say much about it that I really liked. So I'll begin with what I did like.

Fighters were useful because enemy HP was really low, and fighters got all their attacks in without requiring a special action, and with their highest BAB (a pair of minor house-rules later and I got pretty much the same thing in d20).

So about 2 things.

The stuff I didn't like.

Imbalanced character generation and classes. Characters who roll particularly high are not only innately better than someone playing the same class who rolled lower, but they gain bonus XP just 'cause.
Connected with the above, you also get the option to play better classes. Without going into splat books, there is nothing that Fighters get that Paladins and Rangers don't, so Paladin and Rangers who have everything the Fighter does plus spells and cool tricks can also have a higher ability score and get bonus XP to offset their XP differences.
Ability scores are nonsensical. The difference between a 16 and 17 is massive, and means something completely different in each ability score. It lacks internal consistency before you get out of ability scores.
Lack of skills. Nonweapon proficiencies were unimpressive to me, and far too limited to make any interesting or believable characters.
Nonsensical multi/dual-classing. Multiclassing was kind of odd, but dual classing was the worst. While it had potential, it actively requires you to metagame. "Oh sorry Dave, you attacked with your sword to save your companion." - "So what?" - "Well it seems your wizard level is still below your fighter level, so you get no XP this session for acting like a fighter instead of a wizard."
"Must be this tall to ride" monsters. People always chime about how "magic weapons can be rare and that's fine", but quite a lot of enemies (especially with undead, golems, magical beasties) weren't merely resistant but outright immune to them. It didn't really matter if you were getting hit by the fist of an angry god (Str 25), it didn't mean jack if you needed a +1 weapon (however monsters often could avoid needing magic weapons by having enough hit dice).
Fewer options. Much like my distaste with 4E, you need a crapload of splatbooks and kits to have any options (whereas I can create an amazingly large variety of characters using multiclassing without ever going outside the material found on the PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/), instead of having to need a kit for everything.
Nonsensical magic items. According to the books you need stuff like Kraken ink to make a 1st level scroll, so obviously there would be no first level scrolls ('cause you also need the same ink for a 9th level scroll). This would be a great example of Gygaxian Naturalism done wrong. In many cases one must wonder why people bother. This does not help with the "must be this tall to ride monsters".
Over emphasis on minor details, and difficulty separating mechanics from fluff. As long as you have a spell pouch in later editions you were assumed to have your bee's wax, magic powders, ash, dried bat poo, sulfer, etc. It actually has no effect on the spell outside of flavor, so if you didn't like fireball using bat-poo and sulfer you could easily change it to a pair of red and white marbles and oil. In 2E, you have to keep track of how many red & white marbles you have, and oil, and then you have to deal with the fact that your GM might not let you do that 'cause bat-poop and sulfur are harder to find than lamp oil and marbles.


Oh, one other thing. I did like how missile based weapons were really strong in 2E (weapon spec + extra attacks + low enemy Hp), but considering an archery based fighter in Pathfinder can bring enemies to ruin, I'm cool now too. :smallsmile:

Starbuck_II
2010-10-18, 01:24 PM
Without going into splat books, there is nothing that Fighters get that Paladins and Rangers don't, so Paladin and Rangers who have everything the Fighter does plus spells and cool tricks can also have a higher ability score and get bonus XP to offset their XP differences.


Fighters could Grand Mastery Specialize unlike Pally/Ranger, but that is it I think.

hamlet
2010-10-18, 01:38 PM
I'm aware, but the two systems shared some traits - DM Balancing over Rules Balancing being one of them.

Don't believe ad copy kid, it'll lie to you :smallwink:

Yes, you're right about that. However, I just felt that it was important to point out that WW put out oWOD specifically as a "different sort" of game.

And who are you calling "kid"? Ain't been called that in a long while. Heck, my sister calles me an old man most days.

hamlet
2010-10-18, 01:56 PM
The stuff I didn't like.
[LIST]
Imbalanced character generation and classes. Characters who roll particularly high are not only innately better than someone playing the same class who rolled lower, but they gain bonus XP just 'cause.


I, personally, do not like the 10% bonus to XP for high ability scores, but I do understand why they're there. Most of the time, a higher ability score in your prime requisite does, indeed, mean you can "do your job better" than without. The below mentioned difference between a 16 and 17 strength for example. Or the difference between a 17 and 18 INT.



Connected with the above, you also get the option to play better classes. Without going into splat books, there is nothing that Fighters get that Paladins and Rangers don't, so Paladin and Rangers who have everything the Fighter does plus spells and cool tricks can also have a higher ability score and get bonus XP to offset their XP differences.

Incorrect. Fighters can specialize in weapons (according to core) while Rangers and Paladins cannot. Also, fighters are not bound by alignment/ethical restrictions while Rangers and Paladins are. Also also, Fighters are easier to qualify for, while qualifying for a Paladin or Ranger is cause for minor celebration.



Ability scores are nonsensical. The difference between a 16 and 17 is massive, and means something completely different in each ability score. It lacks internal consistency before you get out of ability scores.


That's due to the nature of ability scores in AD&D. By D20, it was assumed that each step was a fine gradation from the others. That is not the case in AD&D. Instead, a STR 16 was considered to be very strong on par with world class weight lifters. A STR 17 (and thence onto 18) was considered the stuff of legends and heroes. These are the guys that compete in "World's Strongest Man" competitions.




Lack of skills. Nonweapon proficiencies were unimpressive to me, and far too limited to make any interesting or believable characters.

Meh. Personally, I like non-weapon proficiencies and disliked when they started hedging into a skill system. It just wasn't appropriate.



Nonsensical multi/dual-classing. Multiclassing was kind of odd, but dual classing was the worst. While it had potential, it actively requires you to metagame. "Oh sorry Dave, you attacked with your sword to save your companion." - "So what?" - "Well it seems your wizard level is still below your fighter level, so you get no XP this session for acting like a fighter instead of a wizard."

Not nonsensicle, just based on an understanding that predated today's job a minute culture. In a medieval type world (which AD&D was for the most part), you pretty much were what you did. Changing jobs was not simply a matter of running out and starting something new. It was a massive undertaking and practically an exercise in self-redefinition. I like the dual class rules.



"Must be this tall to ride" monsters. People always chime about how "magic weapons can be rare and that's fine", but quite a lot of enemies (especially with undead, golems, magical beasties) weren't merely resistant but outright immune to them. It didn't really matter if you were getting hit by the fist of an angry god (Str 25), it didn't mean jack if you needed a +1 weapon (however monsters often could avoid needing magic weapons by having enough hit dice).

Really, the number of "needs magic weapon to hit" monsters is significantly far less than you're implying. Plus, very easy to work out a house rule where high strength/high level characters can get around it.




Fewer options. Much like my distaste with 4E, you need a crapload of splatbooks and kits to have any options (whereas I can create an amazingly large variety of characters using multiclassing without ever going outside the material found on the PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/), instead of having to need a kit for everything.

I loathe "options." No, I really do. Seems to me to be so much wasted min-maxing cherry picking misaimed focus. No sir, I don't like it.

But that's just a matter of taste.



Nonsensical magic items. According to the books you need stuff like Kraken ink to make a 1st level scroll, so obviously there would be no first level scrolls ('cause you also need the same ink for a 9th level scroll). This would be a great example of Gygaxian Naturalism done wrong. In many cases one must wonder why people bother. This does not help with the "must be this tall to ride monsters".

Or, it could be an example of a rule designed to focus players on what they "should" be doing rather than on stockpiling scrolls and magic items of their own manufacture. Namely, adventuring.




Over emphasis on minor details, and difficulty separating mechanics from fluff. As long as you have a spell pouch in later editions you were assumed to have your bee's wax, magic powders, ash, dried bat poo, sulfer, etc. It actually has no effect on the spell outside of flavor, so if you didn't like fireball using bat-poo and sulfer you could easily change it to a pair of red and white marbles and oil. In 2E, you have to keep track of how many red & white marbles you have, and oil, and then you have to deal with the fact that your GM might not let you do that 'cause bat-poop and sulfur are harder to find than lamp oil and marbles.


Actually, spell components were listed as optional. You can tell because of the font size 72 "OPTIONAL" printed right there in the book. You didn't have to use them if you didn't want to.

Plus, the book advises DM's not to track individual components as you describe above, but to assume that for most spells, merely having a spell component pouch on hand and having time in between adventures to fill it was satisfactory. It was only for spells requiring big items that you were encouraged to keep track, like 100GP pearls for the Identify spell.

For the most part, spell components were listed in the spells as a matter of flavor.




Oh, one other thing. I did like how missile based weapons were really strong in 2E (weapon spec + extra attacks + low enemy Hp), but considering an archery based fighter in Pathfinder can bring enemies to ruin, I'm cool now too. :smallsmile:

You obviously never read the "firing into melee" rules.

AllisterH
2010-10-18, 02:04 PM
The stuff I didn't like.
Nonsensical magic items. According to the books you need stuff like Kraken ink to make a 1st level scroll, so obviously there would be no first level scrolls ('cause you also need the same ink for a 9th level scroll). This would be a great example of Gygaxian Naturalism done wrong. In many cases one must wonder why people bother. This does not help with the "must be this tall to ride monsters".

:

Um..no.

The 3e magic item rules are completely borked up and the reason why MU became gods whereas they were not in AD&D.

Spells in AD&D were designed on a RARITY principle meaning they could be powerful especially the non-combat ones but the cost was that the players wouldn't be using more than a couple of spells per adventure.

Gygax explictly mentions in the 1e DMG to ve very careful about handing out magic spells as they would have far ranging effects. The 3e designers (and PF for that matter) seem to have ignored Gygax's warnings/advice.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-18, 02:12 PM
To be pedantic, the magic weapon "must be this tall to ride" somewhat continued into 3e, given that 3.0 had DR/+x.

I feel that the transition away from that was good, but 3e wasn't entirely free of it.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-18, 02:14 PM
You know seeing as all these Wizards need Kraken blood: shops should sell it.
Supply/Demand requires it.
It is a market niche that decent population (any arcane/divine magic user) needs to scribe these scrolls,

hamlet
2010-10-18, 02:16 PM
You know seeing as all these Wizards need Kraken blood: shops should sell it.
Supply/Demand requires it.
It is a market niche that decent population (any arcane/divine magic user) needs to scribe these scrolls,

Only if there were enough demand to justify the risks inherent in the collection of said blood.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-18, 02:18 PM
Only if there were enough demand to justify the risks inherent in the collection of said blood.
And if there were enough Wizards around interested in spending XP like water to produce those scrolls.

That was always the problem with AD&D Magic Item Creation rules - who is blowing all this XP (or CON!) to enchant low-powered magic items? What Wizard would spend an unrecoverable point of CON to make a Sword +1? :smallconfused:

Starbuck_II
2010-10-18, 02:19 PM
And if there were enough Wizards around interested in spending XP like water to produce those scrolls.

That was always the problem with AD&D Magic Item Creation rules - who is blowing all this XP (or CON!) to enchant low-powered magic items? What Wizard would spend an unrecoverable point of CON to make a Sword +1? :smallconfused:

Scrolls don't cost XP in 2E: they grant XP.

Only permanent Items have a 5% chance of 1 con loss. Charged items (scroll, wand, staff) have no cost.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-18, 02:23 PM
Scrolls don't cost XP in 2E: they grant XP.

Only permanent Items have a 5% chance of 1 con loss. Charged items (scroll, wand, staff) have no cost.
...why did I think Scroll cost XP? It has been a long time since I looked over the AD&D DMG, I guess :smallredface:

hamlet
2010-10-18, 02:26 PM
...why did I think Scroll cost XP? It has been a long time since I looked over the AD&D DMG, I guess :smallredface:

Because it's become so ingrained in today's gamers that it's hard to remember previous editions except in jingoism?

Yes, much the same, but reversed can be said about the grognards, but still, the interwebs have not really been overly kind to gamer comraderie.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-18, 02:31 PM
Because it's become so ingrained in today's gamers that it's hard to remember previous editions except in jingoism?

Yes, much the same, but reversed can be said about the grognards, but still, the interwebs have not really been overly kind to gamer comraderie.
To be fair, I never had anyone use Magic Item Creation rules in my AD&D games. We rarely had wizards or clerics, and they were usually "on the road" style games where nobody stayed in one place long enough to get all the pieces together needed for making magic items.

Oh, and people had to roll up new characters a lot :smalltongue:

hamlet
2010-10-18, 02:34 PM
To be fair, I never had anyone use Magic Item Creation rules in my AD&D games. We rarely had wizards or clerics, and they were usually "on the road" style games where nobody stayed in one place long enough to get all the pieces together needed for making magic items.

Oh, and people had to roll up new characters a lot :smalltongue:

Well, you weren't really supposed to be creating magic items as a PC. It was a rule put in to prevent players from sidlining a character for a while and having him stock up on staves of magi etc. and breaking the game.

Plus, they were there as a way of inspring adventure ideas when a powerful wizard did ask you to help out.

Plus, for the most part, games tended not to last that long anyway. Been playing the same campaign now for 7 years and we only now just got a character up to level 8. So yeah.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-18, 02:39 PM
Plus, for the most part, games tended not to last that long anyway. Been playing the same campaign now for 7 yearsSeven years not long enough for you?

We tend to go one level per 4-6 weeks, regardless of edition.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-18, 02:39 PM
To be fair, I never had anyone use Magic Item Creation rules in my AD&D games. We rarely had wizards or clerics, and they were usually "on the road" style games where nobody stayed in one place long enough to get all the pieces together needed for making magic items.

Oh, and people had to roll up new characters a lot :smalltongue:

DMs usually did that because creating all those magic items might over load you with XP.
New treasure = extra XP was reason "Monty Haul" concept was disliked.

AllisterH
2010-10-18, 02:51 PM
Wizards could only create potions and scrolls at level 9, other magical items at level 11.

As well, for magical items that resembled spells like potions and scrolls, you needed to be able to have the ability to cast said spell.

Priests could create scrolls at 7th, potions at 9th and ther magical items at 11th but these were even more of a restricted list...Basically only items that dealt with healing/curing illness/controlling/raising undead

Given that most games ended around levels 11-13..it's not surprising most people didn't create magical items...

Ashiel
2010-10-18, 02:57 PM
Incorrect. Fighters can specialize in weapons (according to core) while Rangers and Paladins cannot. Also, fighters are not bound by alignment/ethical restrictions while Rangers and Paladins are. Also also, Fighters are easier to qualify for, while qualifying for a Paladin or Ranger is cause for minor celebration.

I've got the PHB right here in the room with me, and in core, Fighters, Rangers, AND Paladins can specialize (two points in a weapon). Specializing further (AKA - Mastery/Grandmastery) isn't part of basic 2E and most people I've ever tried playing with didn't even know about it.


That's due to the nature of ability scores in AD&D. By D20, it was assumed that each step was a fine gradation from the others. That is not the case in AD&D. Instead, a STR 16 was considered to be very strong on par with world class weight lifters. A STR 17 (and thence onto 18) was considered the stuff of legends and heroes. These are the guys that compete in "World's Strongest Man" competitions.

Doesn't change the fact that there's a lot of difference between a 16 and a 17 that's not covered, or that every ability score functions wildly differently in terms of mechanics.


Meh. Personally, I like non-weapon proficiencies and disliked when they started hedging into a skill system. It just wasn't appropriate.

I'm not sure what appropriate means in this case. I cannot really make sense of the idea that having options, or more specifically non-combat options, is a bad thing. It gives a richer more varied RPG. It's like Deadlands without any options other than firing your pistol.


Not nonsensicle, just based on an understanding that predated today's job a minute culture. In a medieval type world (which AD&D was for the most part), you pretty much were what you did. Changing jobs was not simply a matter of running out and starting something new. It was a massive undertaking and practically an exercise in self-redefinition. I like the dual class rules.

Considering I think biblical times probably would qualify as "predates today's job a minute culture", I would note that the bible is full of stories of shepherds becoming warriors, princes becoming wizards/priests, and so forth, I disagree fervently. Likewise, films like Kingdom of Heaven depict heroes that have no combat experience or the like, working as blacksmiths who go on to become crusaders, nobles, and so forth. Anyone with half a brain can tell that if you pick up something and start working with it you can learn to do it. I grew up in modern times, learning modern things, and because I was fascinated with Blacksmithing and Swordplay, so I've learned some of each.

Dual-class rules require you to metagame, which is made of failure. Acting like a real character or person means you will never gain XP again as per the rules, which ends the game for you.


Really, the number of "needs magic weapon to hit" monsters is significantly far less than you're implying. Plus, very easy to work out a house rule where high strength/high level characters can get around it.

I dunno. I ran into enough of 'em.


I loathe "options." No, I really do. Seems to me to be so much wasted min-maxing cherry picking misaimed focus. No sir, I don't like it.

But that's just a matter of taste.
Indeed. That explains why you like 2E then. See, I'm kind of the opposite. I like being able to make characters that are different. I like the fact that Conaan is different from William Wallace. I like the fact I don't need a new kit for everything, when writing up a new feat or two will do.


Or, it could be an example of a rule designed to focus players on what they "should" be doing rather than on stockpiling scrolls and magic items of their own manufacture. Namely, adventuring.

Where do all those things come from? A wizard? But I'm playing a wizard and I haven't made any yet. Why haven't I made some 1st level scrolls? Oh wait, 'cause there's no realistic way of making a 1st level scroll. Yeah...so why am I finding 1st level scrolls in treasure amongst the goblins and worgs?

You're also blatantly wrong. Wizards and such in 3E aren't amazingly powerful due to not having access to magic items. In fact, they dominate low-magic campaigns simply because they don't need magic items as much as other characters.

You seem to think that adventurers should be little more than a few numbers on a piece of paper on their next romp to the next goblin raid to get the treasure that doesn't make sense being there. Difference in play-style, I guess.


Actually, spell components were listed as optional. You can tell because of the font size 72 "OPTIONAL" printed right there in the book. You didn't have to use them if you didn't want to.

Plus, the book advises DM's not to track individual components as you describe above, but to assume that for most spells, merely having a spell component pouch on hand and having time in between adventures to fill it was satisfactory. It was only for spells requiring big items that you were encouraged to keep track, like 100GP pearls for the Identify spell.

For the most part, spell components were listed in the spells as a matter of flavor.

Fair enough.


You obviously never read the "firing into melee" rules.
I'm confused. You mean the -4 penalty to hit when firing into melee, which is negated with Precise Shot? Yeah, I've read it plenty of times. It's kind of a nuisance to wizards trying to throw scorching rays sometimes, but for anyone who wants to specialize in archery (especially a fighter) it's amazingly easy to overcome. A 1st level fighter of any race can do so. A human that isn't a fighter can do so at the same level.

AllisterH
2010-10-18, 03:18 PM
I've got the PHB right here in the room with me, and in core, Fighters, Rangers, AND Paladins can specialize (two points in a weapon). Specializing further (AKA - Mastery/Grandmastery) isn't part of basic 2E and most people I've ever tried playing with didn't even know about it..


This isn't correct.

Pg. 73 of the black cover 2e PHB
"Weapon specialization is an optional rule that enables a fighter (only) to choose a single weapon and specialize in its use.

[/QUOTE]

Matthew
2010-10-18, 03:19 PM
I disagree - this continues to be what balance means, even in the degenerate world of modern RPGs :smalltongue:

The trick is that in AD&D, "balance" was mainly a DM perogative because there were precious few rules to balance with. Out of the box, the rules that governed classes did not grant a lot of intrinsic power - they were either situational (e.g. backstabbing), inherently dependent on DM Fiat (e.g. spell researching/discovery) or loaded with powerful drawbacks (e.g. spellcasting). As written, AD&D (and TSR D&D generally) assumed that the DM would balance the rules and wrote them such that they weren't really intelligible without a DM to interpret what they would mean in a particular game. By using these tools, the DM was supposed to create a rules system that allowed everyone to contribute equally.

In WotC D&D, the rules are written to be the master; the DM is supposed to focus on running adventures, not constructing a "balanced" ruleset. The rules now constitute a full game; as a result, the rules must be written to provide "balance" between the classes. Rather than having the DM determine how hard it is to gain new spells, or how useful diplomacy or trap-finding is supposed to be, the rules tell the Players (and, to an extent, the DM) what it means to play a game of D&D.


tl;dr
In TSR D&D the rules system was designed with the idea that a DM would ensure that everyone contributed equally; most "class powers" were written with the idea that the DM would determine how they would actually work. As a result, Players had no idea what their classes' abilities meant without consulting their DM.

In WotC D&D the rules system was designed to function on its own; anyone could read over the Core Rules and know what playing a game of D&D meant. However, this approach meant that the designers needed to write rules as though they were the DM for every game; they needed to make sure the rules allowed every character could contribute equally.

I think the distinction that I am drawing is that whereas TSR D&D imagines that everybody will contribute equally on average over the course of a campaign, WotC D&D idealises it as happening on a much smaller scale, which is to say per encounter.



That was always the problem with AD&D Magic Item Creation rules - who is blowing all this XP (or CON!) to enchant low-powered magic items? What Wizard would spend an unrecoverable point of CON to make a Sword +1? :smallconfused:

There is some sort of disconnect between the spell casting way to make magic items and how most magical items are created. In particular, there are some comments regarding level and class limited races, like dwarves, not requiring all of the procedures necessary for a player character spell caster. It is also worth noting that AD&D Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms specifically take place in a kind of "recovering magical dark age" preceded by extremely powerful magical empires that apparently had a lot easier time making magical objects. This sort of post-apocalyptic scenario also underscores most of the conception behind exploring ruins, seeking out lost treasures, and so on. I suspect that goes a long way towards explaining why there is so much magical do-hickory around, but it is so difficult and hazardous to create new ones.

As a side note, bear in mind that there was only a small risk of constitution loss when using permanency for magical item creation. A lot of people get confused as to this (me included) because that is not explained in the spell description itself, but left as a note in the DMG.



This isn't correct.

Pg. 73 of the black cover 2e PHB
"Weapon specialization is an optional rule that enables a fighter (only) to choose a single weapon and specialize in its use.

Quite so. Weapon specialisation was initially for fighters and rangers only (in Unearthed Arcana, 1985), became the province of the fighter only with second edition in 1989, and was later permitted for other members of the warrior group in Skills & Powers. There is some confusion in some of the supplements from time to time, but the default rules are pretty clear.

hamlet
2010-10-18, 03:25 PM
I've got the PHB right here in the room with me, and in core, Fighters, Rangers, AND Paladins can specialize (two points in a weapon). Specializing further (AKA - Mastery/Grandmastery) isn't part of basic 2E and most people I've ever tried playing with didn't even know about it.


What PHB are you looking at? I'm looking here at mine and it specifies that only fighters may specialize.



Doesn't change the fact that there's a lot of difference between a 16 and a 17 that's not covered, or that every ability score functions wildly differently in terms of mechanics.


Eh? "Wildly different"? You'll have to back that up. Or are you perhaps referring to the fact that different ability score affect different things and, when you don't have a unified system, perforce they look different?

And as for the difference between a 16 and 17, you have to accept a certain level of granularity. Realism vs. verisimilitude.



I'm not sure what appropriate means in this case. I cannot really make sense of the idea that having options, or more specifically non-combat options, is a bad thing. It gives a richer more varied RPG. It's like Deadlands without any options other than firing your pistol.


No, you really don't understand it, and my writing it out here is going to violate something that I'm not going to do again.

It's a matter of difference of opinion and play style. Leave it there.



Considering I think biblical times probably would qualify as "predates today's job a minute culture", I would note that the bible is full of stories of shepherds becoming warriors, princes becoming wizards/priests, and so forth, I disagree fervently. Likewise, films like Kingdom of Heaven depict heroes that have no combat experience or the like, working as blacksmiths who go on to become crusaders, nobles, and so forth. Anyone with half a brain can tell that if you pick up something and start working with it you can learn to do it. I grew up in modern times, learning modern things, and because I was fascinated with Blacksmithing and Swordplay, so I've learned some of each.


*shudder* Please don't mention that travesty Kingdom of Heaven. Please.

And you're misreading the Bible, I think. Those examples of shepherds and farmers becoming warriors and kings are examples of, as I said before, massive self redefinition. They changed themselves utterly to follow that calling.



Dual-class rules require you to metagame, which is made of failure. Acting like a real character or person means you will never gain XP again as per the rules, which ends the game for you.


No, not really. Dual classing is changing ones entire self. It means that when you go from being one thing to another, that it takes a huge amount of effort to make that switch and that you conciously have to work at being the new thing and advancing those new skills rather than falling back upon and relying upon the old (i.e., being the old thing instead). This is really, I think, an example of the modern mindset compared to the mindset of even 50 years ago.



I dunno. I ran into enough of 'em.


A quarrell with your DM and not the system, then. Notice how the two are not the same?



Indeed. That explains why you like 2E then. See, I'm kind of the opposite. I like being able to make characters that are different. I like the fact that Conaan is different from William Wallace. I like the fact I don't need a new kit for everything, when writing up a new feat or two will do.


No, you're not understanding, really.

I dislike "options" mostly because for the most part, I find them to be a code word for "more mechanical goodies I can add." I don't like that style of play. And despite your intimation, Conan and William Wallace at my table are completely different even though both of them are most likely straight up fighters. It's all in how they're played, not in the numbers on the character sheet. I dislike options because they shift the focus away from the character and more towards the numbers IME. I don't like that.



Where do all those things come from? A wizard? But I'm playing a wizard and I haven't made any yet. Why haven't I made some 1st level scrolls? Oh wait, 'cause there's no realistic way of making a 1st level scroll. Yeah...so why am I finding 1st level scrolls in treasure amongst the goblins and worgs?

Maybe that's a question for the DM to answer? Eh? That's the whole point. Just because the goblins/wargs have them doesn't mean they made them.



You're also blatantly wrong. Wizards and such in 3E aren't amazingly powerful due to not having access to magic items. In fact, they dominate low-magic campaigns simply because they don't need magic items as much as other characters.


I did not say this. I said wizards were made ridiculously powerful because they removed many (or even most) restrictions on the class and pumped up the power by increasing number of spells per level, etc. Somebody else made the point about magic items, which I somewhat agree with. It is simply too easy to have wizards making magic items in 3.x.



You seem to think that adventurers should be little more than a few numbers on a piece of paper on their next romp to the next goblin raid to get the treasure that doesn't make sense being there. Difference in play-style, I guess.


Please don't tell me what I think. Especially when you're this fabulously insulting and incorrect.



I'm confused. You mean the -4 penalty to hit when firing into melee, which is negated with Precise Shot? Yeah, I've read it plenty of times. It's kind of a nuisance to wizards trying to throw scorching rays sometimes, but for anyone who wants to specialize in archery (especially a fighter) it's amazingly easy to overcome. A 1st level fighter of any race can do so. A human that isn't a fighter can do so at the same level.

No, I'm talking about the AD&D rules on firing into melee, obviously.



Anyway, I hate these tit-for-tat conversations, and this is going nowhere fast. Have a nice day.

PopcornMage
2010-10-18, 06:19 PM
You know seeing as all these Wizards need Kraken blood: shops should sell it.
Supply/Demand requires it.
It is a market niche that decent population (any arcane/divine magic user) needs to scribe these scrolls,

Look up Lawrence Watt-Evan's book, The Spriggan Mirror.

It has a guy who does go out and collect such things for Wizards.

Susano-wo
2010-10-18, 06:59 PM
To be fair: mechanics are part of characters. Specifically, if I want a character who is a frenzied berserker warrior, he'd better have some way of simulating his berzerker state, as well as being competant as a warrior. If I want a sneaky asassin, the character better be able to sneak around and kill people without alerting others to his prescence.

I do think the focus with more mechanical options can substitute for an actual character, certainly. But I still like being able to simulate the characters cababilities through mechanics.

(that being said, there is something also to be said for mechanical vagueness allowing you to do this or that, or be this or that, without the need for many abilities mechanically that allow you to do X,Y,or Z)

I guess what it comes down to is that its not black and white, that sometimes you really do need mechanical options to make the character you want.

Matthew
2010-10-18, 07:14 PM
A lot can be subsumed within an abstract system, berserker rages included, I think, but it can undeniably be fun to have a character who interacts with the rules differently or has additional or alternative options from another. Preference rules the day in that regard, with a view towards simplicity versus complexity of play. What second edition tried to do was provide a skeletal structure with optional "add ons", so if you wanted to play a berserker you added the berserker "kit" to a regular fighter, but unsurprisingly that also feeds a desire in the hardcore (as opposed to the casual) player base for more complexity. Over the years I have lost interest in mechanical character differentiation, at least of the formulaic sort, so have stripped back my AD&D game, dropping proficiencies, kits, et cetera. I do not miss them, but I understand why other people would.

Chrono22
2010-10-18, 07:17 PM
I prefer 3.5 in that as a system it's a bit more intuitive. Also, alot less of the choices (for DMs or players both) are hardwired into the system.

I prefer pathfinder to 3.5 for the same reasons.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 04:47 AM
Only permanent Items have a 5% chance of 1 con loss. Charged items (scroll, wand, staff) have no cost.

This is what I loved about 1e/2e magic item creation. Putting your very life essence into making a magic item.


It has a guy who does go out and collect such things for Wizards.

Isn't this what adventurers are for? :smalltongue:

PopcornMage
2010-10-19, 04:58 AM
Isn't this what adventurers are for? :smalltongue:

He'd be insulted. He's a businessman and problem solver. :smallamused:

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 07:03 AM
He'd be insulted. He's a businessman and problem solver. :smallamused:

But Wizards could probably hire adventurers for less than his prices, 'cuz, you know, that's what adventurers did in 1e/2e. Hunt for rare spell components, and adventurers were a dime a dozen back then, due to the high mortality rate, and all. :smallbiggrin:

(Which, come to think of it, was another thing I liked better abour 1e/2e. High mortality rate. Good times...gooooood tiiiimes...:smalltongue:)

PopcornMage
2010-10-19, 07:08 AM
But Wizards could probably hire adventurers for less than his prices, 'cuz, you know, that's what adventurers did in 1e/2e. Hunt for rare spell components, and adventurers were a dime a dozen back then, due to the high mortality rate, and all. :smallbiggrin:

Ah, I see you're familiar with some of the other books in the series.

So is the person about to hire him, he probably doesn't want a repeat.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 07:11 AM
Ah, I see you're familiar with some of the other books in the series.

So is the person about to hire him, he probably doesn't want a repeat.

No. Never heard of the books. Just an educated guess, stemming from my early 1e AD&D experience.

"Dark shadowy figure in a dark shadowy corner of the inn hires the party to bring back a Roc egg, or Kraken ink, or Roper intestines, or whatever."

Standard 1e plot, right?

PopcornMage
2010-10-19, 07:14 AM
Oh you are missing out.

Start with either The Misenchanted Sword or With a Single Spell.

hamlet
2010-10-19, 07:54 AM
A lot can be subsumed within an abstract system, berserker rages included, I think, but it can undeniably be fun to have a character who interacts with the rules differently or has additional or alternative options from another. Preference rules the day in that regard, with a view towards simplicity versus complexity of play. What second edition tried to do was provide a skeletal structure with optional "add ons", so if you wanted to play a berserker you added the berserker "kit" to a regular fighter, but unsurprisingly that also feeds a desire in the hardcore (as opposed to the casual) player base for more complexity. Over the years I have lost interest in mechanical character differentiation, at least of the formulaic sort, so have stripped back my AD&D game, dropping proficiencies, kits, et cetera. I do not miss them, but I understand why other people would.

Agreed. I've found that most times there's nothing in a kit that can't be had by good roleplay. I don't need a "rage" mechanic to play a good barbarian (leaving aside for just the moment my general dislike of the equation of barbarian with berserker). I don't need assassination rules to play a sneaky killer. We generally keep proficiencies, but we've grown to like them by understanding that they're not a skill system and much closer to a "past profession system."

LibraryOgre
2010-10-19, 01:33 PM
It's slightly more nuanced than that.

In BECMI/0eD&D/AD&D1e, "rougues" were very specifically thieves, i.e., people who took the property of others illicitly.

By AD&D2e, with the advent of the ability to apply percentage points to thief abilities as the player wanted allowing a character to specialize, we started to recognize that not all thieves were, in fact, "thieves" and some of them would end up being scouts, security experts, frontline fighters, etc. Still, thieves worked best, as a class, when they operated within certain parameters which generally molded them as the aformentioned takers of other people's things.


Actually, I think a good example of a thief in 1e or 2e is Indiana Jones. I can't think of a specific time he used Pick Pocket or Open Lock, but most of the rest? They're in the first two (and even third) film.

hamlet
2010-10-19, 01:45 PM
Actually, I think a good example of a thief in 1e or 2e is Indiana Jones. I can't think of a specific time he used Pick Pocket or Open Lock, but most of the rest? They're in the first two (and even third) film.

Yeah, but the guy's got to have an unreasonably high CON score considering the amount of punishment he takes.

Still, I think the best example of a thief would still be Bilbo Baggins from the Hobbit. Yes, stereotypical, but probably more than a little influential on Gygax as he wrote the class despite what he claimed later on.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 01:48 PM
Yeah, but the guy's got to have an unreasonably high CON score considering the amount of punishment he takes.

Still, I think the best example of a thief would still be Bilbo Baggins from the Hobbit. Yes, stereotypical, but probably more than a little influential on Gygax as he wrote the class despite what he claimed later on.

Gord the Rogue was Gygax's thief. After all, Gygax wrote him. He used pretty much all of the 'thief' skillset at one time or another throughout the novels.

hamlet
2010-10-19, 01:50 PM
Gord the Rogue was Gygax's thief. After all, Gygax wrote him. He used pretty much all of the 'thief' skillset at one time or another throughout the novels.

Haven't read the Gord books.

Frankly, as much as I admire the man's creativity and the AD&D books, I think he was a terrible writer of fiction prose. Aweful really.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 01:52 PM
Haven't read the Gord books.

Frankly, as much as I admire the man's creativity and the AD&D books, I think he was a terrible writer of fiction prose. Aweful really.

Admittedly, the prose is bad. The story behind the prose is pretty awesome, however. If you can get past the horrible writing style, it's worth the read.

hamlet
2010-10-19, 01:54 PM
Admittedly, the prose is bad. The story behind the prose is pretty awesome, however. If you can get past the horrible writing style, it's worth the read.

Yeah, that's always been the issue, though. I've got to read so much bad prose here at work that I don't really have the tolerance of it I would need to read it for fun. About the worst I can get anymore is Butcher's style, which is engaging, but problematic.

LibraryOgre
2010-10-19, 01:57 PM
Yeah, but the guy's got to have an unreasonably high CON score considering the amount of punishment he takes.

Still, I think the best example of a thief would still be Bilbo Baggins from the Hobbit. Yes, stereotypical, but probably more than a little influential on Gygax as he wrote the class despite what he claimed later on.

I imagine that Bilbo was more influential at the time, certainly, but Dr. Jones hits the high points pretty well.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 01:57 PM
I don't know Butcher's work. I have a stable of authors that I rely on frequently (and frequently re-read their work). I don't see much outside of those few authors anymore. Hell, I just read the Amber Chronicles last week.

hamlet
2010-10-19, 02:06 PM
I don't know Butcher's work. I have a stable of authors that I rely on frequently (and frequently re-read their work). I don't see much outside of those few authors anymore. Hell, I just read the Amber Chronicles last week.

I'm much the same way, but there's only so many times I can re-read GRRM before I lose my mind and hang myself for depression.

I picked up the first of the Dresden Files books on a dare, and haven't stopped reading since. Have read through the first 8 or 9 in about three months. Can't wait to get through the rest. They're not great, and they're plagued by a lot of niggling little editing and spelling mistakes that are unprofessional, but they're very addictive and entertaining. Hardboiled detective, with magic powers.

Ravens_cry
2010-10-19, 02:38 PM
I am not sure how much this carried over to second edition, but in first edition, there was indeed a lot of scary magic items. There was a robe that really helped out a wizard. However,, they came in different shades based on alignment and did uber damage to those outside the alignment on the good-evil scale. OK, so don't play the blind see wizard archytype, then? But wait, there's more, the actual colour didn't reveal itself until the robe was put on. There was also magic items that looked like scrap and did not detect as magical until worn. Again, not so bad, though finding the thing was a shot in the dark. Except, cursed items, like that holdover to 3.X, the periapt of choking.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 02:39 PM
I am not sure how much this carried over to second edition, but in first edition, there was indeed a lot of scary magic items. There was a robe that really helped out a wizard. However,, they came in different shades based on alignment and did uber damage to those outside the alignment on the good-evil scale. OK, so don't play the blind see wizard archytype, then? But wait, there's more, the actual colour didn't reveal itself until the robe was put on. There was also magic items that looked like scrap and did not detect as magical until worn. Again, not so bad, though finding the thing was a shot in the dark. Except, cursed items, like that holdover to 3.X, the periapt of choking.

Girdle of femininity/masculinity, anyone?

hamlet
2010-10-19, 02:42 PM
I am not sure how much this carried over to second edition, but in first edition, there was indeed a lot of scary magic items. There was a robe that really helped out a wizard. However,, they came in different shades based on alignment and did uber damage to those outside the alignment on the good-evil scale. OK, so don't play the blind see wizard archytype, then? But wait, there's more, the actual colour didn't reveal itself until the robe was put on. There was also magic items that looked like scrap and did not detect as magical until worn. Again, not so bad, though finding the thing was a shot in the dark. Except, cursed items, like that holdover to 3.X, the periapt of choking.

There were a number of "gotcha" items in D&D put there on purpose. They were designed to be unfair to characters as a way of testing the players. That is one of the biggest difference between 3.x and AD&D/0D&D, testing the character versus testing the player.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 02:45 PM
Yet another reason I enjoy 1e/2e more. Cursed and dangerous magic items (which could be used as an assassination technique on many occasions).

Ravens_cry
2010-10-19, 02:58 PM
Girdle of femininity/masculinity, anyone?
You could make good money selling those to some people. If it weren't that it required a remove curse to take off, it would hardly count as a cursed item.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 05:59 PM
You could make good money selling those to some people. If it weren't that it required a remove curse to take off, it would hardly count as a cursed item.

:smalleek:
Wait.

:eek:
WHAT?!?

PopcornMage
2010-10-19, 06:20 PM
I picked up the first of the Dresden Files books on a dare, and haven't stopped reading since. Have read through the first 8 or 9 in about three months. Can't wait to get through the rest. They're not great, and they're plagued by a lot of niggling little editing and spelling mistakes that are unprofessional, but they're very addictive and entertaining. Hardboiled detective, with magic powers.

If you're familiar with the environs of Chicago, that's even worse for many folks.

He did want to set them in St. Louis, but he was forced to relocate them.

Good choice though!

Also try Codex Alera. It's awesome too. It was written on a dare.

Ravens_cry
2010-10-19, 06:28 PM
:smalleek:
Wait.

:eek:
WHAT?!?
Let's just say there is a subset of the population who quite literally don't feel comfortable in their own skin, to put it in an euphemistic way. Many of these people go through very expensive plastic surgery and/or hormonal treatments to achieve a desired change. If there was a magic item that could do this, painlessly and completely, it would certainly be worth acquiring for these people.

dsmiles
2010-10-19, 06:39 PM
Let's just say there is a subset of the population who quite literally don't feel comfortable in their own skin, to put it in an euphemistic way. Many of these people go through very expensive plastic surgery and/or hormonal treatments to achieve a desired change. If there was a magic item that could do this, painlessly and completely, it would certainly be worth acquiring for these people.

Got it. Boy don't I feel stupid. :smallredface:

EDIT: But I didn't think the remove curse was to remove the dang belt. I thought it was to reverse the gender change...

Ravens_cry
2010-10-19, 07:24 PM
Got it. Boy don't I feel stupid. :smallredface:

EDIT: But I didn't think the remove curse was to remove the dang belt. I thought it was to reverse the gender change...
Many cursed items, like the stone of weight, tend to be rather clingy. I assumed this one was as well. But you are right. Like the Helm of Opposite alignment, the 1st edition DMG says this one loses its powers once used. Still, if it could turned on and off repeatedly without a remove curse, there are other markets for this item. For example, people who just want to experiment rather then effect a permanent change.

Susano-wo
2010-10-19, 09:08 PM
Many cursed items, like the stone of weight, tend to be rather clingy. I assumed this one was as well. But you are right. Like the Helm of Opposite alignment, the 1st edition DMG says this one loses its powers once used. Still, if it could turned on and off repeatedly without a remove curse, there are other markets for this item. For example, people who just want to experiment rather then effect a permanent change.

my only experience with the belt was Baldurs gate. Hey, cool! Magic belt! better put it on. I'll have to find out what it does...oh. I guess I'm playing a female paladin now...

The thing that strikes me after all these pages is that for every thing I see about an edition that I like, it seems like there is one I don't. I like the idea of magic items not being a given, and the prescence of cursed items, but the idea of testing a player (IE forcing him to metagame or always play smart/wise/knowledgable characters) is abhorrent to me.

I can also see the value in being vague, but fighters from the get go seemed boring to me. little to no cool stuff. (I did give one a shot, with the bandit kit. And then we swapped to 3rd ed when it came out. I don't think I even leveled up from our starting level.)

ON the subject of ragin' and killin': I think you do need a mechanical differentiation between berserking and not, unless that is simply the way he/she always fights. (of course, this does not need specific 'rage' rules, only some sort of reckless attack rule--which would be welcome in any case. I think *every* character should have access to some sort of power attack.) ANd likewise with assassination. I don't have to have a special ability to allow me to do so, but there needs to be rules that allow me, under some circumstance or another, to bypass the normal "plink it with HP damage until it dies" mechanic to have an assassin. There is no way to get out undetected if he starts screaming right after you put an arrow/dagger in him.

But really, those were just meant to be random examples illustrating this: I think that you need to be able to mechanically back up your concept, and sometimes that means special/different abilities and powers than the next char, even if their 'class' is still the same.

jmbrown
2010-10-19, 10:13 PM
I don't know Butcher's work. I have a stable of authors that I rely on frequently (and frequently re-read their work). I don't see much outside of those few authors anymore. Hell, I just read the Amber Chronicles last week.

Honestly, I can't stand reading Tolkien. Genius world builder but I don't care about lost poems, camp fire stories, and bath tub songs, thank you. The Hobbit was amazing but apparently he wrote it as a children's story. Classic adventure right there.


I am not sure how much this carried over to second edition, but in first edition, there was indeed a lot of scary magic items. There was a robe that really helped out a wizard. However,, they came in different shades based on alignment and did uber damage to those outside the alignment on the good-evil scale. OK, so don't play the blind see wizard archytype, then? But wait, there's more, the actual colour didn't reveal itself until the robe was put on. There was also magic items that looked like scrap and did not detect as magical until worn. Again, not so bad, though finding the thing was a shot in the dark. Except, cursed items, like that holdover to 3.X, the periapt of choking.

The archmage robes still exist in 2e and they burn you. There's also the manuals that burn you but books never reveal their content until you actually read them and simply uttering a letter will burn you. Even worse, it's described that a class who owns a magic book that doesn't work for them will horde it and obsessively attempt to destroy or guard it.

Ravens_cry
2010-10-19, 11:00 PM
Honestly, I can't stand reading Tolkien. Genius world builder but I don't care about lost poems, camp fire stories, and bath tub songs, thank you. The Hobbit was amazing but apparently he wrote it as a children's story. Classic adventure right there.

Each to their own but . . .
Part of what made his world building so deep was things like the stories told around a flickering fire far from home. Ye, it is a rich and dense read, like Christmas cake. And like Christmas cake, it is an acquired taste. But there is something to be said for a world so rich, so full of a feeling of history, that it almost feels like you could look away and it would still be there, waiting around the bend or in some tome of forgotten lore.
J.R.R Tolkien succeeded where few others have at the singular art of mythopoeia or 'myth making'. You may not like the Lord of the Rings, that is your prerogative to enjoy what you enjoy, but I honestly feel you are missing out on a world half real.

hamlet
2010-10-20, 06:51 AM
There's also the manuals that burn you but books never reveal their content until you actually read them and simply uttering a letter will burn you. Even worse, it's described that a class who owns a magic book that doesn't work for them will horde it and obsessively attempt to destroy or guard it.

No. Tomes respond to an Identify spell like 99% of other magic items (i.e., non-artifact, non-cursed items) and you can determine their nature in that manner. And no, there's nothing about hording books.

jmbrown
2010-10-20, 07:29 AM
Each to their own but . . .
Part of what made his world building so deep was things like the stories told around a flickering fire far from home. Ye, it is a rich and dense read, like Christmas cake. And like Christmas cake, it is an acquired taste. But there is something to be said for a world so rich, so full of a feeling of history, that it almost feels like you could look away and it would still be there, waiting around the bend or in some tome of forgotten lore.
J.R.R Tolkien succeeded where few others have at the singular art of mythopoeia or 'myth making'. You may not like the Lord of the Rings, that is your prerogative to enjoy what you enjoy, but I honestly feel you are missing out on a world half real.

The problem is that it ruins the pacing of the story. I liked The Two Towers much better because it was better paced. Ironically, I liked The Fellowship movie better than The Two Towers for the exact same reason (better pacing).

I'm fascinated by world building but I prefer the long, wordy prose to be kept out of my stories unless it serves the purpose of enhancing the story. For example, the Middle-Earth Atlas is my world building bible and I always keep a copy with me when I'm drawing maps. Terry Pratchett built his world book by book while releasing erroneous material that expanded on it. IMO, that's how it should be done. Let the audience piece the world together, don't give me a bible passage on every page.

But yes, to each their own. I can't deny some people like it.


No. Tomes respond to an Identify spell like 99% of other magic items (i.e., non-artifact, non-cursed items) and you can determine their nature in that manner. And no, there's nothing about hording books.

Nope.



Books: All magical books, librams, manuals, tomes, etc. appear to be "normal'' works of arcane lore. Each is indistinguishable from all others by visual examination of the outer parts or by detection for magic aura.
A wish spell can identify or classify a magical work. Other spells, notably commune, contact higher planes, limited wish, and true seeing are useless. A wish reveals the general contents of a book, telling what classes or characteristics are most affected (not necessarily benefitted) by the work. A second wish is required to determine the book's exact contents.
After being perused by a character, most magical works vanish forever, but one which is nonbeneficial to the reader may be attached to the character, and he will be unable to rid himself of it. If the work benefits another character alignment, the possessor is geased to conceal and guard it. As DM you should use your judgment and imagination as to exactly how these items will be treated, using the rules in this section as parameters.


Emphasis mine.

Matthew
2010-10-20, 07:43 AM
I can also see the value in being vague, but fighters from the get go seemed boring to me. little to no cool stuff. (I did give one a shot, with the bandit kit. And then we swapped to 3rd ed when it came out. I don't think I even leveled up from our starting level.)

ON the subject of ragin' and killin': I think you do need a mechanical differentiation between berserking and not, unless that is simply the way he/she always fights. (of course, this does not need specific 'rage' rules, only some sort of reckless attack rule--which would be welcome in any case. I think *every* character should have access to some sort of power attack.) And likewise with assassination. I don't have to have a special ability to allow me to do so, but there needs to be rules that allow me, under some circumstance or another, to bypass the normal "plink it with HP damage until it dies" mechanic to have an assassin. There is no way to get out undetected if he starts screaming right after you put an arrow/dagger in him.

But really, those were just meant to be random examples illustrating this: I think that you need to be able to mechanically back up your concept, and sometimes that means special/different abilities and powers than the next char, even if their 'class' is still the same.

I think if you find it boring, then you find it boring. Basically, it comes down to having more or less interest in a particular aspect of the game (in this case the mechanics of combat). There are no absolute goods with regard to these sort of things, as they are preference driven.

The "inescapable death" clause that substitutes in second edition for the assassination table of first edition (which despite its name is more broadly applied than to assassinations) probably addresses any concern about bypassing hit points, if that is a specific complaint.

hamlet
2010-10-20, 07:59 AM
Nope.



Emphasis mine.

Huh. I stand corrected.

Stupid rule, easily fixed.

jmbrown
2010-10-20, 08:16 AM
Huh. I stand corrected.

Stupid rule, easily fixed.

I can understand the animosity towards it but books are really, really powerful because they give free levels/ability scores. Wish does the exact same thing but at least the spell description gives the DM room to screw with it.

hamlet
2010-10-20, 08:24 AM
I can understand the animosity towards it but books are really, really powerful because they give free levels/ability scores. Wish does the exact same thing but at least the spell description gives the DM room to screw with it.

It's not animosity towards the rule, I just don't care for the rule, so I change it. That's kind of the point with AD&D, in the end. Don't like it? Change it.

As for Wish, it's often misunderstood, both by angry players and by DM's too eager to screw with their players. Really, as written, the only thing that the Wish spell says is that it works literally. Very literally. And that it frequently takes the route of least resistance. Wish for ten million gold coins? Sure. But unless you specify otherwise, that gold is probably going to come from somewhere, and what better place than from a location where they are all co-located like the king's treasury?

Wish to live as long as the mountains? Wish is less likely to make you immortal and ever youthful, which takes up lots of energy, and simply turn you into a rock, a one time expenditure. Or, alternately, you live forever, but are not unaging.

Yeah, it kind of encourages screwing with the wisher, but it also says that certain applications (undoing damage, raising somebody from the dead, moving the party, etc.) are likely to go by unmolested. It's the greedy, grossly unfair things that get bothered.

A very common house rule for DM's is to specify what, exactly, is granting the Wish. Getting a wish from your deity is likely to be honored as intended, even if your wording leaves something to be desired. Getting a wish from Puck, on the other hand, would probably be cause for alarm and dismay, or at least a long, careful deliberation. Getting a wish from a Devil/Demon . . . well . . . you'd better just learn to never utter the phrase "I wish . . ." ever again.

jmbrown
2010-10-20, 08:31 AM
It's the super literal I'm referring too. When I was younger we wrote all our wishes out on a piece of paper and double checked the wording like lawyers to ensure nothing would go wrong. Eventually we just stopped using wish except to remove nasty curses.

I still imply the normal restrictions on books or just don't include them at all. I don't care for free experience or "read this for a week, +1 whatever."

hamlet
2010-10-20, 08:52 AM
It's the super literal I'm referring too. When I was younger we wrote all our wishes out on a piece of paper and double checked the wording like lawyers to ensure nothing would go wrong. Eventually we just stopped using wish except to remove nasty curses.

I still imply the normal restrictions on books or just don't include them at all. I don't care for free experience or "read this for a week, +1 whatever."

To each their own.

When I DM, I tend to leave out the "standard" cursed items (like yer average -1 sword or whatever) and throw in campaign and world specific cursed items (like the Mace of Bran the Blessed, all who take up this powerful weapon are cursed to speak in great sweeping shouts and must befriend all named "Gordon").

PopcornMage
2010-10-20, 09:04 AM
The thing that strikes me after all these pages is that for every thing I see about an edition that I like, it seems like there is one I don't. I like the idea of magic items not being a given, and the prescence of cursed items, but the idea of testing a player (IE forcing him to metagame or always play smart/wise/knowledgable characters) is abhorrent to me.

For every change in an edition, there's some who think it's the best ever, and other who hate it.

Kind of a given, what with different people out there, and wanting different things.

That's why I'm kind of glad the developers have genuinely been sane enough to know they won't make everybody happy.


I can also see the value in being vague, but fighters from the get go seemed boring to me. little to no cool stuff. (I did give one a shot, with the bandit kit. And then we swapped to 3rd ed when it came out. I don't think I even leveled up from our starting level.)

This imbalance in mechanics space is what I think drove the fundamental change in 4e. A lot of people just got tired of not being able to have rules for all the "cool stuff" unless they played certain classes. And the idea paradigm of the awesome martial type is broad enough that leaving it out just didn't work. Plenty of stories about them, and people do want their stories to come to life.


But really, those were just meant to be random examples illustrating this: I think that you need to be able to mechanically back up your concept, and sometimes that means special/different abilities and powers than the next char, even if their 'class' is still the same.

It is why we have game rules, isn't it?

Anyway, about Wishes, that itself is another rule of stories. The thoughtless wish is indeed a major driver. They made a cartoon with over 100 episodes running on that idea! And there's thousands one-shots in others.

You ever find a genie, just wish you never found him.

ETA: Then hope he can't remove you from existence...

Susano-wo
2010-10-20, 01:49 PM
I think if you find it boring, then you find it boring. Basically, it comes down to having more or less interest in a particular aspect of the game (in this case the mechanics of combat). There are no absolute goods with regard to these sort of things, as they are preference driven.

The "inescapable death" clause that substitutes in second edition for the assassination table of first edition (which despite its name is more broadly applied than to assassinations) probably addresses any concern about bypassing hit points, if that is a specific complaint.

Oh definitely, I'm not trying to say that my preferences are superior {I mean, that just goes without saying :smallbiggrin:}. Just..rambling, I guess, about fighters. The overall point I am making is that I think you [sometimes] need mechanical backing to what you are trying to do with a character, as far as his caapabilities go. Some may disagree. Hopefully the World Still Turns. :smallwink:

Regarding the assassination rules, It *is* a specific wallbanger for me, that in 3e I pretty much have to be a rogue/assassin to hope to kill anyone of sufficiently high HP in one hit, even when they are sleeping and unconscious, etc. (ok, I guess those aren't the only possibilities, but there are plenty of characters who should be able to, but because they don't have the right feat combos, etc, its pretty hard). BUt I was just throwing it out there as a hypothetical, not as a dig against 2E. I didn't know those existed, though, and that they do makes me happy :P

@Popcorn mage: Yeah, you definitely aren't going to get one system for everybody. I was just musing that though I think I prefer 3rd, due to the mechanical variations that can be done, There are lots of things in 2nd that were more to my liking as well. I really wouldn't mind trying a 2nd ed campaign some year, just to see if I'd like it with the right attitude from players/dm

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-21, 07:19 AM
@Popcorn mage: Yeah, you definitely aren't going to get one system for everybody.

Which is why I have never played a single game system in anger without moderate to extensive houserules in the last 20 years! My own adjustments to 3.5 are a major reason I haven't gone to Pathfinder (because I think my houserules are better than their houseules); particulary for my own homebrew world; while my Rolemaster is a freakish mutant hybrid of four editions, like of which Man Is Not Meant To Know...

Maho-Tsukai
2010-10-21, 07:38 AM
A lot has already been covered here, but for all those here who, like me, love necromancers and don't want to always be a cleric, 2e was really the golden age for wizard necromancers/arcane necromancers. Seriously. Yeah, they still got animate dead after clerics and still lacked rebuke/influence undead, but there where kits and build options for necromancers that easily compensated for those issues. There was one build option which even gave a necromancer the power to rebuke/influence undead(Actually, if you want to be technical there was 2 build options/kits that did that since another kit, while it did not directly give rebuke/influence allows you to select some special powers, one of which granted a form of rebuke/influence...though it may have been weaker then a cleric's rebuke/influence and the rebuke/influence of the kit that gave you it directly...It's been a while since I pulled out the necromancer's handbook.) Also, back then the lack of desecration was a non-issue because desecrate flat out did not exist in 2e. Simply put, in 2e wizard necromancers where at the same level as clerical necromancers as far as leading undead hordes go, something that 3.5 failed to do in a big way.

2e was just the best time to be an arcane necromancer. You had some very unique and cool spells to chose from and where not laughed at by evil clerics and dread necromancers for trying to command an undead army and failing short when compared to divine casters.(And the Dread Necro...)

Matthew
2010-10-21, 10:05 AM
Oh definitely, I'm not trying to say that my preferences are superior {I mean, that just goes without saying :smallbiggrin:}. Just..rambling, I guess, about fighters. The overall point I am making is that I think you [sometimes] need mechanical backing to what you are trying to do with a character, as far as his caapabilities go. Some may disagree. Hopefully the World Still Turns. :smallwink:

Heh, heh; exactly so.



Regarding the assassination rules, It *is* a specific wallbanger for me, that in 3e I pretty much have to be a rogue/assassin to hope to kill anyone of sufficiently high HP in one hit, even when they are sleeping and unconscious, etc. (ok, I guess those aren't the only possibilities, but there are plenty of characters who should be able to, but because they don't have the right feat combos, etc, its pretty hard). BUt I was just throwing it out there as a hypothetical, not as a dig against 2E. I didn't know those existed, though, and that they do makes me happy :P

Yeah, there is actually a passage from an early Dragon magazine where Gygax rants about that particular approach to hit points:



MELEE: THE INTELLIGENT DM
On occasion the question of the length of a melee round comes up in relation to the number of attacks delivered. Of necessity, a game of role playing adventure which has elements of magic included in combat is going to be abstract, shall we say. For the sake of the pace of the game, the longevity of player characters, and the inclusion of magic, weapon combat must be kept to a fast tempo while at the same time allowing combatants leeway to break off, change tactics, or whatever else is called for. Thus, a one-minute round with a single effective weapon blow is the norm. Likewise, damage is kept minimal, so that a carefully advanced character will not generally be slain by a single stroke of some kobold’s axe. Weapon blows, just as hit points, are scaled to a real individual.

For example, a single swing of a broadsword will slay a normal person. Armour helps only in determination of a hit, not in damage, although armour could actually reduce damage as it took damage itself, eventually being totally ruined. That latter method adds unneeded complication to the combat system, so forget it! Hit points and their accumulation make up for much. As I have often stated, no human can actually withstand damage which would fell a rhino. Damage above 12 points or so is not actually withstood — the points inflicted are mere scratches, bruises, misses which remove a few hairs, etc. Similarly, armour class assumes the defender is active and doing his or her best to stay out of the way. So to handle melee intelligently, the DM must know the reasoning behind it all and keep it in mind when adjudicating situations.

One evidently thick-headed writer once wondered about the difficulty of killing an unarmoured character with some powerful weapon. After all, this marvel of intellect stated, a medium-level character would have to be struck many times in order to reduce his hit points to zero. Any DM could give such a person the lie easily, once the concepts of melee are understood. Can magically sleeping creatures be slain at a stroke? You know it, even if they have several hit dice. Likewise, the helpless character is subject to easy execution — provided the character is truly helpless, of course! Can he or she break free and escape? Grab a nearby weapon and attack? Whatever, we have all read about or seen heroic characters who manage to escape from certain doom. If your players are really into role playing, they should bombard you with a host of ways and means by which they can escape impending death. As a good DM, you should consider each such suggestion on the merits of the situation and adjudicate accordingly. Intelligent melee combat, certain death, and miraculous escape are part of the adventure in the AD&D™ game system. While some prate about “realism” in fantasy, it is a DM’s duty to provide fun!

Basically, in first edition trussed up [i.e. truly helpless] opponents were automatically killed, but the assassination table was used for other lethal situations (such as sneaking into a room to kill a sleeping enemy), which indexed level against level to find a probability of a successful kill, starting at around 50% for 1:1 and modified according to prevailing circumstances. In second edition they dropped assassination for political reasons and introduce the inescapable death clause, which was not as good a rule, but preserved some of the intent.

There is an article out there by a WotC luminary about Captain Kirk and hit points, and the game thinking behind using them as the only measure of harm to a character, but I cannot seem to locate it at the moment.

The Big Dice
2010-10-21, 10:16 AM
The problem with D&D style hit points is the way they get described as a skilled combatant being able to roll with a blow. Turning a lethal hit into a minor scratch. But how does that apply when falling onto rocks? Or being set on fire?

The accumulation of ablity to withstand more physical punishment as a character increases in level really doesn't bear up to close scrutiny. It's another of D&D's legacy baggage points.

Matthew
2010-10-21, 10:23 AM
The problem with D&D style hit points is the way they get described as a skilled combatant being able to roll with a blow. Turning a lethal hit into a minor scratch. But how does that apply when falling onto rocks? Or being set on fire?

The accumulation of ability to withstand more physical punishment as a character increases in level really doesn't bear up to close scrutiny. It's another of D&D's legacy baggage points.

That is the problem with it in D20/3e specifically. Originally, that was one description amongst many, with the most prominent being "it's magic". When you take a long hard look at life energy levels and hit points it quickly becomes apparent that they are disassociated from the simulation of reality and are in fact specific "hero" explanation elements of D&D. In short, they work because they do not really represent anything in particular, but then you come smack up against the way in which they can be restored. It is possible to run around that as well, but it requires a bit more stretching of plausibility than I am completely comfortable with.

LibraryOgre
2010-10-21, 10:25 AM
The problem with D&D style hit points is the way they get described as a skilled combatant being able to roll with a blow. Turning a lethal hit into a minor scratch. But how does that apply when falling onto rocks? Or being set on fire?

The accumulation of ablity to withstand more physical punishment as a character increases in level really doesn't bear up to close scrutiny. It's another of D&D's legacy baggage points.

One thing I have done is import 4e's "bloodied" into other games. It doesn't have a game effect, but hits before bloodied tend to get described as bruises, aches, and pains. That 6 points of damage from a wererat short sword? Punched you with the hilt. Hits after bloodied tend to get described as actual wounds that will take time (or magic) to heal. It's pure descriptive fluff... Cure light wounds cures above and below the line just as well... but it lets the players know when people are getting close to dropping.

Susano-wo
2010-10-21, 08:30 PM
Thanks, Matthew! I'm always interested in seeing the philosophy and explanations of things from the older editions, even the facepalming ones. I really like that idea, of treating HP in an abstract way, though I do often fall into the HP= meat damage capacity (that should totally be the HP stat in a hackmaster-esque game someday :smallcool:)

it just falls down the what I understand as the "rulings, not rules," mentality. HP is for use in simulating heroic combat, and making combat not so binary between unharmed and dead. (though I would actually love a system where you miss most of the time, but ooooh boy, is it a big deal if you take a hit!) In situations where this does not apply (falling from orbit, killing sleeping dragons, etc), it should be adjudicated by what the DM thinks is reasonable.

@ Aotrs Commander I definitely am a big fan of house rules, and making a game "your own." I am always thinking of how I would do 3.5 rules differently. I started to make my own house rules bible, but its fallen by the wayside. So I'm really happy w/ Pathfinder :smalltongue:

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-22, 04:36 AM
(though I would actually love a system where you miss most of the time, but ooooh boy, is it a big deal if you take a hit!)

Rolemaster is kinda like that. (If you can get past the whole, "resolved on tables" and "adding up tens and units instead of mostly units" thing.) Hits in RM are actually physical damage (concussion hits) and are considered a mix of shock pain and bleeding. There's also a racial cap to hit points (about a 100ish for a human, I think. Which I mostly ignore...) But hit points don't (generally) kill you, its the critical hits that do. Which you roll on the critical hit tables that comprise a good 75% of the reason for playing Rolemaster because they're so awesome and hilarious. (In which other system can you "uncerimoneously remove foe's face1"?

First edition Warhammer FRP can be a bit like that too, provided the PCs don't have Naked Dwarf symdrome (i.e. toughness 5 or 6.)



1Super Large Slashing critical table, as I recall.

Susano-wo
2010-10-22, 04:44 AM
Hell yeah, I want Role Master crit tables! If you aren't rolling them every hit, you aren't doing it right:P
(do you know a place that has them listed? I'd love to take a look down memory lane...ah MERP...how we bastardized you to essentially play a piroff of a Cerebus story >.>)

The Big Dice
2010-10-22, 04:44 AM
There's a lot of games that handle hit points in various different ways. Personally, I like the Cyberpunk method and the GURPS one as well.

In 'Punk, you have a potential to take a maximum of 40 points of damage, but the odds are you'll fail a Death Save after much less than that. And losing a limb takes very little damage relative to your potential maximum, while triggering a Death Save. The same 8 damage it takes to lose a limb will also remove your head, which is auto-death. And even when you're dead, there's still a chance that medics with the right equipment can revive you.

In GURPS, it's far more likely that you'll either pass out or be maimed before you're in a position where death is inevitable. Again, this models the human body and it's weird mix of incredible fragility and unbelievable toughness.

dsmiles
2010-10-22, 04:45 AM
1Super Large Slashing critical table, as I recall.

You recall correctly, sir. (I love me some RM/HARP!)

jmbrown
2010-10-22, 06:26 AM
HackMaster has the most ridiculous critical hit table. There's about 5 pages of anatomically correct human proportions and d10,000 worth of potential targets from the big toe to bones I've never heard of before.

Yora
2010-10-22, 06:30 AM
In 'Punk, you have a potential to take a maximum of 40 points of damage, but the odds are you'll fail a Death Save after much less than that. And losing a limb takes very little damage relative to your potential maximum, while triggering a Death Save. The same 8 damage it takes to lose a limb will also remove your head, which is auto-death. And even when you're dead, there's still a chance that medics with the right equipment can revive you.

In GURPS, it's far more likely that you'll either pass out or be maimed before you're in a position where death is inevitable. Again, this models the human body and it's weird mix of incredible fragility and unbelievable toughness.
Star Wars Saga has something similar, and it's even a variant of the 3rd Ed. rules. Though I havn't played it enough to really say if you're more likely to get knocked out before your hp run out.

The Big Dice
2010-10-22, 10:54 AM
Star Wars Saga has something similar, and it's even a variant of the 3rd Ed. rules. Though I havn't played it enough to really say if you're more likely to get knocked out before your hp run out.
It's hard to kill people in SWSE. The game does a really good job of modeling the genre it's based on.

A low levels, you'll run out of hit points before your Condition Track is an issue. Non heroic characters can even have less hp than the damage required to affect their threshold. Which means it's easier to just shoot a Stormtrooper dead than it is to affect his Condition.

At high levels, the Condition Track becomes very important. To the point where characters built around manipulating that Track are very much the deadliest in the game.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-22, 12:58 PM
It's hard to kill people in SWSE. The game does a really good job of modeling the genre it's based on.

A low levels, you'll run out of hit points before your Condition Track is an issue. Non heroic characters can even have less hp than the damage required to affect their threshold. Which means it's easier to just shoot a Stormtrooper dead than it is to affect his Condition.

At high levels, the Condition Track becomes very important. To the point where characters built around manipulating that Track are very much the deadliest in the game.

Actually, it depends on the character.
My Force Stun Jedi would more often knock them all the way down condition before hps often at low levels.
Granted, you have to built right to not attack hp.

kyoryu
2010-10-22, 01:32 PM
There were a number of "gotcha" items in D&D put there on purpose. They were designed to be unfair to characters as a way of testing the players. That is one of the biggest difference between 3.x and AD&D/0D&D, testing the character versus testing the player.

Also, roleplaying has changed since its early days. 1e/2e were much more about randomness and chaos. Your characters weren't special snowflakes, and weren't necessarily expected to survive. If they did, they would be known as heroes, but adventuring was high risk. The game is balanced around this. Players might have a number of characters, and play different ones depending on what is going on. There was more separation between player and character, and so there was a lot more willingness to roll with the punches. Playing a character wasn't so much a matter of having your one special avatar, as it was taking the part of an inhabitant of a world for a while.

OTOH, later editions (3/4), as well as newer systems have a decidedly different bent. In these later systems, characters are assumed to be the heroes up front. It's generally assumed that characters will survive, and that you'll be playing the same characters for a while. So, there's a lot less acceptance of randomness, and character building is more important. A player will typically have a single character in a campaign.

Almost all of the differences between the editions make a lot more sense when looking at things through this prism. Cursed items? Well, if it happens to one of many characters, it's just another event in the grand overall tale. If it happens to your one special character, it's a lot more upsetting.

I sometimes get the urge to start an old-school game. Of course, I don't even have a regular group to game with now, so...