PDA

View Full Version : 2E vs. 3.x The Final Showdown



Tren
2007-11-05, 07:03 PM
I think getting the recent spat of 2E v. 3.x discussions out of other threads seems like a good idea. So without further adieu

--In this corner we have "Feats are baby eating game breakers that kill role-playing!"

--and his opponent tonight "2E is an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules!"

Lets get ready to rumble!!!!

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 07:06 PM
Let's call That Guy or the Gunslinger and have all those annoying threads locked!

Closest thing to DM fiat in RL ever.

Catch
2007-11-05, 07:07 PM
What are we arguing, exactly? Breakability? Fun factor? Learning curve?

2nd Edition is just awkward. It's a game that is difficult to play and for no good reason. I haven't yet heard a good explanation for why it's at all preferable other than "ZOMG 3e IS OVERPOWDERED!"

Tren
2007-11-05, 07:12 PM
I'd rather just see certain members of the forum be a little more civil in their discussion, but if not at least get it out of other threads and not risk having otherwise civil conversations locked.

Anyway, one particular argument I've heard against 3.x is that Feats somehow allow a player to break the skill system and discourages role-playing, though I don't think I've seen anything in the way of a example of this.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-05, 07:12 PM
I tried, but I couldn't love 2e, although I liked the fact that you could buy a blunderbuss and a water clock. There was something about the books that reminded me of school textbooks. Maybe it was the glossy paper, or the smell of the ink.

So in summary, my well-considered opinion is "2e SMELLS"

Reel On, Love
2007-11-05, 07:16 PM
I tried, but I couldn't love 2e, although I liked the fact that you could buy a blunderbuss and a water clock. There was something about the books that reminded me of school textbooks. Maybe it was the glossy paper, or the smell of the ink.

So in summary, my well-considered opinion is "2e SMELLS"

You're in luck! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#waterClock)

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 07:18 PM
In all honesty, 2ed. was slightly more balanced, because spells didn't net you so many win buttons (And yes, some feats are TOO cheesy. A good example would be Power attack, which has been shown to be tremendously abusable, though that's actually feat selections as a whole, not a single feat), and full fighters were quite more useful when ToBless, specially if you allowed grandmaster specialization. But it was also a lot more boring, particularly since you REALLY had no choice but "I hit it again/I turn invisible and sneak it again/etc.", and some things, like racial level caps, were plain idiotic.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-05, 07:20 PM
I like both systems. 2nd edition's advantage comes from simplicity of play, and it feels lighter. 3rd edition encourages a huge Meta-game, and while thats good in some ways, it can be very, very tiresome in others.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-05, 07:23 PM
In all honesty, 2ed. was slightly more balanced, because spells didn't net you so many win buttons (And yes, some feats are TOO cheesy. A good example would be Power attack, which has been shown to be tremendously abusable, though that's actually feat selections as a whole, not a single feat), and full fighters were quite more useful when ToBless, specially if you allowed grandmaster specialization. But it was also a lot more boring, particularly since you REALLY had no choice but "I hit it again/I turn invisible and sneak it again/etc.", and some things, like racial level caps, were plain idiotic.

2nd edition was not more balanced. Full fighter were far more useful, yes, but look at a level 1 mage.

Between things like dart-specialized fighters, Bladesingers, Fighter 2 dual-classed into Thief, and just crappy stats vs. good stats that got you XP bonuses, 2e didn't even have a semblance of balance.

And, oh, yeah--Power Attack isn't "abuseable", it's needed to keep up damage-wise.

Thane of Fife
2007-11-05, 07:24 PM
2nd Edition is just awkward. It's a game that is difficult to play and for no good reason.

Oh no, we have to use addition and subtraction. How will we survive?

And besides, 3rd Edition lost all the risks of 2nd. Of course wizards are over-powered no - none of their spells have significant drawbacks.

Gate went from aging a couple years and needing to risk death to losing a handful of xp. Haste lost its enormous risks. Limited Wish and Wish lost their aging dangers in favor of minor xp losses.

Dangers were decreased as well. Now it's pretty easy to get resurrected - all you need is the cash. No longer do you need to find a cleric who's willing to risk death, and who will need to rest for days afterwards. Nope, now you can bring people back from the dead in combat, and they can just go back to fighting.

No longer are undead fearsome adversaries - their level-drain's been nerfed. No longer do you need to worry about just being hit by them - now you get a bunch of chances to save. Gee, how frightening.

I just had this argument (from the 3rd edition side) over at a 2e website. I like them both.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-05, 07:28 PM
Oh no, we have to use addition and subtraction. How will we survive?
No, forget Thac0. You had to look everything up on a table. Saving throws? Table. Oh, and the saves--why were there so many of them, again?


And besides, 3rd Edition lost all the risks of 2nd. Of course wizards are over-powered no - none of their spells have significant drawbacks.

Gate went from aging a couple years and needing to risk death to losing a handful of xp. Haste lost its enormous risks. Limited Wish and Wish lost their aging dangers in favor of minor xp losses.
"Oh, no, this spell ages me. Fortunately, as an elf--since humans are so much worse than the other races anyway--I don't really freakin' care."


Dangers were decreased as well. Now it's pretty easy to get resurrected - all you need is the cash. No longer do you need to find a cleric who's willing to risk death, and who will need to rest for days afterwards. Nope, now you can bring people back from the dead in combat, and they can just go back to fighting.

No longer are undead fearsome adversaries - their level-drain's been nerfed. No longer do you need to worry about just being hit by them - now you get a bunch of chances to save. Gee, how frightening.

I just had this argument (from the 3rd edition side) over at a 2e website. I like them both.
And yet, 3.5 somehow manages to have TPKs. It's just less stupid about it: honestly, system shock rolls? "I cast Haste. You have 11 con. Roll percentiles; under 25 and you're dead."

Players dying a lot all over the place isn't a good thing, since they can't play while the character's dead.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 07:30 PM
Love, I've to disagree. First off, a wizard being weak at low levels is, in fact, SOMEWHAT balanced. They always dominated the high levels, and quite afew times they did the mids, but in 2 ed, at least you couldn't grease people to oblivion.


Yeah, the things you mention are very broken ('cept the bonus for high stats, that was stupid period), but, for a comp, I answer: Shocktrooper builds, 64 attack Swordsages, anything that involves an optimized Avalanche of Blades, and aaaaaaallllll those 7 class builds. To quote the Lead (Yes, Lead. No typo) Zeppelin, The Song Remains The Same, only the musicians have changed.

Zincorium
2007-11-05, 07:31 PM
I liked 2nd edition while I was playing it. I also liked 3.x despite it's similar number of, but different, flaws.

I think DMs are the key here. Those DMs who routinely houserule everything anyway may feel less encumbered but 2nd edition than 3rd, as everyone ignores 70-80% of those rules anyway (who actually used the 'damage type versus armor type' table in a normal game? Or told players they had to stop leveling up because they were something other than humans?). A good DM who is like this can present a very nice game that I'd still be willing to join in.

On the other hand, the 3.x rules are easier for casual games, where you haven't had months to prepare and just want to get a game going with an hour or so of prep and are willing to deal with the majority of the rules as-is.

So, yeah, 2nd edition wins if it's a planescape, dark sun, or kick-arse homebrew. Otherwise, I prefer 3.x.


Just on a side note, ever notice that despite the idea that any race can be any class, they almost never deviate much from the assigned classes in 2nd ed? Halfling clerics and dwarven wizards are about as rare now as when they had to be specifically allowed by the DM.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-05, 07:32 PM
Love, I've to disagree. First off, a wizard being weak at low levels is, in fact, SOMEWHAT balanced. They always dominated the high levels, and quite afew times they did the mids, but in 2 ed, at least you couldn't grease people to oblivion.
Screw "somewhat balanced". A level one wizard has 1d4 HP, and ONE SPELL per day out of a couple that he didn't even pick himself. That is the antithesis of fun.
Bard fireballs were better anyway. And then there's the difference between being a level 10 wizard and, like, a level 9 fighter/8 wizard multiclass. And then at high levels the wizard suddenly started destroying things.
"Suck horribly now and be ridiculous later" is crappy game design. Far worse than "be decent now and be ridiculous later".



Yeah, the things you mention are very broken ('cept the bonus for high stats, that was stupid period), but, for a comp, I answer: Shocktrooper builds, 64 attack Swordsages, anything that involves an optimized Avalanche of Blades, and aaaaaaallllll those 7 class builds. To quote the Lead (Yes, Lead. No typo) Zeppelin, The Song Remains The Same, only the musicians have changed.
I'm not suggesting that 3.5 is well-balanced. It's obviously not.
I'm suggesting that 2E isn't, either.

tainsouvra
2007-11-05, 07:33 PM
I played 2E for a while, and got a decent number of books and such. Our group thought it was ok as-is, if somewhat awkward. Then we started house-ruling to make things run smoother, and kept going until it was a game we were happy with. The final result was disturbingly similar to 3E in several ways...so while, for our group, 2E was workable, making it so basically turned it into a differently-flavored 3E anyway.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-05, 07:34 PM
Just on a side note, ever notice that despite the idea that any race can be any class, they almost never deviate much from the assigned classes in 2nd ed? Halfling clerics and dwarven wizards are about as rare now as when they had to be specifically allowed by the DM.

Yeah, making something non-optimal seems to have about the same effect as forbidding it.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 07:34 PM
True dat, Zincorium. We just grew accustomed to the famous stereotypes (humans being almost anything not build around powergaming that is exotic, elves being good archers, halflings being kleptomaniacs), but I'm not complainin'. It also helps stop idiots who want to play half orc sorcs, so, as long as half orc sorcs aren't goin' around, I'm okay.

SpiderKoopa
2007-11-05, 07:41 PM
As a player who was part of the whole, "Never gonna update to 3.x, never!" and then got a good DM for it and enjoyed it, I'm going to agree with DM makes the game more than the edition.
I'm currently in a 2E campaign playing a bugbear invoker (long story), and you know? It's a lot of fun. Thallis has to be one of my favorite characters I've ever made.
I'm about to play a 3.5 gestalt game. Sorc/fav soul. Also seems like it'll tremendously fun. Same DM and all.

You know? I'll have my thac0 and my feats too as long as it's with a good DM. :smallsmile:

DivineBriliance
2007-11-05, 07:42 PM
in 3e Wizards suck at low levels but rock after mid levels. They make up for being so good by being not so good at first. Until you get fireball, its magic missle and charm person...

By the way i made a low to no con cleric who owned! thats because when he sacrificed con to get more dex , and he has such a freaking high ac that no one his level could touch him. that was level 6.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 07:45 PM
I think getting the recent spat of 2E v. 3.x discussions out of other threads seems like a good idea. So without further adieu

--In this corner we have "Feats are baby eating game breakers that kill role-playing!"

--and his opponent tonight "2E is an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules!"

Lets get ready to rumble!!!!



I will concede that for most campaign settings, 2E is an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules. Forgotten Realms 2nd edition was awful, and it definitely improved in 3e. Grayhawk had very few rules and as such was fine in both editions.

However.

The rules for Planescape and Ravenloft were far from contrived or unnecessary. The fact that the feat system and other re-organizations have totally obliterated both Campaign Settings has kept me from 3e permanently. The fact that 3e had to be revised into 3.5, and is now going to be "replaced" by 4th edition, all these changes in less than 8 years, is just sickening to me, and shows the complete and utter weakness of the 3e game system.

Divine Brilliance your example is a perfect example of why I hate 3e.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-05, 07:45 PM
Oh, this is fun. Nearly every argument people make against either edition also applies to the other!

* Powers from 2E are also baby eating game breakers that kill role-playing!
* 3E is likewise an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules! (heal by drowning, anyone?)
* 3E is also a game that is difficult to play and for no good reason - no RPG on the market needs more errata and explanatory pages than this one
* 2E is also ZOMG OVERPOWDERED! - very few RPGs have anything resembling the power of a 20th-level wizard, even in 2E.
* in 3E, you can also buy a blunderbuss and a water clock.
* I'm sure somebody will find that 3E reminds him of school, or that it smells of something.

Et cetera.

Next match: in one corner, we have pot. In the other, we have kettle...

Dhavaer
2007-11-05, 07:46 PM
Yeah, making something non-optimal seems to have about the same effect as forbidding it.

Funny that you see so many more elf wizards than dwarf wizards, then.

Thane of Fife
2007-11-05, 07:47 PM
A level one wizard has 1d4 HP, and ONE SPELL per day out of a couple that he didn't even pick himself. That is the antithesis of fun.

Random spells isn't even one out of the three options given in the DMG, which are player picks, DM picks, and DM and player pick together. If you don't like how your DM did it, complain about him, not the system.


"Oh, no, this spell ages me. Fortunately, as an elf--since humans are so much worse than the other races anyway--I don't really freakin' care."

Except that if you fail a System Shock roll, you die. I'd care about that.


Bard fireballs were better anyway.

In what way? Bard fireballs are exactly the same as wizard fireballs.


You had to look everything up on a table. Saving throws? Table.


What's wrong with tables? Asides from which, there really aren't that many that are important. Turn Undead and Saves are the only ones which might need to be regularly checked, and one could easily record his saves on his character sheet anyway.


Yeah, making something non-optimal seems to have about the same effect as forbidding it.

That's strange; I recall having plenty of human characters in my 2e games.


Players dying a lot all over the place isn't a good thing, since they can't play while the character's dead.

Being more dangerous doesn't lead to more people dying; it leads to more people playing carefully and, to an extent, intelligently (I am not arguing that nobody plays intelligently in 3rd edition, so please don't say that I am.)

Porthos
2007-11-05, 07:50 PM
I have played under 1E, 2E (Pre and Post Players Options) and 3E, and you know what the main difference between 2E and 3E was?

Frustration.

In 2E you had downright silly rules (level/class/race limits), annoying rules (system shock), and non-fun rules (spheres). Throw in the Spiral of Death (Every time you die, you lose Con), THAC0, and "Wait, do I want a High Roll or a Low Roll"? and you get... well let's just say I thank my lucky stars that 3E was created.

Now is 3E perfect? Of course not, no RPG is. But I've seen just as many people powergame 2E as they did 3E. Did they powergame differently? Of course. But it was just as easy to break 2E as it was to break 3E. The main reason there is so much "breakage" in 3E is that, as near as I can tell, there have been far more "crunch" books put out on 3Es watch than were out under 2E. But when you add in all of the settings that were running around under 2Es watch, then you could get just as much breakage as you find now.

Speaking of setting, I will say that the one single place, for me at any rate, that 2E was superior to 3E was all of the different settings. 3E, with the sole exception of Eberron really hasn't done much in the way of campaign settings. And I actually like a lot of the settings in 2E. But that's probably because I'm a Planescape player, so I'm biased. :smalltongue:

tainsouvra
2007-11-05, 07:55 PM
The fact that 3e had to be revised into 3.5, and is now going to be "replaced" by 4th edition, all these changes in less than 8 years, is just sickening to me, and shows the complete and utter weakness of the 3e game system. Actually I would readily chalk that one up to the standard operating procedure of WotC. Check out their other product lines, it's the same kind of deal.

Porthos
2007-11-05, 07:58 PM
One other thing:

The great thing about 3E is it is HIGHLY modular. If you see something that you like from FR or Eberron, or some fluff book, it is trivial to strip away the fluff and deposit it in your home campaign. In 2e that was.... less so. Much less, actually. While it could be done, trying to mix and match ideas and rules from different campaigns and kits was... problematic at best.

But in 3E (with its laser-like focus on the mathematical underpinnings of d20) it is much much easier to strip things away from source material and plop it in your game. In a way, this is also 3Es biggest curse as this very modularity has lead to many of the cries of "unbalanced" gaming. But even with that the sheer ease of mix-n-matching makes up for whatever game balance issues might arise from said mixing.

Especially since you can always ban obnoxious combos from your table. :smallwink:

Porthos
2007-11-05, 08:00 PM
Actually I would readily chalk that one up to the standard operating procedure of WotC. Check out their other product lines, it's the same kind of deal.

And I would say find me a RPG that doesn't radically overhaul it's rule set every few years. :smallwink:

HINT: You can't find many. :smallbiggrin:

Eight years is a looooooong time to have a ruleset. Heck, even five years (which will be the time between 3.5 and 4E) is a fairly decent amount of mileage.

Kizara
2007-11-05, 08:07 PM
Random spells isn't even one out of the three options given in the DMG, which are player picks, DM picks, and DM and player pick together. If you don't like how your DM did it, complain about him, not the system.



Except that if you fail a System Shock roll, you die. I'd care about that.



In what way? Bard fireballs are exactly the same as wizard fireballs.



What's wrong with tables? Asides from which, there really aren't that many that are important. Turn Undead and Saves are the only ones which might need to be regularly checked, and one could easily record his saves on his character sheet anyway.



That's strange; I recall having plenty of human characters in my 2e games.



Being more dangerous doesn't lead to more people dying; it leads to more people playing carefully and, to an extent, intelligently (I am not arguing that nobody plays intelligently in 3rd edition, so please don't say that I am.)

Minor point: bards dont actually get the fireball spell, so I dont know what that poster is refering to.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 08:09 PM
Maybe he confused fireballs with skull traps?

Swordguy
2007-11-05, 08:11 PM
I like both systems. 2nd edition's advantage comes from simplicity of play, and it feels lighter. 3rd edition encourages a huge Meta-game, and while thats good in some ways, it can be very, very tiresome in others.

Dear LORD yes.

My favorite thing about 2E is that most of the really horribly complicated or table-intensive stuff is optional. People complain about having to consult tables for saves, but forget that those saves are generally written down on a sheet of paper you're using for reference - which is a good habit to get into no matter WHAT game you're playing. I can make a 2E game very, very simple, or massively complex, or house-rule the living crap out of it and it still ticks along - which occasionally broken in places (see also: dart-specialized Fighters), but those broken things just seemed to be a lot less common and easy to pull off in actual gameplay as the broken things seem to be in 3.x.

No, here's a point. I very much ENJOY limitations on a PC. Having actual penalties for death, or something that says you can't reasonably get better than this made, in my opinion, a more satisfying roleplaying experience. The harder the deck is stacked against you, the more satisfying the win, and if you don't win - well, it's an opportunity to try out another character concept. That's the thing I hate most about 3.x. Anyone can do or be anything. That leads to people playing Warforged half-vampire half-celestial half-wraith dwarven wizards who kill everything without ever doing a single hitpoint of damage (note: this sentence contains hyperbole - if you nitpick the previous sentence for 100% gameplay accuracy, you probably are the type of gamer I'm making fun of). In removing the limits that characters had upon them, they opened up the field to insanely complex character builds that actively encourage min-maxing on the player level, and simultaneously encouraged "codex creep" at the corporate level in order to get gamers to buy more books (buy the ToB to get your melee characters up to near-par with the casters!).

What the hell is wrong with playing an ordinary elf ranger, human wizard, or dwarf fighter anyway? There was a thread a little while back about someone wanting to play a melee type. The consensus was to play a half-giant psychic warrior/something/something. Why a half-giant? The stats were better. In 2E, playing a half-giant was a pretty serious thing, and (at least in most group I've been in or heard of) something subject to a severe case of dm approval and frowning in your general direction over trying to break the game. A half-giant ought to be a MAJOR question over whether you can roleplay that character or not - and it shouldn't just be assumed that you can (to say nothing of being entitled to!) play it.

3.x. Simply too permissive. It lets you do whatever you want to it and doesn't - or is incapable of - saying no. Really, it's the coke-addled slut of RPGs.

Catch
2007-11-05, 08:11 PM
Minor point: bards dont actually get the fireball spell, so I dont know what that poster is refering to.

2nd Edition, when Bards used the same spells as Wizards and Sorcerers.

Kizara
2007-11-05, 08:12 PM
Maybe he confused fireballs with skull traps?

What the heck is a "skull trap"?

Reel On, Love
2007-11-05, 08:13 PM
Uh, I was under the impression that Bards learn and cast Wizard spells. That seems to be what the book is saying.

As for why their damage spells are better, because they're generally at least a level ahead of wizards... especially multiclass wizards (common--it adds a lot of survivability). A Bard 8 or 9 and Fighter 7/Wizard 6 might be in the same party. The bard's fireball is gonna do 8 or 9 dice to the wizard's 6 (or 7, for a pure wizard's).

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 08:18 PM
Skull trap was a trap you could set that did a max of 10d6 for wizzes, and a max of 15d6 for bards, and that damage was force damage (and that was 2ed, so no force dragons). It was basically a whorier and more powerful Explosive runes, and it was abusable everywhere, provided you could prepare. Heck, from BGII to a Planescape assasination, it always worked.

As for Swordguy. Well, I mostly agree with you. But you ignore that most 5 and a quarter halves PC's are actually theoretical experiments (a la Pun-Pun). Anyone who is not an idiot will actually TRY to create a char. And if the person insists on the powergamed PC, a "A Comet Volley is cast on you, you die many times" trick would work nicely.

'Cept on one thing. 3.5 is not on coke. It's on heroine. Or maybe Fallout's Jet.

Kizara
2007-11-05, 08:23 PM
Uh, I was under the impression that Bards learn and cast Wizard spells. That seems to be what the book is saying.

As for why their damage spells are better, because they're generally at least a level ahead of wizards... especially multiclass wizards (common--it adds a lot of survivability). A Bard 8 or 9 and Fighter 7/Wizard 6 might be in the same party. The bard's fireball is gonna do 8 or 9 dice to the wizard's 6 (or 7, for a pure wizard's).

Ok, I hate to nitpick, but if you are going to argue about systems please get ANY of your details right...

In 3.x..

1) Bards have their own spell lists, it does not include the vast majority of the direct-damage spells. Including fireball. Thus, their direct-damage spells by defination CANNOT be better, since they basically have NONE.

2) Bard spellcasting progression is far behind a wizards, often 3+ class levels behind in terms of when they get their next spell levels.

3) If a character is half of a wizard, you cannot sensibly use him to claim that wizard casting progression is somehow inferior, when it is anything but: you just only have HALF of it, since you are half of a wizard.

4) Fighter 7/wizard 6 is a abysmally bad build. You are right, by comparison a bard 9 (who would be 4 levels lower) might be comparable in power. THAT'S how bad that build is.


It's like me claiming that diamonds are inferior to granite by comparing a mountain (of primarily granite) to some dust that's mixed into nuclear waste.

Or, a less extreme example, it would be like me claiming that sorcerors are inferior to paladins in terms of spellcasting by comparing a full-orc sorceror 4/fighter 5 to a human paladin 8. Yes, 4 levels of sorceror casting with a -4 racial penalty to charisma ARE wrose then 8 levels of paladin casting.

Swordguy
2007-11-05, 08:26 PM
As for Swordguy. Well, I mostly agree with you. But you ignore that most 5 and a quarter halves PC's are actually theoretical experiments (a la Pun-Pun). Anyone who is not an idiot will actually TRY to create a char. And if the person insists on the powergamed PC, a "A Comet Volley is cast on you, you die many times" trick would work nicely.

'Cept on one thing. 3.5 is not on coke. It's on heroine. Or maybe Fallout's Jet.

Ah....you see, I've had people honestly try that. I theorize it's actually people who don't have any control over their own lives indulging in a little transferrence (my life sucks, so I'm going to make the biggest, craziest, powerfullest PC I can). And the "rocks fall you die" trick breaks up groups and friendships - making it a bad solution to that sort of problem. Having the game not so inherently permissive helps put a brake on that sort of thing.

Heroin. Well, fair enough. I sure you're intimately familiar with the difference. :smalltongue:

Neon Knight
2007-11-05, 08:26 PM
Ok, I hate to nitpick, but if you are going to argue about systems please get ANY of your details right...

In 3.x..


Uh, dude? He was talking about 2E.

SpiderKoopa
2007-11-05, 08:28 PM
Ok, I hate to nitpick, but if you are going to argue about systems please get ANY of your details right...

Whoa. I believe he's talking about 2E bards. :smalleek:

-Edit.- Ninja'd

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 08:29 PM
Uuuhm, we're speaking 2ed. In it, every time you gain a level, you more or less gain TWO levels. It was a sort of precursor to Gestalt.

And yeah, maybe a rocks fall trick is not good. Got me on that, it's more subtle to dispose of the forty breed two sessions into the game in a subtle way, and suggest a pretty optimized, but not broken normal char.


And yeah, 3.5 is on Jet. It's state makes the gal from G'n'R's Appettite for destruction sleeve look a-okay.

Kizara
2007-11-05, 08:32 PM
Dear LORD yes.

My favorite thing about 2E is that most of the really horribly complicated or table-intensive stuff is optional. People complain about having to consult tables for saves, but forget that those saves are generally written down on a sheet of paper you're using for reference - which is a good habit to get into no matter WHAT game you're playing. I can make a 2E game very, very simple, or massively complex, or house-rule the living crap out of it and it still ticks along - which occasionally broken in places (see also: dart-specialized Fighters), but those broken things just seemed to be a lot less common and easy to pull off in actual gameplay as the broken things seem to be in 3.x.

No, here's a point. I very much ENJOY limitations on a PC. Having actual penalties for death, or something that says you can't reasonably get better than this made, in my opinion, a more satisfying roleplaying experience. The harder the deck is stacked against you, the more satisfying the win, and if you don't win - well, it's an opportunity to try out another character concept. That's the thing I hate most about 3.x. Anyone can do or be anything. That leads to people playing Warforged half-vampire half-celestial half-wraith dwarven wizards who kill everything without ever doing a single hitpoint of damage (note: this sentence contains hyperbole - if you nitpick the previous sentence for 100% gameplay accuracy, you probably are the type of gamer I'm making fun of). In removing the limits that characters had upon them, they opened up the field to insanely complex character builds that actively encourage min-maxing on the player level, and simultaneously encouraged "codex creep" at the corporate level in order to get gamers to buy more books (buy the ToB to get your melee characters up to near-par with the casters!).

What the hell is wrong with playing an ordinary elf ranger, human wizard, or dwarf fighter anyway? There was a thread a little while back about someone wanting to play a melee type. The consensus was to play a half-giant psychic warrior/something/something. Why a half-giant? The stats were better. In 2E, playing a half-giant was a pretty serious thing, and (at least in most group I've been in or heard of) something subject to a severe case of dm approval and frowning in your general direction over trying to break the game. A half-giant ought to be a MAJOR question over whether you can roleplay that character or not - and it shouldn't just be assumed that you can (to say nothing of being entitled to!) play it.

3.x. Simply too permissive. It lets you do whatever you want to it and doesn't - or is incapable of - saying no. Really, it's the coke-addled slut of RPGs.


System =/= roleplaying.

Some argument could be made that certain systems encourage/demand more of a focus on roleplaying, but its silly to say that you cant or dont RP if you play 3.x instead of 2.x.

CAN people play really silly and absurd things? Theorectically. People can start play at level 19 if they want to, it doesn't mean that's what is generally done or allowed.

Can people make really silly characters and have no obligation or intention to RP them? Yes, but not only is that not the point of playing a roleplaying game, but is not how 3.x is meant to be played anymore then 2.x was.

The point is that in-book restrictions, as far as playing options go, do not make your game versimilatude better or your RPing experience stronger. In fact, it is interesting to RP with different types of characters: I've had some extremely rewarding half-celestial characters.

Many people DO play human ____, elven ____, dwarven fighters/clerics, etc. Just because people don't want to play a sterotype everytime doesn't mean they are bad roleplayers or are using a poorly-designed system.

Finally, a system exists for one purpose alone: to faciliate a group of players to create and roleplay a story and have a fun experience while doing so. Part of this is limiting what is realistic or possible, as that helps to maintain suspension of disbelief. However, limiting what options people have when exploring their roleplaying is not somehow an inherently holy or desirable thing IMO.

Swordguy
2007-11-05, 08:47 PM
System =/= roleplaying.

Some argument could be made that certain systems encourage/demand more of a focus on roleplaying, but its silly to say that you cant or dont RP if you play 3.x instead of 2.x.


Incorrect. Systems can and do impact how you roleplay. For example:

a) You see a small green creature in front of you. It growls at you menacingly. You're playing D&D. What do you do?

b) You see a small green creature in front of you. It growls at you menacingly. You're playing Call of Cthulhu. What do you do?




CAN people play really silly and absurd things? Theorectically. People can start play at level 19 if they want to, it doesn't mean that's what is generally done or allowed.

Can people make really silly characters and have no obligation or intention to RP them? Yes, but not only is that not the point of playing a roleplaying game, but is not how 3.x is meant to be played anymore then 2.x was.

The point is that in-book restrictions, as far as playing options go, do not make your game versimilatude better or your RPing experience stronger. In fact, it is interesting to RP with different types of characters: I've had some extremely rewarding half-celestial characters.


You were fine up to the bolded statement. Again, the more restrictions you have on you, the better the feeling when you win. What would give you more of a feeling of satisfaction when fighting a base Frost Giant? Winning whe you've 100,000 hp, swinging 10-20 damage a round, and a complete immunity to spells? Or winning it against it if you've only got a dozen hit points, you're swinging for 10-20 points a round, and you had to use sneaky tactics to even the playing field? Hyperbole? Sure. But the principle's the same. The restrictions make it tougher, but ultimately more rewarding.



Many people DO play human ____, elven ____, dwarven fighters/clerics, etc. Just because people don't want to play a sterotype everytime doesn't mean they are bad roleplayers or are using a poorly-designed system.

Finally, a system exists for one purpose alone: to faciliate a group of players to create and roleplay a story and have a fun experience while doing so. Part of this is limiting what is realistic or possible, as that helps to maintain suspension of disbelief. However, limiting what options people have when exploring their roleplaying is not somehow an inherently holy or desirable thing IMO.

It's a good thing it's in your opinion. Mine differs significantly. And really, if the roleplaying is REALLY all that matters, then you shouldn't need so many options, should you? You don't need a mechanical advantage for playing a half-celestial - you can just roleplay it.

I don't like having weird half-whatever's in my game. In general, I prefer that the majority of the party be the more common races in the game world (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, half-elf, half-orc [note: I just irrationally hate gnomes - so they don't count]). If ONE or TWO people want to play something "different", that's fine. But when every single person in the group wants to play a "1 in a billion" character...well, just no.

The problem is an inherently PERMISSIVE system. One that says "you can do whatever you want except...". That's when you start seeing people try to game the system. That same problem of gaming the system is severely curtailed when the system instead is predicated upon the statement "You may only do this, and may do more only with GM permission".

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-05, 08:52 PM
System =/= roleplaying.

Some argument could be made that certain systems encourage/demand more of a focus on roleplaying, but its silly to say that you cant or dont RP if you play 3.x instead of 2.x.

CAN people play really silly and absurd things? Theorectically. People can start play at level 19 if they want to, it doesn't mean that's what is generally done or allowed.

Can people make really silly characters and have no obligation or intention to RP them? Yes, but not only is that not the point of playing a roleplaying game, but is not how 3.x is meant to be played anymore then 2.x was.

The point is that in-book restrictions, as far as playing options go, do not make your game versimilatude better or your RPing experience stronger. In fact, it is interesting to RP with different types of characters: I've had some extremely rewarding half-celestial characters.

Many people DO play human ____, elven ____, dwarven fighters/clerics, etc. Just because people don't want to play a sterotype everytime doesn't mean they are bad roleplayers or are using a poorly-designed system.

Finally, a system exists for one purpose alone: to faciliate a group of players to create and roleplay a story and have a fun experience while doing so. Part of this is limiting what is realistic or possible, as that helps to maintain suspension of disbelief. However, limiting what options people have when exploring their roleplaying is not somehow an inherently holy or desirable thing IMO.

I agree with you, but what Swordguy points out is true- 3rd edition facilitates a lot more optimization then 2nd did.

This isn't just bad, or just good. On one hand, it allows players much more choice in what they can do. On the other hand, it means that some players can streak far ahead of others, completely within the legality of the game. While some people things its perfectly find to just off an "offending" player ( Personally, I think thats unfair and a bit mean.) I imagine sometimes, one would rather not deal with it.

I try to look at both systems as very different games. In a perfect world, if I want good old fashioned Fantasy thats easy to do, I'd go with 2nd edition ( Or Castles and crusades, but thats another story...) and if I wanted something more out there or varied, I'd play 3rd.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-05, 09:07 PM
Oh, this is fun. Nearly every argument people make against either edition also applies to the other!

* Powers from 2E are also baby eating game breakers that kill role-playing!

While true for Forgotten realms, this is not true in Planescape or Ravenloft. Greyhawk is also relatively immune to excessive powers because nobody wrote them.



* 3E is likewise an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules! (heal by drowning, anyone?)

Yes, it is in many supplements.


* 3E is also a game that is difficult to play and for no good reason - no RPG on the market needs more errata and explanatory pages than this one

Which makes me cringe.


* 2E is also ZOMG OVERPOWDERED! - very few RPGs have anything resembling the power of a 20th-level wizard, even in 2E.

Unless, again, you're in Ravenloft or Planescape. Dragonlance also has some very good rules to handle over powered characters (especially level 20 ones).


* in 3E, you can also buy a blunderbuss and a water clock.

That never bothered me.


* I'm sure somebody will find that 3E reminds him of school, or that it smells of something.

Et cetera.

Next match: in one corner, we have pot. In the other, we have kettle...

as I said before, there were campaign worlds which directly contradict many complaints people have about 2nd edition, and are thus incompatible with 3rd edition.

^_^

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-05, 09:10 PM
Y'know, you've contradicted yourself. In the Ravenloft thread, you said it was horribly broken ("Horror checks! AAAAGH!"), now you say it's balanced. There really isn't THAT much difference between the two 'lofts, so complaining ain't a good idea for your position.

Kizara
2007-11-05, 09:16 PM
Incorrect. Systems can and do impact how you roleplay. For example:

a) You see a small green creature in front of you. It growls at you menacingly. You're playing D&D. What do you do?

b) You see a small green creature in front of you. It growls at you menacingly. You're playing Call of Cthulhu. What do you do?

That has everything to do with setting and little to do with mechanics.
I was talking about mechanical systems, not setting (fluff/world detail).

This isn't Eberron Vs Planescape, its 3.x vs 2.x.





You were fine up to the bolded statement. Again, the more restrictions you have on you, the better the feeling when you win. What would give you more of a feeling of satisfaction when fighting a base Frost Giant? Winning whe you've 100,000 hp, swinging 10-20 damage a round, and a complete immunity to spells? Or winning it against it if you've only got a dozen hit points, you're swinging for 10-20 points a round, and you had to use sneaky tactics to even the playing field? Hyperbole? Sure. But the principle's the same. The restrictions make it tougher, but ultimately more rewarding.

Your DM can find appropriately challenging monsters for you in 3.x just as well as he can in 2.x (I hope so, and if he can't, that has everything to do with your DM).

As for playing with powerful 'heroic' characters, versus playing with characters that are like average joes that do heroic things through luck/tactics, that's again about playstyle and not system.

You can accomplish the same thing in 3.x by playing with lower stats and/or not allowing much splat books.



It's a good thing it's in your opinion. Mine differs significantly. And really, if the roleplaying is REALLY all that matters, then you shouldn't need so many options, should you? You don't need a mechanical advantage for playing a half-celestial - you can just roleplay it.

For one thing, half-celestials (with 4 LA) are actually inferior to humans from an optimization standpoint.
For another, part of the job of mechanics is to define the world and the attributes it has and how things are accomplished within it. A half-celestial is MARKABLY different then a human, and has various abilities and increased stats to reflect this; if he did not, it would be fairly non-sensical.

I agree with you that a system where you can literally do whatever you want just because you want to and have any success because you desire it is quite inferior (IE: freeform). Fortunately, 3.x is not that by a long shot. Your actions and abilities are well-defined and sensibly limited. Sure, there's some odd and silly points (drowning), and its not as realistic as it could be (hp system), but its certinally not the obsurd picture you desire to paint.


I don't like having weird half-whatever's in my game. In general, I prefer that the majority of the party be the more common races in the game world (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, half-elf, half-orc [note: I just irrationally hate gnomes - so they don't count]). If ONE or TWO people want to play something "different", that's fine. But when every single person in the group wants to play a "1 in a billion" character...well, just no.

That is your playstyle preferance and has to do with world building and player choices a great deal more then the system. Another example would be for half of your group to be renegrade drow. It's silly, and although the system allows for you to play a drow, it doesn't necessarily mean your DM should allow EVERYONE to.
You said so yourself that you don't mind if the system allows "ONE or TWO people to play something 'different'", so this really is no-longer a system argument at all.



The problem is an inherently PERMISSIVE system. One that says "you can do whatever you want except...". That's when you start seeing people try to game the system. That same problem of gaming the system is severely curtailed when the system instead is predicated upon the statement "You may only do this, and may do more only with GM permission".

I agree with you to a certain extent with your overall point actually. There is a problem with the way 3.x has been marketed to allow for so much additional material by creating the premise of 'you can chose anything'. I find a different attitude, that is also wholeheartly supported but not as encouraged by the system, is both more responsible and more rewarding:

That is, by using the available mechanics and options to create the precise character you desire to play and have his abilities reflect your vision of him as well as the progress he makes in the world.

In essence: just because additional options exist, does not mean you are required to take them or that it would necessarily be sensible to do so.

Logic Cannon
2007-11-05, 09:26 PM
I've played 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5, and I have to say I much prefer the current system.

Before we get into the "he must think 3.0+ is just amazingly perfect" arguments, I need to get this off my chest:
As 3.0+ has been getting older and older I've noted many of the same problems cropping up that doomed 2nd edition as well. Too many weird new races, weird new classes/class alternatives, weird new feats/proficiencies, new casting methods, more spells, more metagamed magic gear, etc. Simply put, the more a game system expands the more expansion books are brought out for it and the more game-ruining munchkins can draw upon these books to max out characters or whine at their DMs to include material the DM isn't familiar with, etc. The only way to really salvage these kinds of situations is to have a good DM who will lay down the law early and often and flat-out ban certain options for the good of the game as a whole. This is no different in either system, regardless of what anyone will tell you. 3rd just seems worse because it's been more successful - there are more books and more exposure to these weird options than there were back in 2nd edition. If 2nd had been as popular as 3rd, we'd have seen more than our fair share of half-dragon half-celestials with 5 classes under their belts. I am in no way saying I enjoy this state of affairs, but it's not as though this suddenly only appeared in 3rd edition.

What is different in 3.0+ then? The game system makes more inherent sense is what is different. No THAC0, no weird saves system (breath weapons, apparently need their own save class?), no odd dual/multi-classing restrictions, no arbitrary level or race restrictions, no separate XP tracks with assorted weirdness (see: druids becoming hierophants and needing to hunt down other druids before that), no stats offering separate bonuses, complete with some weird percentiles, etc.

3rd is a fairly simple system with a fairly basic mechanism (roll a d20, add bonuses. Compare to DC. Did it work? If so, do what it says to do if it worked) that makes it easy for new players to pick up. It's consistent enough that understanding part of the system helps you understand something about all of the system, as everything is interconnected in some fashion or another. This is what makes 3rd better than 2nd. It's more easily understood and more easily picked up. For that reason it's harder for sadistic DMs to hold parties hostage because only they actually understand the rules, and accessible rules mean that more people feel the game is run fairly. 2nd edition has the advantage in campaign settings, but it's not hard to port those over to 3rd edition with a good DM, and you really shouldn't be playing either of these settings without a decent DM anyways, regardless of systemic superiority.

Kizara
2007-11-05, 09:26 PM
I agree with you, but what Swordguy points out is true- 3rd edition facilitates a lot more optimization then 2nd did.

This isn't just bad, or just good. On one hand, it allows players much more choice in what they can do. On the other hand, it means that some players can streak far ahead of others, completely within the legality of the game. While some people things its perfectly find to just off an "offending" player ( Personally, I think thats unfair and a bit mean.) I imagine sometimes, one would rather not deal with it.

I try to look at both systems as very different games. In a perfect world, if I want good old fashioned Fantasy thats easy to do, I'd go with 2nd edition ( Or Castles and crusades, but thats another story...) and if I wanted something more out there or varied, I'd play 3rd.

The only point of your post that I desire to argue is that there is a problem with one player, through character decisions and/or good stats, being better than others. There is a problem if a certain class or abilities are so inherantly better that whoever choses them automatically is superior, but people should not be punished for superior planning skills or the ability to focus on their character's role. I agree that 3.x has this problem, and that certain classes (druid) or abilities (power attack) are just too far superior to other choices.

However, if one player gets power attack and the mounted combat chain for his wizard, and the other gets power attack and the trip chain for his fighter/barbarian, and the warrior is much better at combat, I don't see there being a system problem there at all. I also don't see there being a gameplay problem with player A being statiscally inferior at melee combat then player B.

Swordguy
2007-11-05, 09:35 PM
That has everything to do with setting and little to do with mechanics.
I was talking about mechanical systems, not setting (fluff/world detail).

This isn't Eberron Vs Planescape, its 3.x vs 2.x.


You can't divorce setting and mechanics. Ideally, mechanics stem from the setting, and reflect the realities of that setting. How you roleplay will at least partially depend on your chances of success in a given action - and those odds are dependent on the mechanics - stemming from the setting.




I agree with you to a certain extent with your overall point actually. There is a problem with the way 3.x has been marketed to allow for so much additional material by creating the premise of 'you can chose anything'. I find a different attitude, that is also wholeheartly supported but not as encouraged by the system, is both more responsible and more rewarding:

That is, by using the available mechanics and options to create the precise character you desire to play and have his abilities reflect your vision of him as well as the progress he makes in the world.

In essence: just because additional options exist, does not mean you are required to take them or that it would necessarily be sensible to do so.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that people use that flexibility to game the system to an end that largely defeats the idea of roleplaying games - a group of people telling an interactive stroy about fiction characters defeating a challenge. If it's not a challenge anymore (because one has broken the mechanics), then what's the point?

Why I prefer 2E over 3.x is twofold:
1) It's less obvious how to game the system to essentially auto-defeat all challenges.
2) It's not as inherently permissive. A bunch of stuff is labeled "with DM permission". That imposes a whole different tone when someone wants to pull something game-breaking out in 3.x as opposed to 2E. In 2E, I'm simply saying no. In 3.x, i'm taking something away from the player (his flexibility in character design) when I tell him he can't play a Warforged half-dragon whatever with a template that reverses all accumulated LA. In 2E, the player will shrug and go "ok". In 3.x, the player perceives I'm breaking the spirit of the game ("make whatever you want") and will fight about it.

Kizara
2007-11-05, 09:36 PM
I've played 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5, and I have to say I much prefer the current system.

Before we get into the "he must think 3.0+ is just amazingly perfect" arguments, I need to get this off my chest:
As 3.0+ has been getting older and older I've noted many of the same problems cropping up that doomed 2nd edition as well. Too many weird new races, weird new classes/class alternatives, weird new feats/proficiencies, new casting methods, more spells, more metagamed magic gear, etc. Simply put, the more a game system expands the more expansion books are brought out for it and the more game-ruining munchkins can draw upon these books to max out characters or whine at their DMs to include material the DM isn't familiar with, etc. The only way to really salvage these kinds of situations is to have a good DM who will lay down the law early and often and flat-out ban certain options for the good of the game as a whole. This is no different in either system, regardless of what anyone will tell you. 3rd just seems worse because it's been more successful - there are more books and more exposure to these weird options than there were back in 2nd edition. If 2nd had been as popular as 3rd, we'd have seen more than our fair share of half-dragon half-celestials with 5 classes under their belts. I am in no way saying I enjoy this state of affairs, but it's not as though this suddenly only appeared in 3rd edition.

What is different in 3.0+ then? The game system makes more inherent sense is what is different. No THAC0, no weird saves system (breath weapons, apparently need their own save class?), no odd dual/multi-classing restrictions, no arbitrary level or race restrictions, no separate XP tracks with assorted weirdness (see: druids becoming hierophants and needing to hunt down other druids before that), no stats offering separate bonuses, complete with some weird percentiles, etc.

3rd is a fairly simple system with a fairly basic mechanism (roll a d20, add bonuses. Compare to DC. Did it work? If so, do what it says to do if it worked) that makes it easy for new players to pick up. It's consistent enough that understanding part of the system helps you understand something about all of the system, as everything is interconnected in some fashion or another. This is what makes 3rd better than 2nd. It's more easily understood and more easily picked up. For that reason it's harder for sadistic DMs to hold parties hostage because only they actually understand the rules, and accessible rules mean that more people feel the game is run fairly. 2nd edition has the advantage in campaign settings, but it's not hard to port those over to 3rd edition with a good DM, and you really shouldn't be playing either of these settings without a decent DM anyways, regardless of systemic superiority.

I just wanted to say that I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments and assesments and commend you for stating your well-thought-out point so clearly.

Kizara
2007-11-05, 09:49 PM
I agree with this. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that people use that flexibility to game the system to an end that largely defeats the idea of roleplaying games - a group of people telling an interactive stroy about fiction characters defeating a challenge. If it's not a challenge anymore (because one has broken the mechanics), then what's the point?

Why I prefer 2E over 3.x is twofold:
1) It's less obvious how to game the system to essentially auto-defeat all challenges.
2) It's not as inherently permissive. A bunch of stuff is labeled "with DM permission". That imposes a whole different tone when someone wants to pull something game-breaking out in 3.x as opposed to 2E. In 2E, I'm simply saying no. In 3.x, i'm taking something away from the player (his flexibility in character design) when I tell him he can't play a Warforged half-dragon whatever with a template that reverses all accumulated LA. In 2E, the player will shrug and go "ok". In 3.x, the player perceives I'm breaking the spirit of the game ("make whatever you want") and will fight about it.

0) Players deliberately abusing mechanics to 'beat' or "game the system" as you put it is an inherant problem with someone's philosophy for playing a roleplaying game.

1) Having a system so convoluted that it is too difficult to understand how to make good character decisions does not some how make it superior to run a game with IMO. I suppose it is superior at confusing people and being difficult to understand...

2) Can't disagree with you here, although I've never had a problem with banning anything I disliked. It's caused arguments though, although nothing that's ruined games.

Thane of Fife
2007-11-05, 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by Kizara
That has everything to do with setting and little to do with mechanics.
I was talking about mechanical systems, not setting (fluff/world detail).

This isn't Eberron Vs Planescape, its 3.x vs 2.x.

I respectfully disagree. Look at, for example, combat in both editions. In 2nd, I can say that my character tries to do absolutely anything I want him to as an attack. If I want his attack to represent him charging and knocking down his opponent, it can. If I want it to represent him swinging wildly or fighting with parries and ripostes, it can.
In 3rd edition, I can only do these if I have the proper feats. For some arbitrary reason, it has been decided that I cannot try to disarm someone unless I have a specific feat. Similarly, I cannot try to knock someone down without a feat. This is loss of options, which means less opportunity for role-playing.



3rd is a fairly simple system with a fairly basic mechanism (roll a d20, add bonuses. Compare to DC. Did it work? If so, do what it says to do if it worked)

The 2nd edition system is almost exactly the same. For almost everything, you roll a d20 and compare it to some given target number, which you must either roll above or below. There are, in fact, usually fewer modifiers to said roll.


1) Having a system so convoluted that it is too difficult to understand how to make good character decisions does not some how make it superior to run a game with IMO.

There are very few options which are necessary to make a character 'good' in 2nd edition. You pick a race, which really isn't that important in the long run, a class, which is, and proficiencies, all of which can be equally useful. Almost any character is playable in 2nd edition.

Temp
2007-11-05, 10:24 PM
I respectfully disagree. Look at, for example, combat in both editions. In 2nd, I can say that my character tries to do absolutely anything I want him to as an attack. If I want his attack to represent him charging and knocking down his opponent, it can. If I want it to represent him swinging wildly or fighting with parries and ripostes, it can.
In 3rd edition, I can only do these if I have the proper feats. For some arbitrary reason, it has been decided that I cannot try to disarm someone unless I have a specific feat. Similarly, I cannot try to knock someone down without a feat. This is loss of options, which means less opportunity for role-playing.
Yeah, the designers really did go on a AoO-instating frenzy. They went a bit overboard with Grapple/Bull Rush/Sunders/Disarms.


[edit:] And just so you know, you can put another poster's name in a quote by typing "[Quote=Postername]...What-they-said...[/Qu ote]"-- you don't need to type it out.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-05, 11:30 PM
Why I prefer 2E over 3.x is twofold:
1) It's less obvious how to game the system to essentially auto-defeat all challenges.
2) It's not as inherently permissive. A bunch of stuff is labeled "with DM permission". That imposes a whole different tone when someone wants to pull something game-breaking out in 3.x as opposed to 2E. In 2E, I'm simply saying no. In 3.x, i'm taking something away from the player (his flexibility in character design) when I tell him he can't play a Warforged half-dragon whatever with a template that reverses all accumulated LA. In 2E, the player will shrug and go "ok". In 3.x, the player perceives I'm breaking the spirit of the game ("make whatever you want") and will fight about it.

I'll agree with your statements here: 2e is better able to portray a "wtf is that thing omg it's going to eat my brains" feeling, and it is more restrictive. However, I would venture to say that the majority of people who play the game (or at least, the majority of those on this forum) prefer to play games where there are a variety of options.

2e is a perfectly suitable system, but for me it has flaws that I can't work my brain around--and honestly, I find it much harder to homebrew for, which is my biggest turn-off. 3e's flaws? Well, I find I can work with those, and I also am able to fit in pieces where I feel they need to be.

Devils_Advocate
2007-11-06, 12:07 AM
"Oh, no, this spell ages me. Fortunately, as an elf--since humans are so much worse than the other races anyway--I don't really freakin' care."
"As a Vulcan, my mind is more resistant to harmful telepathy." (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC14-2.GIF)

My personal hope is that 4E will be put together by smart people who recognize what each of the previous editions did poorly and what each of them did well. That they'll find a way to include many of the best elements that have appeared in the game over the years and toss out all the overcomplicated, blatantly overpowered, and/or just plain silly things that have been so widely scorned.

... I can dream.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-06, 12:11 AM
However, if one player gets power attack and the mounted combat chain for his wizard, and the other gets power attack and the trip chain for his fighter/barbarian, and the warrior is much better at combat, I don't see there being a system problem there at all. I also don't see there being a gameplay problem with player A being statiscally inferior at melee combat then player B.

My issue with third edition here is that a player can make perfectly logical decisions in character creation and still end up worse then another player who made equally or even less logical decisions.

Like I said, I'm not only ragging on 3rd- I like both 2nd and 3rd, its just that 2nd is currently outnumbered, at least at the moment. ^^;

averagejoe
2007-11-06, 12:17 AM
Wait, I'm confused. We have one second edition guy saying that more choices discourages roleplaying, and another guy saying that a lack of choices discourages roleplaying. :smallconfused:

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-06, 12:30 AM
Wait, I'm confused. We have one second edition guy saying that more choices discourages roleplaying, and another guy saying that a lack of choices discourages roleplaying. :smallconfused:

I don't think either encourages or discourages roleplaying, players will find their way one way or another. I hope I wasn't the one who confused you. ^^;

MrNexx
2007-11-06, 12:43 AM
These discussions are like Fallout 2's Jet... addictive and made of brahmin ****. That said, 2e and 3.x were very different games. I do not find 3.x, as a system, to be enjoyable, but I enjoy 2e for a variety of reasons (not the least of which, I'll admit, is nostalgia).

I've enjoyed playing in 3.x, in that I had fun while playing it, but I don't really enjoy the system; to me, it has too large of an emphasis on the metagame. "I take this feat at 3rd level so I can get into this prestige class at 6th, and I have to make sure to spend my skill points in this way." There is a very heavy emphasis on the mechanical development of your character after adventuring begins, which can be fun, but also can be very frustrating. The last few times I DMd, I wound up handwaving a lot... "Sure, we can switch around some feats and points so you can get into that prestige class. Heck, that's a silly requirement, we'll just ignore it altogether." My group was such that I could get away with that.

Incidentally, on the complaint "In 2e, you had to look up your saves on a table." How do you do it in 3e? My bet is that you had to look them up on the tables presented with every class, including every prestige class, until you internalized the table.

I liked to 2e because it was very easy to fit to an individual group. If you wanted heavily tactical combat, there were options to increase that in Combat and Tactics. If you wanted much faster combat, you could ignore most of the optional rules. 3.x, IME, has a harder time doing that because many builds are based off exploiting the rules as written... if I'm going to do without attacks of opportunity, that's going to invalidate a good number of builds, and make others more attractive. My group picked and chose the rules we wanted to use to have a game that was comfortable for us... we'd still bicker about the rules, but there it was accepted that it was our game, and we'd play by our rules.

averagejoe
2007-11-06, 12:56 AM
I don't think either encourages or discourages roleplaying, players will find their way one way or another. I hope I wasn't the one who confused you. ^^;

No, you weren't. In fact, I wasn't actually confused at all. I was using rhetoric, which is the "poetic license" of prose writers, or, to the lay man, lying. :smallwink: (Hrm. Reading that again, it probably sounds more sarcastic than it's supposed to.) My intention was to point out the arbitrary-ness of the notion of "rules which encourage roleplay."

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-06, 01:22 AM
No, you weren't. In fact, I wasn't actually confused at all. I was using rhetoric, which is the "poetic license" of prose writers, or, to the lay man, lying. :smallwink: (Hrm. Reading that again, it probably sounds more sarcastic than it's supposed to.) My intention was to point out the arbitrary-ness of the notion of "rules which encourage roleplay."


Oh- so we agree...at least I think. :)

Kizara
2007-11-06, 01:27 AM
Incidentally, on the complaint "In 2e, you had to look up your saves on a table." How do you do it in 3e? My bet is that you had to look them up on the tables presented with every class, including every prestige class, until you internalized the table.

You look things up on tables in only 4 situations in 3.x:

1) When you level up. This is the only time you need to look at a table in regards to saves. You never look anything up in regards to rolling a save.

2) When you turn undead. (Bad, clunky mechanic)

3) For the effects of a few spells (quite rare). Also, for some other exceedingly rare effects such as critically failing a reflex save and taking equipment damage.

4) When you are determining XP and treasure after a combat. (fine)


EDIT: OH! And when you are looking up the DCs for some skills, such as Open Lock, you sometimes have to consult the tables. Not to say you couldn't just ad-hoc many of the skill DCs, but there are some table use there.
That's it, and its almost never in the middle of a tense moment (with the exception of those few spells).


I liked to 2e because it was very easy to fit to an individual group. If you wanted heavily tactical combat, there were options to increase that in Combat and Tactics. If you wanted much faster combat, you could ignore most of the optional rules. 3.x, IME, has a harder time doing that because many builds are based off exploiting the rules as written... if I'm going to do without attacks of opportunity, that's going to invalidate a good number of builds, and make others more attractive. My group picked and chose the rules we wanted to use to have a game that was comfortable for us... we'd still bicker about the rules, but there it was accepted that it was our game, and we'd play by our rules.

Seems to be the concensus: people who like 2e seem to like it because it required them to 'customize' the system with many houserules/optional rules. Personally, I would put forth that any system that requires the user to signifigantly alter and largely overhaul it to make it good, stable and usable is inherantly flawed and bad.

I don't know about you, but I have something like maybe 20 houserules for 3.x, and my game would be quite playable with none.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 01:38 AM
The most common house rules people use in 2nd edition all pretty much fit in this list:

1. fixing the elapsed combat time for rounds/turns (to my knowledge, the elapsed time in 3e combat was never changed. I may be wrong.)
2. fixing some of the speed of various monsters (this is more along the lines of correcting horrendous mistakes made by the editors in charge of research for real world speeds of Tigers/Cheetahs/Elephants. To my knowledge this was never fixed for 3e. I may be wrong).
3. no class/race limits (this rule is more along the lines of "ignore one stupid rule" and is even promoted/suggested in the DMG 2nd edition handbook).
4. anyone can multi-class (goes back to rule 3).


Custom Races/Custom Classes are actually found in the DMG for 2nd edition. There's an entire chapter on it. So many people think they're playing with house rules when they create a tiger-person, but they're really not.

I can't tell you how many 2nd edition rules I discover which people claim are House Rules, that I've actually opened up the DMG or some other supplement and shown them that what they consider house rules are instead the actual rules.

Stuff like exp penalties for races, those are optional to begin with, therefore I just ignore them. I mean, that's not a house rule, it's DM's discretion.


There are very few times where I give in and make a little rule change here or there to give my players a boost, most of the time though I use the rules that are printed for 2nd edition.



Unless, of course, you're playing Forgotten Realms. That was the single most convoluted and internally contradicting campaign setting I ever played for 2nd edition (and I lived and breathed SpellJammer for at least 2 years).

Kizara
2007-11-06, 01:50 AM
The most common house rules people use in 2nd edition all pretty much fit in this list:

1. fixing the elapsed combat time for rounds/turns (to my knowledge, the elapsed time in 3e combat was never changed. I may be wrong.)
2. fixing some of the speed of various monsters (this is more along the lines of correcting horrendous mistakes made by the editors in charge of research for real world speeds of Tigers/Cheetahs/Elephants. To my knowledge this was never fixed for 3e. I may be wrong).
3. no class/race limits (this rule is more along the lines of "ignore one stupid rule" and is even promoted/suggested in the DMG 2nd edition handbook).
4. anyone can multi-class (goes back to rule 3).


Custom Races/Custom Classes are actually found in the DMG for 2nd edition. There's an entire chapter on it. So many people think they're playing with house rules when they create a tiger-person, but they're really not.

I can't tell you how many 2nd edition rules I discover which people claim are House Rules, that I've actually opened up the DMG or some other supplement and shown them that what they consider house rules are instead the actual rules.

Stuff like exp penalties for races, those are optional to begin with, therefore I just ignore them. I mean, that's not a house rule, it's DM's discretion.


There are very few times where I give in and make a little rule change here or there to give my players a boost, most of the time though I use the rules that are printed for 2nd edition.



Unless, of course, you're playing Forgotten Realms. That was the single most convoluted and internally contradicting campaign setting I ever played for 2nd edition (and I lived and breathed SpellJammer for at least 2 years).


Just some things for your information, in the same spirit of courtesy you have just informed me of some things regarding 2e (ty btw, I have never played 2e, and your take on the common misconceptions was valuable):

1) A round of combat is 6 seconds in 3e.

2) Not sure what you are precisely refering to, but the movement speeds of monsters in 3e DnD is more-or-less sensible in my opinion. I haven't heard anyone complain about them in general before.

As for 3-4, I can assure you people generally do that with 3e as well.

Some examples:

Rules for drowning/holding your breath are rediculous.
Rules for death by massive damage serve only to slow down one's game and add yet-another save-or-die effect, are poorly presented, and are generally not used by anyone.


As for custom races, that is homebrewing (creating new material using existing precedents, guidelines and material presented for doing so) and I would still catagorize it under houseruling, even if there are guidelines for doing so.

EvilJames
2007-11-06, 02:33 AM
What are we arguing, exactly? Breakability? Fun factor? Learning curve?

2nd Edition is just awkward. It's a game that is difficult to play and for no good reason. I haven't yet heard a good explanation for why it's at all preferable other than "ZOMG 3e IS OVERPOWDERED!"

In all honesty 3rd ed seemed more difficult to play when it came to what rules did what sure the math was easier but subtraction was never that difficult in the first place. The only real flaw 2nd had was editing mistakes that were never fixed even during the revised version.

3rd ed was much better edited and it had some neat ideas but it's rules bogged down the play. Most complaints about 2nd ed rules were about all the eventual books involved but now as 3rd draws to a close it's plain to see that it has the same "problem" and in record time too.


You look things up on tables in only 4 situations in 3.x:

1) When you level up. This is the only time you need to look at a table in regards to saves. You never look anything up in regards to rolling a save.

2) When you turn undead. (Bad, clunky mechanic)

3) For the effects of a few spells (quite rare). Also, for some other exceedingly rare effects such as critically failing a reflex save and taking equipment damage.

4) When you are determining XP and treasure after a combat. (fine)

That's it, and its almost never in the middle of a tense moment (with the exception of those few spells).



Seems to be the concensus: people who like 2e seem to like it because it required them to 'customize' the system with many houserules/optional rules. Personally, I would put forth that any system that requires the user to signifigantly alter and largely overhaul it to make it good, stable and usable is inherantly flawed and bad.

I don't know about you, but I have something like maybe 20 houserules for 3.x, and my game would be quite playable with none.

Actually my 2nd ed game is quite playable without any house rules as well and Iwll have to house rule many thing in my eventual 3rd ed game they may not be charts but the rules for a lot of things will be likely house ruled so i don't have to waste time looking things up and can to keep the game going at a decent pace.
And god I hate 3rd eds unreadable skills chart giving my character skills requires rulers and fractions:smallyuk: (it wasn't a bad idea it was just so poorly executed)

Karma Guard
2007-11-06, 05:15 AM
The rules for Planescape and Ravenloft were far from contrived or unnecessary. The fact that the feat system and other re-organizations have totally obliterated both Campaign Settings has kept me from 3e permanently. The fact that 3e had to be revised into 3.5, and is now going to be "replaced" by 4th edition, all these changes in less than 8 years, is just sickening to me, and shows the complete and utter weakness of the 3e game system.

I still don't know how Feats Killed Planescape. Could you, like, explain this?

And why do you always fall back on Ravenloft and Planescape, two little settings next to Faerun or Greyhawk? I mean, I'm a total nerd for Planescape, and I know that it's a small and obscure lil' setting.



Simply put, the more a game system expands the more expansion books are brought out for it and the more game-ruining munchkins can draw upon these books to max out characters or whine at their DMs to include material the DM isn't familiar with, etc.

I'm just going to take this one on and let the rest go, because it's not bad.

This one, the 'too many new things facilitate brokeness' one, is not the actual game's fault. The way you have it phrased, it's all the DM's fault for being a spineless jerk. This is getting close to the 'Good DMs make the game good I promise no come back :(' answer, but more options is always good. Then again, I love Incarnum to death and it seems only 3 people have ever heard of it.

Yes, a lot of new things come out and they can be broken, but it's not the system's fault there's pushover GMs out there.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-06, 06:12 AM
You look things up on tables in only 4 situations in 3.x:

Well, yes, you don't need tables often in 3E; anyone who's ever played MERP knows what a blessing that is. But, you don't need tables either in 2E. Saving throws are a table, but you only use that when leveling up. Yes, turn undead is a table, but so it is in 3E. There aren't any tables that you need looking at, other than for character generation.

I can say that 3E is more internally consistent with its rules; consistently using d20+mod >= target is better than 2Es "roll high on attacks, low on saves, and d% on thief skills".

However, character creation is far more complex and time-consuming in 3E than it is in 2E. You need to pick from a lot of feats, divide skill ranks, and many people plan ahead for the prestige class they plan to be taking.

It can be argued that 3E has more options for players than 2E does, with the various feats and skill tricks and presclasses and so forth; however, it can also be argued that these are actually restrictions, as in "you can't do <X> unless you have the feat for it", where in earlier editions everybody could simply try <X>. This is a matter of taste.

2E has some weird things in it that appear poorly thought out, such as the confusing five types of saving throw (wands get a different save than spells??) and the fact that invisibility lasts for a full day. However, 3E has some different weird things in it that appear poorly thought out. I think the bottom line here is that if you're going to write a rules system covering so many different books and situations, you will end up with something in there that doesn't really make sense.

I do believe 3E is in fact harder to learn than 2E. The reason most people here don't notice that is because they're long-time roleplayers who have been doing 3E for ages.

KIDS
2007-11-06, 06:29 AM
*shrug* I don't have anything against 2E and people can be happy with it too, but I hold 3.5 (particularly with most of its supplements included) to be more elegant, allowing more options, needing less DM fiat and covering more things in less space.

Kizara
2007-11-06, 06:34 AM
Well, yes, you don't need tables often in 3E; anyone who's ever played MERP knows what a blessing that is. But, you don't need tables either in 2E. Saving throws are a table, but you only use that when leveling up. Yes, turn undead is a table, but so it is in 3E. There aren't any tables that you need looking at, other than for character generation.

I can say that 3E is more internally consistent with its rules; consistently using d20+mod >= target is better than 2Es "roll high on attacks, low on saves, and d% on thief skills".

However, character creation is far more complex and time-consuming in 3E than it is in 2E. You need to pick from a lot of feats, divide skill ranks, and many people plan ahead for the prestige class they plan to be taking.

It can be argued that 3E has more options for players than 2E does, with the various feats and skill tricks and presclasses and so forth; however, it can also be argued that these are actually restrictions, as in "you can't do <X> unless you have the feat for it", where in earlier editions everybody could simply try <X>. This is a matter of taste.

2E has some weird things in it that appear poorly thought out, such as the confusing five types of saving throw (wands get a different save than spells??) and the fact that invisibility lasts for a full day. However, 3E has some different weird things in it that appear poorly thought out. I think the bottom line here is that if you're going to write a rules system covering so many different books and situations, you will end up with something in there that doesn't really make sense.

I do believe 3E is in fact harder to learn than 2E. The reason most people here don't notice that is because they're long-time roleplayers who have been doing 3E for ages.

I wasn't actually making a point with the tables thing, I was merely providing some information to the discussion.

As for the feat thing, only to an extent. Alot of feats only improve something you can already do anyways.

Some phb examples: The (10+) +2 to two skills feats, the Improved X line, all of which are usable without the feats (you can make a trip attack without Improved Trip, its just considerably less effective in most situations), Spell Focus, Spell Penetration (you still have spell saves and CL checks to overcome SR, you just have less bonuses to do so), Skill focus, etc.

Of course, there are a large number that give you entirely new options: Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat, Ride-by-Attack, Spring Attack, Natural Spell, etc.

Even still, many of these feats still essentially allow greater ability to do an action that is generally already open to anyone.

Some examples: Anyone can fight on horseback, having good Ride ranks makes you much better at this, and having Mounted Combat allows you to try to dodge an attack on your mount.

Anyone can hit people hard with their swords (str mod to damage), but Power Attack allows them to take a decrease in accuracy to do even greater 'smash' damage.

Anyone can Fight Defensively, but Combat Expertise gives you better options for doing it, as well as improving your ability to use the fighting defensively option.

So really, the 'my character can only attempt to do a specific action if he has the right feats' argument is fairly weak. Sure, it might be true in a few specific cases, but for the most part you can simply still try to do what you want: you just have far less ability.

Leon
2007-11-06, 08:07 AM
Oh no, we have to use addition and subtraction. How will we survive?


With some difficulty and a lot of patience from other people. We're not all good with numbers.



Next match: in one corner, we have pot. In the other, we have kettle...

And a pile of black in the middle for them to sling at each other

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-06, 09:36 AM
Seems to be the concensus: people who like 2e seem to like it because it required them to 'customize' the system with many houserules/optional rules. Personally, I would put forth that any system that requires the user to signifigantly alter and largely overhaul it to make it good, stable and usable is inherantly flawed and bad.

I don't know about you, but I have something like maybe 20 houserules for 3.x, and my game would be quite playable with none.

I think this is a bit unfair- it doesn't require you to customize, but it was certainly encouraged, as opposed to 3.X where the attempt is to quantify as many things as possible.

its_all_ogre
2007-11-06, 10:42 AM
gods not this one again!
learning 2ed was a hard job, the rules had little consistency and were poorly laid out.
3.x is much easier to teach new players (although hard to make the transition from 2nd to 3rd!) it is easier to work out the basic system because it actually has a defined system of doing everything. d20 + bonuses and higher is better is easier to learn than sometimes higher is better, sometimes lower.

the rules are accessible ofr players to read themselves more and are clearer (excepting certain special things like grappling and AoOs) i find it easier because i can had a player printed out combat section bits in a round after their go so they can check up on disarming, just for example, when it gets back round to them they know how it works. rather than saying 'i do not know as i have not invented a rule for it yet (2nd ed response for a lot of things)
2nd ed was much easier to dm(npcs are quicker to make 2nd ed than 3rd), apart from no challenge ratings existing so you had to judge for yourself more (which i actually think is better anyway tbh). 3rd ed appears to be much more aimed at being easier to learn.

both had their issues, i have not played 2nd ed since 3rd came out so am not going into these too much because i am not in a position to easily back up the 2nd ed stuff.

i feel that both eds actually inhibit roleplay for one simple reason: killing equals xp in the core xp mechanic. i hate players killing stuff just for xp, but the system does demand it. (doubtless loads will now post in protest, but this is written into the rules, ok you can house rule it or whatever, but that means you are not playing the games RAW or straight from the box. i'm not saying you should necessarily should play that way, but you should be able to)

i certainly hope 4th, if i bother with it, is more like 3rd than 2nd.

Logic Cannon
2007-11-06, 10:51 AM
I do believe 3E is in fact harder to learn than 2E. The reason most people here don't notice that is because they're long-time roleplayers who have been doing 3E for ages.

I do believe you're insane. People who tried 2nd edition then ran screaming from the shoddily constructed ruleset could sit down and learn 3rd edition without much pain (and I've seen this happen on many many occasions). I suspect you entertain this delusion because you were so invested in 2nd edition that you had to dedicate a lot of energy into re-learning what was changed in 3rd.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-06, 11:10 AM
Er...I don't think either system is terribly difficult to learn, by some one so inclined.

Also, I don't think getting XP for overcoming challenges inhibits roleplaying. Nothing really inhibits roleplaying, unless someone is punishing someone for doing so.

its_all_ogre
2007-11-06, 11:15 AM
Er...I don't think either system is terribly difficult to learn, by some one so inclined.

Also, I don't think getting XP for overcoming challenges inhibits roleplaying. Nothing really inhibits roleplaying, unless someone is punishing someone for doing so.

the point is xp for killing rather than otherwise interacting with.
you do not generally get random killing in other roleplaying games in my experience. dnd combat is safe (by comparison to WFRP for example) and earns xp. hence people kill for OC reasons (to get xp) rather than cause their character necessarily wants to.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 11:38 AM
I still don't know how Feats Killed Planescape. Could you, like, explain this?

gee, I dunno, maybe the total imbalancing of the power ratio between mortals and demons.

The fact that mortals could now stand toe to toe against a demon lord in the Blood War...


And why do you always fall back on Ravenloft and Planescape, two little settings next to Faerun or Greyhawk? I mean, I'm a total nerd for Planescape, and I know that it's a small and obscure lil' setting.



Ravenloft comprised something close to 1/3rd of TSR's sales towards the end of 2nd edition. It is one of the most difficult campaign settings to collect all the books for because it was such a massive release. I still don't have all the modules or publications.

While Planescape wasn't that popular as Ravenloft or Dragonlance, Planescape was also picking up serious steam, what with the card game, and rerelease of older books at the end of 2nd edition's run. Then it was totally abandoned for the sake of WoTC screwing with the order of the planes and the feat system and all that nonsense. I mean seriously, third edition totally raped Sigil.

There were so few Greyhawk specific books released towards the end of 2nd edition that people were begging TSR to re-release some of the older books. More than a few of the book releases that people claim are 2nd edition Greyhawk or have since been imported into 3e as Greyhawk were in fact nameless generic campaign adventures! I have no idea how anyone can claim that Greyhawk was a major setting in 2nd edition.

I loved Greyhawk and I was one of the people who kept pressuring TSR to release more Greyhawk content for 2nd edition. But there just wasn't much of Greyhawk in 2nd edition.

Premier
2007-11-06, 11:45 AM
i feel that both eds actually inhibit roleplay for one simple reason: killing equals xp in the core xp mechanic. i hate players killing stuff just for xp, but the system does demand it. (doubtless loads will now post in protest, but this is written into the rules, ok you can house rule it or whatever, but that means you are not playing the games RAW or straight from the box. i'm not saying you should necessarily should play that way, but you should be able to)

Incorrect in the case of 2E. Allow me to quote verbatim from the DMG:


The characters must be victorious over the creature, which is not necessarily synonymous with killing it. Victory can take many forms. Slaying the enemy is obviously victory; accepting surrender is victory; routing the enemy is victory; pressuring the enemy to leave a particular n eck of the woods because things are getting too hot is a kind of victory.
A creature needn't die for the characters to score a victory. If the player characters ingeniously persuade the dragon to leave the village alone, this is as much - if not more - a victory as chopping the beast into dragonburgers!

Then a bit later it goes into how the DM should be giving out "story awards", XP simply for achieving certain goals. So no, 2nd edition does NOT have it "written into the rules" that you must kill things to get XP, and people playing differently are, in fact, playing RAW, not by houserules.

its_all_ogre
2007-11-06, 12:15 PM
and in that section about story awards how much does it state they should receive?
there are no guidelines, therefore it is upto the dm to make up as they see fit.
this is a houserule in actuality.

ok they say you should be doing it, but there is no mechanic backing it up, you will have to make it up or, dare i say, homebrew it......

2nd ed was full of these annoying 'you should do x' with no mechanic to back it up. this means you were encouraged or even forced to homebrew.
i homebrew 3rd ed and i homebrewed 2nd ed.
the difference is you had to homebrew 2nd ed in some circumstances but you do not have to with 3rd ed.
another example? who makes all the magical items in 2nd ed? where are the rules on creating them in the dmg? i know of the ones in spells and magic, but that came along very late in the day. 3rd ed they are there in the mechanics and any player can look them up, i think this is a strength of the system.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-06, 12:17 PM
I do believe you're insane. People who tried 2nd edition then ran screaming from the shoddily constructed ruleset could sit down and learn 3rd edition without much pain

Sure, if you run out of arguments, insulting people who disagree is a good alternative. Be sure to follow it up with vague hyperbolic assertions, those are always SO convincing.

Compare, if you will...
(a) to create a character, roll 3d6 six times (or some variant thereof) and pick a race and class. That's second edition (note that the whole chapter on proficiencies is optional, although in my experience most people use it).

(b) to create a character, roll 3d6 six times (or some variant thereof) then pick a race, class, one or two feats (out of hundreds), divide several dozen skill points among things you haven't heard of yet (some of which are more expensive than others), and be sure to plan ahead because you should get a good prestige class later on. Oh, and some feats that sound plausible will turn out to be near-worthless, but we won't tell you in advance which ones. Finally, let's add another dozen classes to the mix in splatbooks. That's 3.5th edition.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 12:24 PM
Well, yes, you don't need tables often in 3E; anyone who's ever played MERP knows what a blessing that is. But, you don't need tables either in 2E. Saving throws are a table, but you only use that when leveling up. Yes, turn undead is a table, but so it is in 3E. There aren't any tables that you need looking at, other than for character generation.

You should never have to look up on a table, and a game designed without that in mind is flawed. Yes, I realize that this means I know that 2e and 3e are flawed. They are, really. That's what we argue about six days a week. The seventh day, we try to fix the monk.

MrNexx
2007-11-06, 12:39 PM
2E has some weird things in it that appear poorly thought out, such as the confusing five types of saving throw (wands get a different save than spells??) and the fact that invisibility lasts for a full day.

There is something of that in 3.x; wands don't get ability modifiers to DCs, and the Rod Staff Wand save was generally lower than saves. This isn't to say the saving throw categories in 2e weren't inelegant... I remember having a conversation with someone on the old Wizards boards (when you could access them on a newsreader; this would be the late 90s) who had changed all the saving throws in her game to "Reactive, Arcane, Mental, and Physical".


I do believe 3E is in fact harder to learn than 2E. The reason most people here don't notice that is because they're long-time roleplayers who have been doing 3E for ages.

I think there is an important difference to make. 3.x is very easy to learn the basics. However, I think it takes a long time to mastery... combinations which look very good on paper do not do as well in actual game play as one would think. It takes a while to get over misconceptions and really master the game and the nuances of character creation.

2nd edition, on the other hand, takes a bit to get used to. There are a few non-intuitive mechanics, and it's not based around a single mechanic, but once you understand the basics, there aren't a lot of places to get lost.

Roderick_BR
2007-11-06, 12:40 PM
(...)
What's wrong with tables? Asides from which, there really aren't that many that are important. Turn Undead and Saves are the only ones which might need to be regularly checked, and one could easily record his saves on his character sheet anyway.(...)

I wouldn't care, if I didn't need to check the book every 5 minutes to know if I can do something or not. Yeah, people can claim that the DM can just "golden rule" the game, but when you have a novice DM, or a DM that has no idea of what he's doing...

About the aging: Funny thing that some spells (Wish, I think) clams that the characters get old in proportion to their life spans. So, while a human gets 1-2 years older, a elf would get 5-10 years old. Others, like Haste, doesn't specify it, so both human and elf gets older the same amount.

But yah, I played ADnD. It sucked to be a 1st level wizard (clerics at least got extra spells from high Wisdom). If you managed to get a 18/00 Strength score with a warrior, you would dominate the fights till level 10+. High level spells were powerful, but not game breaking. They needed time to cast or memorize spells, couldn't quicken stuff, multiclass into 4 different classes and make most of the spells combinations wizards can do today.

And dual class rules for humans were a pain.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 12:41 PM
You should never have to look up on a table, and a game designed without that in mind is flawed. Yes, I realize that this means I know that 2e and 3e are flawed. They are, really. That's what we argue about six days a week. The seventh day, we try to fix the monk.

D&D and AD&D were designed around tables. Your character sheet is a freakin table. If you have problems with tables then go play WoD. Even BESM (one of the simplest game systems out there) has tables.

MrNexx
2007-11-06, 12:50 PM
But yah, I played ADnD. It sucked to be a 1st level wizard (clerics at least got extra spells from high Wisdom). If you managed to get a 18/00 Strength score with a warrior, you would dominate the fights till level 10+. High level spells were powerful, but not game breaking. They needed time to cast or memorize spells, couldn't quicken stuff, multiclass into 4 different classes and make most of the spells combinations wizards can do today.

18/00 Strength was an amazing thing to get... a 1 in 25600 chance you would get it if rolling straight 3D6 (which almost no one did, IME).

Swordguy
2007-11-06, 01:02 PM
But yah, I played ADnD. It sucked to be a 1st level wizard (clerics at least got extra spells from high Wisdom). If you managed to get a 18/00 Strength score with a warrior, you would dominate the fights till level 10+. High level spells were powerful, but not game breaking. They needed time to cast or memorize spells, couldn't quicken stuff, multiclass into 4 different classes and make most of the spells combinations wizards can do today.


I look at all of those as a good thing...

Neek
2007-11-06, 01:14 PM
2nd edition was both and good and bad in design. It was comprised of multiple, independent systems that worked together through synergy and just plain faith. You could remove a piece of the system and replace it without there being too much of a problem. You could even add stats to the game without it rippling out (we used to play with the seventh stat, Comeliness, and occassionally an eighth, Luck).

You could pluck out the initiative system, the saves system, the combat round, and the game would work just fine still. The game is not inconsistent because certain rulesets always worked the same way, but not across the board. This is why Player Options were so easy to work with: you can literally drop them into the game. This is quite an achievement.

3rd edition's rulesets were built from a single premise, and all mechanics are built from this premise. You can't simply remove a factor of the game (such as Attacks of Opportunities) without invalidating a lot of other things (such as feats, class options, &.) You redo the rules, you've got a lot of work on your hands. Unearthed Arcana helped in providing some good rulesets that were variants, but a lot were too clunky.

As for learning time, learning a new game system takes time. No matter which one. It took the same amount of time to learn a Storyteller game as it did for 2nd and 3rd. And some people will have a harder time learning one game than another, that happens. That's not a failure of the game, it's an obstacle a certain player(s) must face.

Creating a character takes the same amount of time. 2nd edition was bogged with referencing tables, but mostly writing it all down.. There was a lot of stuff to write! While it was easy, it was just time consuming. 3rd edition is a lot easier in the paperwork, but no so much in the choices. I think that's a fair trade-off.

When it comes down to it, they're two different games made by two different companies; only the brand remains the same. This conversation does nothing but evoke the emotions out of players to either defend or attack with poorly articulated arguments that are torn down by rhetoric from more intelligent players on both sides. I don't advocate 2nd edition above 3rd, nor 3rd above 2nd. Fact is, though, I'm not going to back to 2nd edition; it's not the game I want to play. My group feels this way. Many players feel that.

No system will promote good play versus bad play. Powergaming was as prevalent in Vampire the Masquerade as it is in 2nd edition D&D as it is in GURPS as it is done in ANY other game. Good play is promoted by having fun, and the other way around too--having fun promotes good play. There isn't any deeper philosophy about gaming. We're here to have fun. We just have have fun in different ways.

So Dalboz, you and your group have a right to play the game they want to play. But players such as yourself, holding the attitude the way you do--this combative, aggressive distaste of a single system--what's the point? What are you arguing? That we shouldn't play 3rd ed because 2nd is a better game? Or just that you don't like 3rd edition and White Wolf?

Roderick_BR
2007-11-06, 01:15 PM
I look at all of those as a good thing...
I think I didn't explain well.
It sucked to be a first level wizard, and a Str 18/00 fighter would be too broken at 1st level, specially with Weapon Specialization.

But the rest was good. Wizards were feared and powerful, but they couldn't bend reality at a whim, like they do in 3.x

tainsouvra
2007-11-06, 01:50 PM
Your character sheet is a freakin table. If you have problems with tables then go play WoD. WoD character sheets are also tables, if you're using the same standard. What are you trying to accomplish with your diatribe?

Swordguy
2007-11-06, 01:56 PM
I think I didn't explain well.
It sucked to be a first level wizard, and a Str 18/00 fighter would be too broken at 1st level, specially with Weapon Specialization.

But the rest was good. Wizards were feared and powerful, but they couldn't bend reality at a whim, like they do in 3.x

Fighter) If you could legitimately roll it, you deserve it.

Wizard) Agreed. We used the Int-based bonus spells option. It helped.

And, his unreasoning vitrol aside, Dalboz of Gurth has an extremely good point; if you don't like to consult tables before or during gameplay, you're in the wrong hobby.

tainsouvra
2007-11-06, 02:07 PM
And, his unreasoning vitrol aside, Dalboz of Gurth has an extremely good point; if you don't like to consult tables before or during gameplay, you're in the wrong hobby. Unfortunately he didn't suggest a change of hobby, he suggested changing from one table-using system to another table-using system.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 02:11 PM
D&D and AD&D were designed around tables. Your character sheet is a freakin table. If you have problems with tables then go play WoD. Even BESM (one of the simplest game systems out there) has tables.

Tables in and of themselves are not a problem. It's when I have to halt game to consult a table that IS a problem. Game shouldn't have to halt while I consult your d1000 roll vs. the Wild Magic table, and I certainly shouldn't have to use a lookup table with a class feature as common as Turn Undead.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 02:13 PM
Unfortunately he didn't suggest a change of hobby, he suggested changing from one table-using system to another table-using system.

Uhhh... I've played WOD before without using tables. Most of WoD relies on "Story Telling" which relies on, making up your own rules. I'd hardly compare the rules lite WoD to an actual tabled system, especially since many of the checks are made up numbers and result in nothing more than Free Form RPing.

Premier
2007-11-06, 02:34 PM
and in that section about story awards how much does it state they should receive?
there are no guidelines, therefore it is upto the dm to make up as they see fit.

Incorrect, again. :P It does actually give you guidelines, but do excuse me if I don't go looking for the thing again just for a verbatim quote.


this is a houserule in actuality.

No, this is not a houserule in actuality nor in anything else. The word "houserule", as used by the overwhelming majority of those people who use it at all, means the addition of a completely new rule, or the elimination or modification of an existing one. It does not mean the application (without modification) of a guideline, suggestion or rule of thumb that comes with the rulebook.

Following your logic, it would also be a "houserule" to put up a 3E party against an encounter which is not exactly their CR, but something a bit above or below, since AFAIK none of the 3E books actually says "if you want a particularly tough challenge, give them an enemy which is above their CR by the exact value of X". They only say "give them something a few levels above it", which is exactly as vague or specific as the 2E DMG's guideline on story XP awards. In one of them is a "houserule" according to your personal definition of the word, then so is the other.

[qutoe]ok they say you should be doing it, but there is no mechanic backing it up, you will have to make it up or, dare i say, homebrew it......[/quote]

Your personal (and nothing more) opinion might be that applying guidelines to a game is "homebrewing". But let me tell you, there are many, many more people who look at the same thing and reach their own personal opinion which is that this sort of thing is absolutely normal and fine, and the unnatural thing is in fact 3E's groundless assumption that every single possible event or action must have a hard, specific rule for it for the RPG to be 'complete', whatever that means.


another example? who makes all the magical items in 2nd ed? where are the rules on creating them in the dmg? i know of the ones in spells and magic, but that came along very late in the day. 3rd ed they are there in the mechanics and any player can look them up, i think this is a strength of the system.

It's not a strength of the system nor a weakness. It simply means that 3E has a different focus in terms of theme. In AD&D, PCs can't make magical items because it's simply out of the focus of the game - it's just not what it's all about. Just like how D6 Star Wars doesn't have detailed rules for rapier fencing, 3E D&D doesn't have rules for PCs creating a non-magical assault rifle, and chess doesn't have rules for Black and White coming to a ceasefire through diplomacy. Every game in existence has a limited focus, and there are things that just don't fall in it.

tainsouvra
2007-11-06, 02:36 PM
Uhhh... I've played WOD before without using tables. Most of WoD relies on "Story Telling" which relies on, making up your own rules. I'd hardly compare the rules lite WoD to an actual tabled system, especially since many of the checks are made up numbers and result in nothing more than Free Form RPing. Back up a moment. Explain, since I seriously do not see the distinction, how a D&D character sheet is a table while a WoD character sheet is not. You specifically mentioned character sheets, as did my response, and that is the basis for my disbelief of your "don't need tables for WoD" contention.

Thinker
2007-11-06, 02:54 PM
Certain posters seem to be of the opinion that 3e is somehow more flawed, as compared to 2e because that is their opinion. These people challenge those who disagree with flawed arguments and general unpleasantness. Some of them even make sweeping generalizations about the editions, as though by virtue of still playing the game they have some greater insight as to how most people did things when they played.

Unfortunately all anyone has is their own personal anecdotes. Without clear evidence supporting their generalizations they should be discounted. Furthermore, with these posters' aggressive tones and indications it would seem to be prudent to simply stop engaging them. They offer nothing new, but the regurgitation of old news with a different voice. Simply continuing to talk about 3.5e and 4e may be enough to silence their arguments.

Its not worth the time or effort to continue the discussion. The same points have been posted again and again, while generating no new insight. We get it. Some people like 2e and see 3.5e as oversimplification because they are elitist about things that don't really matter. Others may say things about 3.5e that suggest that they destroy the uniqueness of settings, which is just plain fabrication: 3.5e is modular and that is what makes it great; if someone really wanted a 3.5e update of certain settings, one could be made without difficulty. Even suggesting that people switch games if they don't like an older version of the current game they play is ridiculous; I may have liked the NES, but I can like the Wii, too.

Frosty
2007-11-06, 03:04 PM
I tried playing 2e in the past. It was horrifically complicated to me, and didn't really like to too much. Fast forward 8 years, with 3.5, I tried DnD again, and guess what, it was *very* intuitive to me! Grasping the basics took about an hour, and it was easy to get started.

That's why I prefer 3.5/3e. It's all about ease of use and the amount of fun I have.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-06, 03:08 PM
gee, I dunno, maybe the total imbalancing of the power ratio between mortals and demons.

The fact that mortals could now stand toe to toe against a demon lord in the Blood War...


Fighters with enough Specialization could do that too. Specializing was like a feat for the Fighter. So feats did exist: only loosely.

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-06, 03:41 PM
The rules for Planescape and Ravenloft were far from contrived or unnecessary. The fact that the feat system and other re-organizations have totally obliterated both Campaign Settings has kept me from 3e permanently.

... but the lack of published support for Planescape has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with WotC deciding to support a limited number of campaign settings.

And, of course, Ravenloft DID receive licensed support in the 3rd Edition era. Just like Dragonlance.


The fact that 3e had to be revised into 3.5, and is now going to be "replaced" by 4th edition, all these changes in less than 8 years, is just sickening to me, and shows the complete and utter weakness of the 3e game system.

You mean in the same way that 2nd Edition had to be revised by Skills & Powers and then replaced by 3rd Edition in less than 12 years?

You seem to be trying to draw a line between the actual quality of 3rd Edition and WotC's marketing decisions.

Worst. Argument. Evah.

(After all, if you're using the amount of time WotC needed to decide "we need a new edition" to determine the relative quality of a given edition, they INSTANTANEOUSLY decided that 3rd Edition was needed when they bought the near-bankrupted TSR. 2nd Edition was infinitely worse than 3rd Edition if you're going to base your judgment of quality entirely on WotC's decision-making process.)


What's wrong with tables?

They make the game more difficult to use (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/gamedesign-utility.html).

Which doesn't mean you can always avoid them, but you should try.


3.x. Simply too permissive. It lets you do whatever you want to it and doesn't - or is incapable of - saying no. Really, it's the coke-addled slut of RPGs.

Translation: If you are incapable of exerting self-control, 3rd Edition isn't the game for you?

Although I suspect that a lot of this has to do with the fact that a lot of people weren't online for 2nd Edition. I was. Usenet was filled with the exact same twinking and powergaming for 2nd Edition as the varied messageboards have been filled with for 3rd Edition. The exact combinations of powers were different (most of them involving the horribly broken stoneskin spell), but the general tenor and end result was no different.

It tells you absolutely nothing about how the game is actually played; the strengths and weaknesses of the system; or anything else of value.


I respectfully disagree. Look at, for example, combat in both editions. In 2nd, I can say that my character tries to do absolutely anything I want him to as an attack. If I want his attack to represent him charging and knocking down his opponent, it can. If I want it to represent him swinging wildly or fighting with parries and ripostes, it can.
In 3rd edition, I can only do these if I have the proper feats.

This is blatantly not true.

(a) You don't need feats for doing those things. (Although some feats will make you BETTER at those things.)

(b) Rules for overbearing, grappling, and the like have been part of the game since AT LEAST the 1st Edition DMG.

(c) The 3rd Edition rules for bull rushing, grappling, and the like are all clearly developed out of the 2nd Edition rules for those things.

The difference is that nobody used those rules in previous editions because they were, by and large, unusable. In 3rd Edition, lots of people use them because they are useful and usable.

Which points to the real disconnect in these debates: The proponents of 2nd Edition aren't comparing 3rd Edition to 2nd Edition. They're comparing 3rd Edition to their personalized and house ruled version of 2nd Edition -- a game that has been carefully catered to their personal gaming tastes.

Shockingly, no published game can compete with the game you've personally tailored to your specific needs and desires. It's like comparing a brand new Toyota Camry to the muscle car you've been lovingly tinkering with for 20 years. The Camry's a great car, but you've made that muscle car your own.

(And I'll point out that several people in this thread have already admitted that this is EXACTLY what they're doing. Sadly, other people have so internalized their personal and eccentric set of house rules that they're no longer aware they're even doing it.)

Which is fine. You've found something that works for you and there's absolutely no reason you should give it up. (I'm going to bold that, because it's important.)

For me, personally, AD&D2 became untenable at the point where the binder containing my house rules became larger than the three core rulebooks put together. After 7 years of playing (1989-1996) it had reached a point of absurdity and I left and never looked back.

When D&D3 came along, they did most of the things I had done with my house rules (and more). I initially resisted the game mightily, but after Ryan Dancey sent me a playtest document in 1999 and asked me to look it over, I realized that they had fundamentally fixed the game.

Today, after playing D&D3 for more than 8 years, my house rules take up 12 pages (and 4 of those pages are flavor-based adjustments for my current campaign world).

And, at the end of the day, for me, it comes down to this simple reality: If you asked me to play a completely by-the-book game of D&D3, I would gladly do it. If you asked me to play a completely by-the-book game of AD&D2, I wouldn't dream of it.

(You might convince me to play a by-the-book game of AD&D1 if Gygax was DMing it. But that's a special-case exception.)

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 03:45 PM
Fighters with enough Specialization could do that too. Specializing was like a feat for the Fighter. So feats did exist: only loosely.

Well... COULD is the key word, and yes, some Fighters with good specializations could try and go toe to toe against a demon.

However, not every single player could do that, and a fighter who could do that probably had an 18/00 strength with 18 Con and 17 Dex and sweet armor. I mean you're talking heafty rolling here. Paladin or even a Ranger might be able to try this.

Now in 3e there are a variety of feats that allow almost any class to attempt this without much worry. This is one of the major issues I have with 3e.

Feats did sort of exist, loosely, but 3e reinforced a lot of Player's Option rules that were game breaking when they first came out. PO rules were BO rules as far as most of my friends were concerned. By including them as standard rules in 3e (some of them as feats), it hurt a lot of game balance.

Morty
2007-11-06, 03:48 PM
Now in 3e there are a variety of feats that allow almost any class to attempt this without much worry. This is one of the major issues I have with 3e.


Examples, please. Because I don't really see how feats allow any class to fight demons they technically shouldn't be able to defeat on their level.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-06, 04:06 PM
Translation: If you are incapable of exerting self-control, 3rd Edition isn't the game for you?

I agree. Whenever I've played 3rd edition we've always got everyone to agree whether they want a game with bizare subraces or if they want an all humans game or whatever.


Examples, please. Because I don't really see how feats allow any class to fight demons they technically shouldn't be able to defeat on their level.

Yeah, being able to fight powerful monsters is the whole point of being high level.

JadedDM
2007-11-06, 04:08 PM
Guys, guys, guys...what's with all the fightin' and the feudin'? We should not be bickering amongst ourselves. We should team up and talk about how our systems are much better than 4E! :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2007-11-06, 04:24 PM
Guys, guys, guys...what's with all the fightin' and the feudin'? We should not be bickering amongst ourselves. We should team up and talk about how our systems are much better than 4E! :smallbiggrin:

Oh, we will. We're just waiting until we have something concrete to biatch about.

Dausuul
2007-11-06, 04:40 PM
Now in 3e there are a variety of feats that allow almost any class to attempt this without much worry. This is one of the major issues I have with 3e.

Again with the feats.

As I said in another thread, here's the character creation rules, totally free and 100% legal: http://www.d20srd.org. Please show us these game-breaking feats you speak of.

Logic Cannon
2007-11-06, 04:47 PM
I tried playing 2e in the past. It was horrifically complicated to me, and didn't really like to too much. Fast forward 8 years, with 3.5, I tried DnD again, and guess what, it was *very* intuitive to me! Grasping the basics took about an hour, and it was easy to get started.

That's why I prefer 3.5/3e. It's all about ease of use and the amount of fun I have.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The 2nd edition grognards seem to think that being able to make a character faster than a 3rd edition character somehow makes the game simpler, which is flat-out wrong. The game would be simpler if it wasn't for THAC0 tables, separate nonsensical save charts, monsters that don't follow a reasonable power progression (this monster can only be harmed by a level 5 or higher paladin wielding the blade of whosamawhatsits), separate leveling parameters, counterintuitive weapon and nonweapon proficiencies (I can track successfully if I roll under my Wisdom score minus 2! or whatever....), percentiles for various effects inserted seemingly randomly, etc. Sure, having that character is easy, but knowing what to do with him and keeping track of how it all works is excruciatingly unrewarding. This is especially true with the extremely counterintuitive rolling and numbering systems (negative ACs are good, rolling low on stat checks is good, rolling high on attack rolls is good, rolling low on percentiles is good) that just leave new players feeling as though number values and desired rolls are assigned arbitrarily. And sadly with a lot of 2nd edition DMs, the huge question mark left by such odd rules left a lot of room for DMs to become monstrously tyrannical jerks who often did make and pursue arbitrary rules and rolls simply because nobody could reliably call them on it.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 04:51 PM
Again with the feats.

As I said in another thread, here's the character creation rules, totally free and 100% legal: http://www.d20srd.org. Please show us these game-breaking feats you speak of.

Actually, I didn't see your post in the other thread. Believe it or not I was looking for these core rules. So ty for the link. I take it these are the full rules?

It's almost 3pm. I was waiting for my players to send me a IM or PM but I think they're a bit busy and I just blew off a day of work I need to get started on. I'll look at this site and make a character for you tonight, deal, Dausuul?

Feel free to PM me if you are afraid I'll forget. or email me:

[email protected]

also on AIM by the same name. Just give me a few min to answer if you aim me because I'll be afk ^_^

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 04:54 PM
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The 2nd edition grognards seem to think that being able to make a character faster than a 3rd edition character somehow makes the game simpler, which is flat-out wrong. The game would be simpler if it wasn't for THAC0 tables, separate nonsensical save charts, monsters that don't follow a reasonable power progression (this monster can only be harmed by a level 5 or higher paladin wielding the blade of whosamawhatsits), separate leveling parameters, counterintuitive weapon and nonweapon proficiencies (I can track successfully if I roll under my Wisdom score minus 2! or whatever....), percentiles for various effects inserted seemingly randomly, etc. Sure, having that character is easy, but knowing what to do with him and keeping track of how it all works is excruciatingly unrewarding. This is especially true with the extremely counterintuitive rolling and numbering systems (negative ACs are good, rolling low on stat checks is good, rolling high on attack rolls is good, rolling low on percentiles is good) that just leave new players feeling as though number values and desired rolls are assigned arbitrarily. And sadly with a lot of 2nd edition DMs, the huge question mark left by such odd rules left a lot of room for DMs to become monstrously tyrannical jerks who often did make and pursue arbitrary rules and rolls simply because nobody could reliably call them on it.

I think the fundamental issue I'm seeing as the difference between 2e and 3e is that 2e is about telling the DM what he can do, and that 3e is about telling the players what they can do. It's a subtle, yet important, difference.

horseboy
2007-11-06, 05:24 PM
Following your logic, it would also be a "houserule" to put up a 3E party against an encounter which is not exactly their CR, but something a bit above or below, since AFAIK none of the 3E books actually says "if you want a particularly tough challenge, give them an enemy which is above their CR by the exact value of X". They only say "give them something a few levels above it", which is exactly as vague or specific as the 2E DMG's guideline on story XP awards. In one of them is a "houserule" according to your personal definition of the word, then so is the other.
I think the difference here is that D&D says "Yeah, sure, you can do it." vs what you'd see in other systems (Like WW, Earthdawn or SR) that suggests combat be (roughly, depending on which system) 1/5 of your total "XP" reward. Thereby telling DM's "combat is not the main point of the game." Vs, D&D's "The primary means of gaining XP is through combat, with some story XP optionally thrown in, if you want."

But, anyway, 2nd was the edition I jumped ship on. At that point I was just getting fed up with too many arbitrary restrictions. 3rd took away the arbitrary restrictions, but didn't put in the "good sense" restrictions in place. Personally, I blame not the mechanics per se, but that there's just too many sentient races too crammed together in too small an area that are kept arbitrarily separated. My other 3rd edition complaints are well documented.

Matthew
2007-11-06, 05:52 PM
The main difference between 2e and 3e, with reference to the rules, is actually the number of cases that are explicitly legislated for and the degree to which the core rules are 'fixed'.

Premier
2007-11-06, 06:16 PM
Logic Cannon, let me take the conclusion of this post and post it right up at the top, just to make sure it doesn't get lost under the many tiny quotations:

It's perfectly fine to prefer one game over another. It's also perfectly fine to hold the opinion that game X or Y is bad. It's also - you guessed it - perfectly fine to say so, and to criticise that system. However, when one is making a contribution to a debate, an exchange of structured arguments, criticising a system via half-truths and outright falsehood is not fine at all. Let me address these parts in your post below:



The game would be simpler if it wasn't for THAC0 tables,

There's no such thing as a THAC0 table in 2E. THAC0 is a single number that's written down on your character sheet, and which only ever changes when you level up (and even then not always). Saying that you need to refer to any sort of THAC0-related table when rolling an attack is a falsehood.
There's a single THAC0-related table in the PHB for reference, a chart which shows the progression of THAC0 for all classes, which you can look up when gaining a level if you don't remember your progression by heart (and which you never need to refer to any other time. However, I'm, sure there must be some sort of BAB-table in 3E as well, serving the same purpose.


separate nonsensical save charts,

That's a pretty strong exaggaration there. Are the save charts more complicated than in 3E? Sure they are. Are they complicated enough to cause problems? Don't think so, seeing how you have your saving target numbers written down on your char sheet, but sure, it's too complicated to memorise (why anyone would want to do that is another matter). Is their complexity more trouble than worth? Your opinion's as good as mine. But are they "nonsensical"? No.
A careful look at the tables reveals that there is some justification for the choices there. Wizards can be expected to know much about the mechanics of spellcasting, and are likely to know miscellaneous counterspells, so they have the best saves vs. Spells. Fighters are the best at jumping out of way of a dragon's breath attack (and are gritty enough to take a bit of singing, too), so they get the best save vs. Breath Weapons. And so on and so forth.
So, complex, yes. But sensical, since there's a reason for the choices in the tables.


monsters that don't follow a reasonable power progression (this monster can only be harmed by a level 5 or higher paladin wielding the blade of whosamawhatsits),

I'd really like to see a specific example of that. I mean, an example of a monster that can only be harmed by a specific class and/or a specific magical weapon (generic protection like "needs +1 or better" don't count). Please provide specific examples, or the readers will have to conclude that you've been making stuff up out of thin air just to rag on 2E.


separate leveling parameters,
Yes, different classes level up at different rates. Factually true. There are game design considerations behind it, but an in-depth discussion of those is beyond the scope and topic of this thread.. But saying that this makes the game complicated is a bit of an exaggaration, don't you think? I mean, it only ever comes up once at the end of each gaming session when you're awarded XP and check to see if you've made a level. Which the exact same frequency you have to check the stuff in 3E as well.


counterintuitive weapon and nonweapon proficiencies (I can track successfully if I roll under my Wisdom score minus 2! or whatever....),

Why is that "counterintuitive"? The higher your relevant attribute, the more likely you are to success. Similarly, the higher the attribute, the more likely you are to roll under it. Add two and two together, you get the roll-under mechanics. I might be misinterpreting you here, but I have the feeling that it's simple underinformed arrogance talking here: I only really know one particular game resolution mechanic (roll-over an arbitraty target number, in this case), so it must be the best thing in the world and everything else must be crap. No offense - I might be wrong, and you might in fact have an erudite and well thought-out reason for criticising roll-unders, but so far you haven't shared it with us. Please do.


percentiles for various effects inserted seemingly randomly,

I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Are you complaining because thief skills are percentile-based? Guess what: it has conscious game-design consideration behind it. Or... well... what other things ARE there that are percentiles? Chance to find treasure on random wandering monsters? Pray tell me, why would that be better with a d20? Again, please be more elaborate and actually describe your problem to us rather than just blowing and spitting at it.


And sadly with a lot of 2nd edition DMs, the huge question mark left by such odd rules left a lot of room for DMs to become monstrously tyrannical jerks

Because 3E DMs have never, ever become monstrously tyrannical jerks. Never. And because all 2E DMs were like what you describe. All of them.

Premier
2007-11-06, 06:22 PM
I think the difference here is that D&D says "Yeah, sure, you can do it." vs what you'd see in other systems (Like WW, Earthdawn or SR) that suggests combat be (roughly, depending on which system) 1/5 of your total "XP" reward. Thereby telling DM's "combat is not the main point of the game." Vs, D&D's "The primary means of gaining XP is through combat, with some story XP optionally thrown in, if you want."

Well, the 2E DMG suggests that story award XP should be "not more than the XP given out for defeating monsters" - which could mean quite a lot. But other than that, I basically agree with what you say; I just don't see that as a problem. Most editions of D&D (2E and 3E both included) strongly focus on combat, no way about. There are other games to play, if one doesn't like this.

But I must remark that not even all editions of D&D are like that. In 1E AD&D, you got the majority of your XP not from killed/defeated enemies, but from the treasure you acquired, which did a great job at making players focus on solving the problem via alternative methods to combat.


But, anyway, 2nd was the edition I jumped ship on. At that point I was just getting fed up with too many arbitrary restrictions.

Tangential to the thread, but I'm curious what restrictions you're alluding to. Frankly, I'd be hard-pressed to name any arbitrary restrictions in 2E that weren't already there in 1E.

daggaz
2007-11-06, 06:25 PM
Funny that you see so many more elf wizards than dwarf wizards, then.

Heh yeah, I was just thinking the same thing...

(quote based on the quote that making things non-optimal is the same as forbidding them)

Jayabalard
2007-11-06, 06:26 PM
personally, I still far prefer 1ed AD&D to either 2e or 3.x.

EvilJames
2007-11-06, 06:27 PM
Certain posters seem to be of the opinion that 3e is somehow more flawed, as compared to 2e because that is their opinion. These people challenge those who disagree with flawed arguments and general unpleasantness. Some of them even make sweeping generalizations about the editions, as though by virtue of still playing the game they have some greater insight as to how most people did things when they played.

Unfortunately all anyone has is their own personal anecdotes. Without clear evidence supporting their generalizations they should be discounted. Furthermore, with these posters' aggressive tones and indications it would seem to be prudent to simply stop engaging them. They offer nothing new, but the regurgitation of old news with a different voice. Simply continuing to talk about 3.5e and 4e may be enough to silence their arguments.

Its not worth the time or effort to continue the discussion. The same points have been posted again and again, while generating no new insight. We get it. Some people like 2e and see 3.5e as oversimplification because they are elitist about things that don't really matter. Others may say things about 3.5e that suggest that they destroy the uniqueness of settings, which is just plain fabrication: 3.5e is modular and that is what makes it great; if someone really wanted a 3.5e update of certain settings, one could be made without difficulty. Even suggesting that people switch games if they don't like an older version of the current game they play is ridiculous; I may have liked the NES, but I can like the Wii, too.

The same could be said about 3rd ed players who claim 2nd ed. clunky and unweildy such things are indeed matters of opinion and personal taste. makeing broad generalizations about 2nd ed players is just as elitest and fruitless as the other way around these same 3rd ed players also bring nothing new to the conversation other than to belittle those who like the older system.

Matthew
2007-11-06, 06:28 PM
As Premier says, the basic premise of 2e Resolution Mechanics were the same as 3e. Where 3e handles everything as [1D20 + Modifiers = X = Success], 2e handles everything as [Roll X> or Y> = Success]. It's not particularly complicated. Wisdom 14 = 70% chance of success.

Of course, that wasn't the be all and end all of the system. In fact, it was an entirely optional rule. By default, most tasks were supposed to be resolved via a percentage chance made up by the DM, which is still possible in 3e (see the section in the 3e DMG on Circumstance Modifiers)

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-06, 06:37 PM
But, anyway, 2nd was the edition I jumped ship on. At that point I was just getting fed up with too many arbitrary restrictions. 3rd took away the arbitrary restrictions, but didn't put in the "good sense" restrictions in place. Personally, I blame not the mechanics per se, but that there's just too many sentient races too crammed together in too small an area that are kept arbitrarily separated. My other 3rd edition complaints are well documented.

Back in my 2nd Edition days, the first thing I did when creating a campaign world was sit down with the MM and decide "what creatures exist in my campaign world?".

That's an attitude I maintain to this day. And one of my biggest problems with the standard D&D campaign setting is the over-abundance of humanoid species.

My current campaign world has a very short list of distinct races: Humans, elves, dwarves, and dragons. The handful of other humanoids I have are either magically-perverted variations of these stock races (drow, orcs); degenerate descendants of them (the kobold-like adrak); or perversions extruded from extra-dimensional planes of existence (mind flayers).

My point here is that I consider the Monster Manuals and Tomes of Horror and Bestiaries to be toolboxes. I don't need to gluttonously dump their contents into every fantasy setting I create.

And, honestly, I find it incomprehensible when people complain about a game giving them too many choices. Make a decision and go play!

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Matthew
2007-11-06, 06:42 PM
Hmmn. Too many choices. How about when they create lots of 'bad' and only a few 'good' choices? That sounds like a case where it's worth complaining. Also, I think the sheer volume of Optional Rules to choose from in AD&D has often received criticism for allowing for too much 'rules deviation' from group to group.

Just a couple of possibilities that struck me.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 06:51 PM
Hmmn. Too many choices. How about when they create lots of 'bad' and only a few 'good' choices? That sounds like a case where it's worth complaining.

This will happen regardless of your Game of Choice. Designers are people, not deities, and therefore are occasionally misguided, moronic, overwhelmed with power, not thinking, or generally make a mistake.

MrNexx
2007-11-06, 06:52 PM
2nd edition was both and good and bad in design. It was comprised of multiple, independent systems that worked together through synergy and just plain faith. You could remove a piece of the system and replace it without there being too much of a problem. You could even add stats to the game without it rippling out (we used to play with the seventh stat, Comeliness, and occassionally an eighth, Luck).


PM me if you must, but how did the Luck attribute work?

MrNexx
2007-11-06, 06:59 PM
You mean in the same way that 2nd Edition had to be revised by Skills & Powers and then replaced by 3rd Edition in less than 12 years?

There's a bit of a problem with that argument.

If you look at the post Player's Options material produced by TSR/WotC, most of it did not make use of PO. There may have been (as in the FR Deities books) a little note about it, but most of them completely ignored the Player's Option and DM Option books that came out. When 3.5 came out, it invalidated much of what came before, and new material conformed to the new standard.

It's not an equivalent situation.

Matthew
2007-11-06, 07:11 PM
This will happen regardless of your Game of Choice. Designers are people, not deities, and therefore are occasionally misguided, moronic, overwhelmed with power, not thinking, or generally make a mistake.

Not sure about that. Surely it's only the case when there are a lot of choices?

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 07:14 PM
Not sure about that. Surely it's only the case when there are a lot of choices?

Nope. People can screw up anything.

Matthew
2007-11-06, 07:17 PM
Nope. People can screw up anything.

Well, I would agree with that, but I was meaning that you need a lot of choices to have *a lot* of bad ones and only *a few* good ones. Kind of like if your choices are Warrior, Wizard, Rogue or Priest. Of course, I was mainly thinking of Feats...

Irreverent Fool
2007-11-06, 08:47 PM
The rules for Planescape and Ravenloft were far from contrived or unnecessary. The fact that the feat system and other re-organizations have totally obliterated both Campaign Settings has kept me from 3e permanently. The fact that 3e had to be revised into 3.5, and is now going to be "replaced" by 4th edition, all these changes in less than 8 years, is just sickening to me, and shows the complete and utter weakness of the 3e game system.

I understand your reasoning, but I don't quite understand how the feat system obliterated the campaign settings. Could you elaborate? (Genuine inquiry, not sarcasm.)

Irreverent Fool
2007-11-06, 08:56 PM
Ok, I hate to nitpick, but if you are going to argue about systems please get ANY of your details right...

In 3.x..

1) Bards have their own spell lists, it does not include the vast majority of the direct-damage spells. Including fireball. Thus, their direct-damage spells by defination CANNOT be better, since they basically have NONE.

2) Bard spellcasting progression is far behind a wizards, often 3+ class levels behind in terms of when they get their next spell levels.

3) If a character is half of a wizard, you cannot sensibly use him to claim that wizard casting progression is somehow inferior, when it is anything but: you just only have HALF of it, since you are half of a wizard.

4) Fighter 7/wizard 6 is a abysmally bad build. You are right, by comparison a bard 9 (who would be 4 levels lower) might be comparable in power. THAT'S how bad that build is.


It's like me claiming that diamonds are inferior to granite by comparing a mountain (of primarily granite) to some dust that's mixed into nuclear waste.

Or, a less extreme example, it would be like me claiming that sorcerors are inferior to paladins in terms of spellcasting by comparing a full-orc sorceror 4/fighter 5 to a human paladin 8. Yes, 4 levels of sorceror casting with a -4 racial penalty to charisma ARE wrose then 8 levels of paladin casting.

I think he was talking about 2e.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-06, 09:01 PM
I tried playing 2e in the past. It was horrifically complicated to me, and didn't really like to too much. Fast forward 8 years, with 3.5, I tried DnD again, and guess what, it was *very* intuitive to me!
Obviously, your real-life INT score had increased in the meantime. :smallcool:

In general, when people look at game X and don't like it, then years later they look at game Y and do like it, that doesn't prove anything about X or Y, but only about their personal preference.




In 2nd, I can say that my character tries to do absolutely anything I want him to as an attack. If I want his attack to represent him charging and knocking down his opponent, it can. ... In 3rd edition, I can only do these if I have the proper feats.
While this is not actually true, it does seem that a substantial amount of players believe it to be true. I'm not sure what causes this - it may be the way the books are written, or it may be mass psychology, or it may simply be the growing player base.

The suggestion that, in 3E, almost any class can go toe to toe with a demon "given the correct feats" is unsubstantiated, as well as complete nonsense. Other than that, it would seem to be the case that 3E feats are based upon 2E weapon proficiencies, yes. I fail to see how this is a problem for either of the two.


2e is about telling the DM what he can do, and that 3e is about telling the players what they can do.
QFT.


The main difference between 2e and 3e, ... is actually the number of cases that are explicitly legislated
QFT.

And yes, various people are making up things out of thin air about third edition to "prove" that second edition is best, and likewise other people are making up things about second edition to "prove" that third edition is best. It would help this thread if people would lay off the vague assertions. "The first time I played ?E it totally sucked" doesn't prove anything, it could easily have been a crappy DM or something like that.

Thane of Fife
2007-11-06, 09:43 PM
While this is not actually true, it does seem that a substantial amount of players believe it to be true. I'm not sure what causes this - it may be the way the books are written, or it may be mass psychology, or it may simply be the growing player base.

Actually, it's a direct result of my having played a lot of Neverwinter Nights recently, and having gotten that confused with the 3.5 rules. But in a weird sort of way, the point still makes sense; namely that, hypothetically, a system could be designed that would inhibit roleplaying, and that, therefore, role-playing and system are not completely independent.

But to be honest, I find that 2nd and 3rd edition are more different in feel than in quality, although I, personally, prefer the former.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-06, 11:13 PM
But to be honest, I find that 2nd and 3rd edition are more different in feel than in quality, although I, personally, prefer the former.

I think this is the main reason most of the arguments on both sides are faulty and just a tad virile- people prefer the feel of one game, and have the need to back it up with cold hard facts.

horseboy
2007-11-06, 11:50 PM
Most editions of D&D (2E and 3E both included) strongly focus on combat, no way about. There are other games to play, if one doesn't like this.Which is why I prefer two of the three systems I mentioned.


But I must remark that not even all editions of D&D are like that. In 1E AD&D, you got the majority of your XP not from killed/defeated enemies, but from the treasure you acquired, which did a great job at making players focus on solving the problem via alternative methods to combat. Yup, and was partially the reason to my cavalier hitting 18 (the other reason being conversion shenanigans)


Tangential to the thread, but I'm curious what restrictions you're alluding to. Frankly, I'd be hard-pressed to name any arbitrary restrictions in 2E that weren't already there in 1E.Pretty much those. I went from red box to second edition. I'd hit the "done it all worth doing" mode, tired of having to retire demi-humans, and high level characters being the human only club. Heck one time I even had a paladin I was playing (No, not the high level one) polymorphed into a centaur by his ex-wife (she called him a jack-ass then made it true) just so I could do "something different."

Back in my 2nd Edition days, the first thing I did when creating a campaign world was sit down with the MM and decide "what creatures exist in my campaign world?".

That's an attitude I maintain to this day. And one of my biggest problems with the standard D&D campaign setting is the over-abundance of humanoid species.

My current campaign world has a very short list of distinct races: Humans, elves, dwarves, and dragons. The handful of other humanoids I have are either magically-perverted variations of these stock races (drow, orcs); degenerate descendants of them (the kobold-like adrak); or perversions extruded from extra-dimensional planes of existence (mind flayers).
If only this was a more common philosophy.

My point here is that I consider the Monster Manuals and Tomes of Horror and Bestiaries to be toolboxes. I don't need to gluttonously dump their contents into every fantasy setting I create.And you are a very rare person, after all, how many people are going to spend that much money for something they're never going to use?


And, honestly, I find it incomprehensible when people complain about a game giving them too many choices. Make a decision and go play!

All choices are not made equal.

EvilJames
2007-11-07, 12:38 AM
I think the fundamental issue I'm seeing as the difference between 2e and 3e is that 2e is about telling the DM what he can do, and that 3e is about telling the players what they can do. It's a subtle, yet important, difference.

Quoted for slight inaccuracies 2nd ed told the Dm very little. it's a rare thing indeed when i crack open the Dmg for 2nd ed. where as the phb is well used and worn.


c) The 3rd Edition rules for bull rushing, grappling, and the like are all clearly developed out of the 2nd Edition rules for those things.

The difference is that nobody used those rules in previous editions because they were, by and large, unusable. In 3rd Edition, lots of people use them because they are useful and usable.

also incorrect I've used used them (had a specialist) used them in third as well (with a monk)

Matthew
2007-11-07, 09:21 AM
One other thing:

The great thing about 3E is it is HIGHLY modular. If you see something that you like from FR or Eberron, or some fluff book, it is trivial to strip away the fluff and deposit it in your home campaign. In 2e that was.... less so. Much less, actually. While it could be done, trying to mix and match ideas and rules from different campaigns and kits was... problematic at best.

But in 3E (with its laser-like focus on the mathematical underpinnings of d20) it is much much easier to strip things away from source material and plop it in your game. In a way, this is also 3Es biggest curse as this very modularity has lead to many of the cries of "unbalanced" gaming. But even with that the sheer ease of mix-n-matching makes up for whatever game balance issues might arise from said mixing.

Especially since you can always ban obnoxious combos from your table. :smallwink:

This is an interesting contention and one which I have seen expressed a few times. I think, though, that there is a distinction to be made between 'modularity' and the 'modularity that 3e offers'. Internally, 3e is quite modular. Races, Classes, Prestige Classes, Spells, Abilities and Feats are categories that have a great deal of internal modularity and can be mixed and matched with one another.
However, it's not really a 'highly' modular game because of the interdependence of these various groups. Feats and Skills, for instance, are very difficult to remove from the game and have it remain 'intact' (skills are also perhaps the best example of an aspect of the game that is not very modular at all).
I find it much more difficult to 'strip 3e down' than 'build 2e up', but I have encountered plenty of people with exactly the opposite experience. I suspect that this may be to do with expectations, definitions and perhaps even individual psychological.

I think probably the most conflicted part of the game is 'balance'. Where 2e talks about balance in very general ways, 3e adds a fairly iron clad view of what balance means. I don't think that the addition has been particularly constructive or useful, but it has been interesting.

hamlet
2007-11-07, 09:34 AM
I never found third edition modular. Everything is so closely linked to each other that trying to strip out something I don't like or want is going to be a huge rewrite of the system (and by the time that's done I've got something that looks like 2nd edition anyway so why bother?).

The best example is playing in a low and scarce magic setting with D&D. No satisfactory answer is possible with 3.5 short of "play only up till level 6." Taking magic away from the characters in 3.5 effectively dooms them while in older editions, I could keep them so magic poor that a part of 6 characters was sharing a single +1 magic sword that none of them could use very well in the first place. Third edition relies extensively on the assumption that magic is plentiful and readily available to all persons.

If modularity is what you want, you're playing the wrong system. Pick up Hero 5 Revised or GURPS.

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-07, 08:22 PM
If you look at the post Player's Options material produced by TSR/WotC, most of it did not make use of PO.

People say this a lot whenever this subject comes up. The problem is, it's just not true. Almost every single product released post-PO used PO material.

I'm not sure what's created this perennial blind-spot for some people. Perhaps its that the horribly glutted 2nd Edition market meant that so much pre-existing material was still on the shelves that they didn't even realize that the non-PO stuff they were seeing had been published before PO's release.

Perhaps it was the presence of certain products being prominently marked with the PO trademark which made them selectively forget that just meant that there was a lot more PO-dependent content in those books.

Perhaps it was the fact that people weren't using the PO material and have simply forgotten that the material was there, even if they weren't using it.

Or perhaps its just one of those things that has been repeated so many times that people have just started to believe it by rote.

But whatever the case may be, it's a false meme that needs to die.


When 3.5 came out, it invalidated much of what came before, and new material conformed to the new standard.

In practice, essentially all 3.5 material can be used in a 3.0 campaign. And vice versa. The exceptions are few and far between. I've got a friend who uses all the Complete books in his 3.0 campaign (which is 3.0 largely because they've never bothered to buy the revised rulebooks). I've even seen people using 3.0 rangers and monks in a 3.5 game.

(There's nothing about the 3.5 rules which makes the 3.0 ranger unusable. If you had never seen a 3.0 ranger and someone published it today as a the "woodstalker" it would be perfectly usable right out of the box.)

AFAICT, the only real problem are the damage reduction mechanics (and, thus, any monster that uses typed damage reduction). These cause minor problems, but these problems are ridiculously easy to work around and pale mightily in comparison the work-arounds required by PO material.


The best example is playing in a low and scarce magic setting with D&D. No satisfactory answer is possible with 3.5 short of "play only up till level 6." Taking magic away from the characters in 3.5 effectively dooms them while in older editions, I could keep them so magic poor that a part of 6 characters was sharing a single +1 magic sword that none of them could use very well in the first place.

Bull****.

If you take magical items away in 3rd Edition two things happen:

First, the balance of power between the classes changes. In general, spellcasters will gain more and more power compared to non-spellcasters (because the non-spellcasters rely on their magical gear to keep pace with the things the spellcasters do without gear).

Second, the balance of power between PCs and NPCs change. You've taken away some of the PCs' power and (completely unsurprisingly) the NPCs they'll be able to successfully beat in combat will be less powerful than they were before.

You know what happens if you take magical items away in 2nd Edition?

THE EXACT SAME THING.

If you make the PCs less powerful, they will be less powerful. And if you make the PCs less powerful, the challenges they can successfully face will be less powerful, too. This is not only true of D&D, it's true of essentially any RPG you will ever play. It's obvious. It's literally a tautology.

Now, there are two differences between 3rd Edition and 2nd Edition in this regard:

(1) 3rd Edition is, by and large, balanced out of the box. 2nd Edition isn't. So if you change the balance of power in 2nd Edition, you've just shifted who the have and have-nots are (or how large the gap is between them). Changing form one imbalanced state to another imbalanced state apparently doesn't bug people.

But changing from the balanced state of 3rd Edition to an imbalanced state does bug people. And this isn't because 3rd Edition sucks -- it's because people like game balance. And if you agree with them, then you have to agree that 2nd Edition -- that didn't have that balance -- sucked right out of the box.

(2) 3rd Edition includes a set of guidelines for gauging what challenges are appropriate for what characters if those characters follow the standard assumptions of the game. 2nd Edition didn't. So if you change what the standard assumptions are for the level of power the PCs have, the guidelines stop working... which means that 3rd Edition and 2nd Edition are now identical in their lack of guidelines.

This oft-repeated criticism ("you can't change 3rd Edition without changing 3rd Edition") is ludicrous.

You're right: You can't change 3rd Edition without changing 3rd Edition. The same was true of 2nd Edition.

But if you want to make the change, then grow a set of balls, make the change, live with the consequences, and go back to eye-balling what the PCs are capable of handling. Just like you did in 2nd Edition.

It ain't rocket science.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Kurald Galain
2007-11-07, 08:36 PM
(1) 3rd Edition is, by and large, balanced out of the box.

Precisely. That's why a barbarian, a wizard, and a monk are all at roughly the same power level whether they're at level one, level ten, or level twenty, and it's also why WOTC would never dream of making a "halfth edition" to fix things.

And no, I've never heard of sarcasm either :smallbiggrin:

horseboy
2007-11-07, 08:42 PM
People say this a lot whenever this subject comes up. The problem is, it's just not true. Almost every single product released post-PO used PO material.

I'm not sure what's created this perennial blind-spot for some people. Perhaps its that the horribly glutted 2nd Edition market meant that so much pre-existing material was still on the shelves that they didn't even realize that the non-PO stuff they were seeing had been published before PO's release.

Perhaps it was the presence of certain products being prominently marked with the PO trademark which made them selectively forget that just meant that there was a lot more PO-dependent content in those books.

Perhaps it was the fact that people weren't using the PO material and have simply forgotten that the material was there, even if they weren't using it.

Or perhaps its just one of those things that has been repeated so many times that people have just started to believe it by rote.

But whatever the case may be, it's a false meme that needs to die.



In practice, essentially all 3.5 material can be used in a 3.0 campaign. And vice versa. The exceptions are few and far between. I've got a friend who uses all the Complete books in his 3.0 campaign (which is 3.0 largely because they've never bothered to buy the revised rulebooks). I've even seen people using 3.0 rangers and monks in a 3.5 game.

(There's nothing about the 3.5 rules which makes the 3.0 ranger unusable. If you had never seen a 3.0 ranger and someone published it today as a the "woodstalker" it would be perfectly usable right out of the box.)

AFAICT, the only real problem are the damage reduction mechanics (and, thus, any monster that uses typed damage reduction). These cause minor problems, but these problems are ridiculously easy to work around and pale mightily in comparison the work-arounds required by PO material.IIRC, In the post S&P era (I did have friends that still played, I'd thumb through their stuff once in a while) supplements came with both stats sets, one in the text body, another in a side bar. I don't remember which was where, but because it was there and easy to ignore, most people didn't notice the rule set they didn't use.



(1) 3rd Edition is, by and large, balanced out of the box.
I agree to disagree with this sentence.

Matthew
2007-11-07, 08:42 PM
People say this a lot whenever this subject comes up. The problem is, it's just not true. Almost every single product released post-PO used PO material.

I'm not sure what's created this perennial blind-spot for some people. Perhaps its that the horribly glutted 2nd Edition market meant that so much pre-existing material was still on the shelves that they didn't even realize that the non-PO stuff they were seeing had been published before PO's release.

Perhaps it was the presence of certain products being prominently marked with the PO trademark which made them selectively forget that just meant that there was a lot more PO-dependent content in those books.

Perhaps it was the fact that people weren't using the PO material and have simply forgotten that the material was there, even if they weren't using it.

Or perhaps its just one of those things that has been repeated so many times that people have just started to believe it by rote.

But whatever the case may be, it's a false meme that needs to die.

If you want this meme to die then I really think you ought to cite what material you are referring to. The only one I am aware of is The Gates of Fire Storm Peak, but I would be interested to hear of others.


Precisely. That's why a barbarian, a wizard, and a monk are all at roughly the same power level whether they're at level one, level ten, or level twenty, and it's also why WOTC would never dream of making a "halfth edition" to fix things.

And no, I've never heard of sarcasm either :smallbiggrin:

Heh. Actually, I'm not sure what makes people think 2e wasn't 'balanced' out of the box. Clearly written and edited, well that's another matter...

MrNexx
2007-11-07, 08:47 PM
People say this a lot whenever this subject comes up. The problem is, it's just not true. Almost every single product released post-PO used PO material.

Name them. I was buying a lot at the time and encountered precious little. I recall that there was 1 adventure that specifically used Player's Option Material. Also, IIRC, the FR Heroes and Villains Lorebook listed stats for martial artists in a couple different formats (Players Option being one), and the Dark Sun revision used the revised psionics rules, though those were Player's Option only by virtue of being in the Skills and Powers book; they had nothing to do with the rest of the PO system. There WAS material in Dragon for converting things over to Skills and Powers.

However, none of this required the Players Option books to be purchased.



In practice, essentially all 3.5 material can be used in a 3.0 campaign. And vice versa. The exceptions are few and far between. I've got a friend who uses all the Complete books in his 3.0 campaign (which is 3.0 largely because they've never bothered to buy the revised rulebooks). I've even seen people using 3.0 rangers and monks in a 3.5 game.

After Player's option came out, did they re-release the Complete Fighter's Handbook... maybe with a different name? I certainly didn't notice. Sword and Fist became Complete Warrior; Song and Silence became Complete Adventurer; Tome and Blood became Complete Arcane... It is possible to use them, but only if you've kept up with the fairly large changes made in the half edition.

EvilJames
2007-11-08, 01:31 AM
People say this a lot whenever this subject comes up. The problem is, it's just not true. Almost every single product released post-PO used PO material.

I'm not sure what's created this perennial blind-spot for some people. Perhaps its that the horribly glutted 2nd Edition market meant that so much pre-existing material was still on the shelves that they didn't even realize that the non-PO stuff they were seeing had been published before PO's release.

Perhaps it was the presence of certain products being prominently marked with the PO trademark which made them selectively forget that just meant that there was a lot more PO-dependent content in those books.

Perhaps it was the fact that people weren't using the PO material and have simply forgotten that the material was there, even if they weren't using it.

Or perhaps its just one of those things that has been repeated so many times that people have just started to believe it by rote.

But whatever the case may be, it's a false meme that needs to die.

People say it a lot because it's true. There were supplements that used it but the vast majority of stuff that came out afterwards simply didn't use it or made only passing reference to it. many books borrowed from some of the concepts that were first presented in PO most notably some of the different priest classes and monster PC's but PO was not really apart of that The only PO books out there were the core ones and thats what was intended of them



In practice, essentially all 3.5 material can be used in a 3.0 campaign. And vice versa. The exceptions are few and far between. I've got a friend who uses all the Complete books in his 3.0 campaign (which is 3.0 largely because they've never bothered to buy the revised rulebooks). I've even seen people using 3.0 rangers and monks in a 3.5 game.

(There's nothing about the 3.5 rules which makes the 3.0 ranger unusable. If you had never seen a 3.0 ranger and someone published it today as a the "woodstalker" it would be perfectly usable right out of the box.)

AFAICT, the only real problem are the damage reduction mechanics (and, thus, any monster that uses typed damage reduction). These cause minor problems, but these problems are ridiculously easy to work around and pale mightily in comparison the work-arounds required by PO material.

Really more in theory than in practice honestly. I had a hell of a time making a monster pc for 3.5 because I didn't realize the MM2 wasn't 3.5 (also they changed the rules for Monster PC's at least once before 3.5 came out, so that didn't help) I've never really used PO so I don't know what kinds of problems it creates but I have looked at it with my core rules disks and have printed out npc's that were accidently made with PO on that program for use in a non PO game and encountered no problems (but then they weren't used extensivly so I may have just not gone into it deeply enough)



A bunch of other stuff

seems others have already covered what was wrong with the rest of that so I won't bother.

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-08, 11:53 AM
Precisely. That's why a barbarian, a wizard, and a monk are all at roughly the same power level whether they're at level one, level ten, or level twenty, and it's also why WOTC would never dream of making a "halfth edition" to fix things.

And no, I've never heard of sarcasm either :smallbiggrin:

Nothing's perfect so why bother trying?

I disagree with your fundamentally flawed philosophy of life.


Sword and Fist became Complete Warrior; Song and Silence became Complete Adventurer; Tome and Blood became Complete Arcane... It is possible to use them, but only if you've kept up with the fairly large changes made in the half edition.

Wow. Well, I can't really be bothered to deal with disconnects from reality as severe as this.

Perhaps you guys are all posting from an alternate dimension where this was actually true. But I suspect there's a more likely explanation.

See ya.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-08, 11:58 AM
Nothing's perfect so why bother trying?
No, the point is simply "don't lie about something being balanced when it obviously isn't". I'm quite sure that every edition of (almost) every RPG tries its hardest to be balanced, and doesn't quite achieve it - that is a good thing. Proclaiming one to be very much superior when it obviously isn't, that's deception.


I disagree with your fundamentally flawed philosophy of life.
Ah, you're one of those people who believe insults are a valid form of argument. I had expected you to be more mature than that, but never mind.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 12:04 PM
Perhaps you guys are all posting from an alternate dimension where this was actually true. But I suspect there's a more likely explanation.

Hmmn. I seem to remember this contention appearing in your discourse before; perhaps we are somehow communicating across a disconnect.

All the same, I would still be interested to know what material, beyond The Gates of Fire Storm Peak, took advantage of the Player's Option Series and in what ways. Are we talking Sub Attributes (ughh), Alternate Magic Systems, Combat Tactics, Character Points, Spells, Altered Classes? Was it truly unusable or incompatable in some way? I'm asking out of interest, because I more or less stopped buying AD&D stuff around 1995/6.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-08, 12:11 PM
I very much ENJOY limitations on a PC.

I like 3e because if I want to play a game with the Vanilla Four, I can. Or, if I want to play with half-illithid dark goblins, I can do that too.

Playing ANYTHING is ultimately up to DM approval, regardless of system. 3e just adds the convenience of making an assemblage of balance for those things.

And you're clearly a 2e player, when playing monsters was teh good thing! Now, with the way it's balanced out, playing nonstandard races or templating is generally bad. You lose class abilities, HP, BAB, etc since you have fewer, or worse, HD. As I understand it, there was nothing for a 2e DM to consult to give him a relative idea of just how powerful that half-ogre was; there weren't level adjustments.


Incorrect. Systems can and do impact how you roleplay. For example:

a) You see a small green creature in front of you. It growls at you menacingly. You're playing D&D. What do you do?

Johanne the Cloistered Cleric cautiously backs away.


b) You see a small green creature in front of you. It growls at you menacingly. You're playing Call of Cthulhu. What do you do?[/QUOTE]

Ronald raises his Louisville slugger and gets ready to strike.

See?
Roleplaying. Also depends on what sort of game is being run. A 3e CoC game run like a D&D game will lead to high level adventurers with lots of hitpoints who eventually kill Cthulhu.

In fact, CoC & D&D both use the same mechanics now. The only difference is the way they're run by the DM, and the way they're played. The real difference is the metagame.


Not to pick on you or anything, Swordguy. :/

Dausuul
2007-11-08, 12:15 PM
Nothing's perfect so why bother trying?

I disagree with your fundamentally flawed philosophy of life.

Saying that 3E tries to achieve balance at all levels is very different from saying that it does achieve it. You said it did achieve it, which is clearly what Kurald was disagreeing with.


Wow. Well, I can't really be bothered to deal with disconnects from reality as severe as this.

Perhaps you guys are all posting from an alternate dimension where this was actually true. But I suspect there's a more likely explanation.

See ya.

Wait... are you claiming Sword and Fist didn't become Complete Warrior, et cetera? Or that it's possible to use the 3E books (implied: in a 3.5E game) without being up on the changes that took place in 3.5E?

CatCameBack
2007-11-08, 01:40 PM
I like 3e because if I want to play a game with the Vanilla Four, I can. Or, if I want to play with half-illithid dark goblins, I can do that too.

Playing ANYTHING is ultimately up to DM approval, regardless of system. 3e just adds the convenience of making an assemblage of balance for those things.




And this, ultimately , is the truth of the matter. I feel my group has a unique perspective of the matter.

You see, a while back, there was a gaming company called Bard Games. They put out a sourcebook/rulebook (it couldn't really be called a FULL set of rules, you had to house rule a lot of it and fill in the gaps) called Arcanum. (Funny story: if you check on what became of Bard Games, you find they were acquired by the WotC prior to the release of 3.0).

Arcanum, back in the days of 2nd Edition, had some pretty cool ideas. A 20-sided combat system based on a static target number instead oif THACO and a primitive Attack of Opportunity system. There was also the categorization of classes into Combat Trained, Highly Trained, and Untrained which looks suspiciously like the to hit progression tables in 3.0. Every 2-4 levels, you got special "class only" skills by choosing proficiency slots, again bearing an uncanny resemblance to the Feat system.
In short, when we were presented with the d20 system (3.0), we were already familiar with some of the concepts. Right away, we found the game pretty streamlined and intuitive. There was some wrangling with Attacks of Opprotunity and Grappling rules...and of course the 5' step (of God) became the bane of my existence as a DM. On the whole, we found 3.0 to be a good thing.

The beef most 3.x players have with 2nd Ed. is the same problem 2.0 players have with 3.x Ed. The added content. Power Attack isn't very abusive by itself, or even combined with Feats from the core book. Add some of the stuff out of Complete Warrior (FUNNY STORY AGAIN: Bard Games originally released it's class expansions in books called the "Compleat (whatever)".), and Power Attack becomes the Omnislash of the D&D universe.

Same thing with 2nd Ed. (or 1st Ed. for that matter), use the rules form the basic book, and the game runs in a fairly balanced way. Add the content piled on in all of the supplemental books, and the abuse creeps in.

Most of the conversations where people cite the worst abuse include content from these "Non-Core" books. It is up to the DM to police the supplements allowed in his/her game. Any abuse that happens after that is implicitly stamped with approval by the DM in question.

So, the question of "Which is more balanced and fun?" is ultimately a question of how well the DM is doing their job.

Dausuul
2007-11-08, 01:46 PM
Most of the conversations where people cite the worst abuse include content from these "Non-Core" books. It is up to the DM to police the supplements allowed in his/her game. Any abuse that happens after that is implicitly stamped with approval by the DM in question.

Many of the really obscene cheese combos, like Pun-Pun, do rely on supplemental material; but nobody tries to play Pun-Pun in an actual game. Unfortunately, the real balance problems of 3E lie in the core rules. Druids don't need supplements to rule the roost in melee, and the Batman wizard functions quite well without any splatbooks at all.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 02:25 PM
And this, ultimately , is the truth of the matter. I feel my group has a unique perspective of the matter.

You see, a while back, there was a gaming company called Bard Games. They put out a sourcebook/rulebook (it couldn't really be called a FULL set of rules, you had to house rule a lot of it and fill in the gaps) called Arcanum. (Funny story: if you check on what became of Bard Games, you find they were acquired by the WotC prior to the release of 3.0).

Arcanum, back in the days of 2nd Edition, had some pretty cool ideas. A 20-sided combat system based on a static target number instead oif THACO and a primitive Attack of Opportunity system. There was also the categorization of classes into Combat Trained, Highly Trained, and Untrained which looks suspiciously like the to hit progression tables in 3.0. Every 2-4 levels, you got special "class only" skills by choosing proficiency slots, again bearing an uncanny resemblance to the Feat system.

Interesting, but the 2e Player's Option Series (1995) introduced AoOs to D&D (which were before that known as 'Free Att[H]acks' and were common to many wargames). The same is true of the Feat system, which grew out of Proficiencies and Character Points. I'm not saying they didn't borrow anything from Arcanum, but there you go.


In short, when we were presented with the d20 system (3.0), we were already familiar with some of the concepts. Right away, we found the game pretty streamlined and intuitive. There was some wrangling with Attacks of Opprotunity and Grappling rules...and of course the 5' step (of God) became the bane of my existence as a DM. On the whole, we found 3.0 to be a good thing.

Heh, heh. I think many people were familiar with many of the 3e rules, especially since so many of them are basically lifted wholesale from the Player's Option series.


The beef most 3.x players have with 2nd Ed. is the same problem 2.0 players have with 3.x Ed. The added content. Power Attack isn't very abusive by itself, or even combined with Feats from the core book. Add some of the stuff out of Complete Warrior (FUNNY STORY AGAIN: Bard Games originally released it's class expansions in books called the "Compleat (whatever)".), and Power Attack becomes the Omnislash of the D&D universe.

Same thing with 2nd Ed. (or 1st Ed. for that matter), use the rules form the basic book, and the game runs in a fairly balanced way. Add the content piled on in all of the supplemental books, and the abuse creeps in.

Actually, the more usual criticism of 2e, and 1e, is that there weren't enough concise and universally applied rules to govern the various possibilities. Basically that boils down to playstyle. Person A might tell you that Fighters couldn't even try to sneak in AD&D, whilst Person B will tell you that of course they could. The disconnect usually resides in differing approaches to the game. Person A wants rules that spell out for as many conceivable situations as possible, so that his character can attempt them. Person B expects the DM to accomodate any action they can think of. Both approaches are valid, but 3e is more geared towards supporting the former and 2e is more geared towards supporting the latter.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-08, 03:46 PM
Actually, the more usual criticism of 2e, and 1e, is that there weren't enough concise and universally applied rules to govern the various possibilities. Basically that boils down to playstyle.

While I certainly agree with that, it would seem that the same applies to 3E as well, as witnessed from the many "monks are teh best class evar!" vs "monks are teh awful suxxorz" threads.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 03:52 PM
Not quite following you. I don't usually bother reading those Threads, so I'm not that familiar with the main points.

Are you saying:

a) 3e Rules don't work very evenly, same as 2e
b) Even with a crapload of rules, things still don't work evenly
c) People still don't understand the rules
d) Something else...?

Kurald Galain
2007-11-08, 04:04 PM
Are you saying:

a) 3e Rules don't work very evenly, same as 2e
b) Even with a crapload of rules, things still don't work evenly
c) People still don't understand the rules
d) Something else...?

I am saying that regardless of rules, a lot of things still depend on playstyle. So yes, (b), and this may be a result of (c). Logically, the more rules there are, the greater the chance that any random player has not read, or not understood, certain rules.

Over these threads so far, I have seen that most flaws that people ascribe to either edition, likewise apply to the other, only because of personal preference, different experiences, and/or wholly different groups and DMs, people tend not to notice that.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 04:24 PM
Ah right, what I was meaning is that some folk like to have a lot of specific closed rules for specific actions, whilst others prefer more generalised open rules. Of course, it's possible to play 3e either way simply by ignoring a bunch of rules or readily improvising, but that can result in complaints about 'balance'. 3e was designed to accomodate the former.

EvilJames
2007-11-08, 05:36 PM
Nothing's perfect so why bother trying?

I disagree with your fundamentally flawed philosophy of life.



Wow. Well, I can't really be bothered to deal with disconnects from reality as severe as this.

Perhaps you guys are all posting from an alternate dimension where this was actually true. But I suspect there's a more likely explanation.

See ya.

It's unfortunate vague insults are not really a satisfactory or valid response, you've stated your opinions and are entitled to them but when make factual claims it is customary to provide at least some sort of example and you have not been able to provide any examples at all, of all, most, or even a lot of books coming out after PO that used besides the core PO books or any examples of difficulty using PO material in a standard 2nd ed game. So I'm not entirely sure what disconnects you are referring too.:smallconfused:

Weredwarf
2007-11-20, 06:13 PM
The biggest advantages of 2nd edition in my opinion over are as follows

1. class balance
Back in the days of 2nd edition every class played thier role in 3.5 a wizard can be everything exept healer, and a cleric or durid can be everything a once.

2. the aumount magic items
In 3.5 you can buy magic items at stores. It disgusts me that you can buy a holy avenger at magic-mart, in theroy you can'y do this but the rules for store inventories are confuseing and nobody uses them.

3. the aumount of campain settings
Look at the aumount of campin settings wizards got rid of planescape, spelljammer, dark sun, birthright and more. Now we only have forgotten realms and eberron.

4. the aumount of classes
Out of the books i own there are a total of 27 classes and i don't buy most books that wizards prints. I don't think i'm going to bother counting the aumount of prestige classes

5. less confuseing rules
mounted combat and grapple and metamagic do i need to say more.

6. no attacks of oppertunity
Theres no reason why these should exist all they do is slow the game down.

Matthew
2007-11-20, 06:18 PM
You might want to qualify that with a 'in my opinion', unless you're just another incarnation of a nameless former poster...

Kaelik
2007-11-20, 06:50 PM
The biggest advantages of 2nd edition in my opinion over are as follows

1. class balance
Back in the days of 2nd edition every class played thier role in 3.5 a wizard can be everything exept healer, and a cleric or durid can be everything a once.

2. the aumount magic items
In 3.5 you can buy magic items at stores. It disgusts me that you can buy a holy avenger at magic-mart, in theroy you can'y do this but the rules for store inventories are confuseing and nobody uses them.

3. the aumount of campain settings
Look at the aumount of campin settings wizards got rid of planescape, spelljammer, dark sun, birthright and more. Now we only have forgotten realms and eberron.

4. the aumount of classes
Out of the books i own there are a total of 27 classes and i don't buy most books that wizards prints. I don't think i'm going to bother counting the aumount of prestige classes

5. less confuseing rules
mounted combat and grapple and metamagic do i need to say more.

6. no attacks of oppertunity
Theres no reason why these should exist all they do is slow the game down.

And im my opinion 1-3 aren't really points in favor of 2nd (even if they aren't points in favor of 3rd.)

And 4-6 are all reasons that 3rd is better then 2nd.

4. More classes/Feats/PrCs=Options. The game is supposed to be about creating a character. I like that I can create hundreds of completely different kinds of characters that I actually want to play, instead of every Fighter being I hit him hard with Weapon X. And every Wizard being mostly the same (then as now, wizards where/are more customizable then fighters.)

5. What is so confusing? I never understand these complaints. Some rules might be confusing, but only in the sense that you have to think a bit to figure out what they are, or worse, make a decision as a gaming group. After that you should never have a problem again. And metamgic? Really? I can understand mounted combat takes a bit of understanding, but metamagic is simple.

6. Aside from the Balance they (can) create by limiting certain types of actions, they also make combat significantly more tactical.

Matthew
2007-11-20, 07:02 PM
4) Actually, that's probably just the illusion of more options. What you actually have are more discrete mechanical options, which isn't absolutely a good thing, it's a preferential thing. The number of kits and 'build your own class' rules available in 2e, though, kind of renders all that pretty moot.

5) It's probably a relative difference with a lighter/heavier dichotomy. It's worth pointing out, though, that 95% of 3e Core Combat Rules were 2e Optional Rules.

6) Attacks of Opportunity were introduced in 2e. They were preceded by 'Free Hacks', which are common to many RPGs and War Games. The main problem I have with them is that they make the game 'turn by turn', whereas previous editions could be played 'simultaneously'. It's a a bit of a difficult concept to explain clearly, but basically, Initiative in previous editions only determined who 'struck first' in the combat round and did not relate to movement.

Weredwarf
2007-11-20, 07:14 PM
And im my opinion 1-3 aren't really points in favor of 2nd (even if they aren't points in favor of 3rd.)

And 4-6 are all reasons that 3rd is better then 2nd.

4. More classes/Feats/PrCs=Options. The game is supposed to be about creating a character. I like that I can create hundreds of completely different kinds of characters that I actually want to play, instead of every Fighter being I hit him hard with Weapon X. And every Wizard being mostly the same (then as now, wizards where/are more customizable then fighters.)

5. What is so confusing? I never understand these complaints. Some rules might be confusing, but only in the sense that you have to think a bit to figure out what they are, or worse, make a decision as a gaming group. After that you should never have a problem again. And metamgic? Really? I can understand mounted combat takes a bit of understanding, but metamagic is simple.

6. Aside from the Balance they (can) create by limiting certain types of actions, they also make combat significantly more tactical.

1-3 How are they not in favor of 2nd

4. They're only different mechinics wise. role-playing wise there's little differnece betwen a warmage and a blaster wizard or a ranger and a scout.

5. Guess your group never debated about whether empower spell doubles damage, or dice rolled.

6. how does it create balance? and no tactics are worth that many rules. Many times i wanted to do some ting cool in combat only for the dm to say "but you provoke an attack of oppertunity" Leading to simply slash it with my sword.

Kaelik
2007-11-20, 08:11 PM
4) Actually, that's probably just the illusion of more options. What you actually have are more discrete mechanical options, which isn't absolutely a good thing, it's a preferential thing. The number of kits and 'build your own class' rules available in 2e, though, kind of renders all that pretty moot.

I'm sorry, did 2nd Ed have a way for a Wizard to get the entire Cleric Spell list on their list? How about gaining always on telepathy? Anything like the Factotum/Chameleon? Metamagic effects?

I don't know what you mean by "discrete mechanical options" but it seems to me that having more of them can only be accurately described as having more options.

6)The main problem I have with them is that they make the game 'turn by turn', whereas previous editions could be played 'simultaneously'. It's a a bit of a difficult concept to explain clearly, but basically, Initiative in previous editions only determined who 'struck first' in the combat round and did not relate to movement.[/QUOTE]

And that was pretty much my point. Movement in general didn't really matter that much, I know lots of groups that never even bothered dealing with it, You never knew what situation you were actually in, and when you went didn't really even matter. In all it was much less tactical then 3rd Ed. And AoO are a big reason for that.


1-3 How are they not in favor of 2nd

Well lets see:
1. Well I don't really care about "roles." In 3rd Ed everyone can be anything, and that's good. Class balance isn't important because you can build your characters so that everyone can do cool things and be an important part of the party.
2. There are rules for magic items, and you won't find a Holy Avenger just anywhere. But that said, more magic items isn't bad. It's more options, more power, more of the good things. The only complaints I have about 3rd Ed magic items are that you absolutely need them and WBL is an important part of balance. And two, that the best and most needed ones are usually ones that just add to a number, instead of giving you more options. (IE Handy Haversack is a good item, Belt of Giant Str is a bad one. But you need a Belt more then a Haversack.)
3.More or less campaign settings isn't better or worse. Fewer means they can focus more on the ones they have (or even better, on the more general, non-campaign specific things). Besides, most campaigns are homebrewed settings anyways. And though Planescape is good, Spelljammer was crap, I don't want anyone wasting time on that.


4. They're only different mechinics wise. role-playing wise there's little differnece betwen a warmage and a blaster wizard or a ranger and a scout.

Actually there's a huge difference between spontaneously casting everything you've ever learned and carrying around a book and only casting pre-pared spells. However that doesn't matter because:
1) Mechanics matter. If you don't think so then why are you playing a game that has them? Go play freeform.
2) Role-Playing wise you can change a lot of fluff and treat it differently, that doesn't mean that having more options (and in fact, being able to have your character do what you want without explicitly changing the rules in the book) is still better.

Besides, ignore the Warmage for a second and look at the Dread Necromancer. You can't roleplay most of that class without just cheating the rules. Sure you could have fewer spells of a similar vane with a sorcerer, but you couldn't negative energy touch at will, you wouldn't gain abilities that make you more undeadlike, and you wouldn't be able to rebuke undead.

And that doesn't even touch the various PrCs that almost all give you something you could never just pretend to get by rping.


5. Guess your group never debated about whether empower spell doubles damage, or dice rolled.

No we didn't, because Empower doesn't double anything.


6. how does it create balance? and no tactics are worth that many rules. Many times i wanted to do some ting cool in combat only for the dm to say "but you provoke an attack of oppertunity" Leading to simply slash it with my sword.

It creates balance by dissuading actions that don't make sense. Or might otherwise have no disadvantages, such as right by the fighter to attack the wizard.

And what is it with you and "rules?" The rules for AoO are once again, very simple and quite short. And yes, AoO dissuade many actions, jumping over a table is not often a smart move in combat.

But of course many actions that provoke AoOs could not, if you took the feats. If your character is good at Grappling then he doesn't have that problem, but I bet you didn't take those feats. I bet instead you took the feats that made you better at swinging you sword.

Looking at every single one of your problems I don't think you have more then one. It appears your only problem is that the rules are just to complex for you to understand, which is odd since they are usually pretty simple.

Matthew
2007-11-20, 08:22 PM
I'm sorry, did 2nd Ed have a way for a Wizard to get the entire Cleric Spell list on their list? How about gaining always on telepathy? Anything like the Factotum/Chameleon? Metamagic effects?

Sadly, yes, many of those options were available, but I don't see them as advantages.


I don't know what you mean by "discrete mechanical options" but it seems to me that having more of them can only be accurately described as having more options.

It means that you have mechanical options available to you that didn't exist in previous editions of the game and that the authors have thought up for you. However, there was nothing stopping you in 2e from getting the exact same things, they were called 'fighting styles' and you were encouraged to make them up with some very general guidelines.
If you want more mechanical pre existing options to 'build' your character, then 3e is better. If you find 'building characters' to be a tedious and restraining part of the game, then previous editions will probably suit you best.
That is to say, if you consider the way the character is mechanically designed within official and explicitly laid out rules to be an important and fun part of the game, then 3e serves that purpose best.


And that was pretty much my point. Movement in general didn't really matter that much, I know lots of groups that never even bothered dealing with it, You never knew what situation you were actually in, and when you went didn't really even matter. In all it was much less tactical then 3rd Ed. And AoO are a big reason for that.

No, you have misunderstood. You could play the game like that under 2e. There were plenty of tactical combat rules, just look at Combat and Tactics (it's where 3e culled most of it's combat rules from). The point is just that 2e had options for both types of play. Again, though, these things are preferential.

Just to illustrate, a 2e round where actions are simultaneous would work like this:


1) Player Action Declaration: 'Aldros charges the Goblin.'

2) DM Monster Action Determination: 'The Goblin charges Aldros'

3) Initiative is Rolled (in 1e first strike was determined by weapon length)

4) Action Resolution: Since both have a charge movement rate of 60' and they are 60' away from one another, they meet 30' away from their previous positions and whoever won initiative strikes first.




1) Mechanics matter. If you don't think so then why are you playing a game that has them? Go play freeform.

Yes, but to what degree they matter is subjective. It's certainly not a case of one extreme or the other. Some games emphasise mechanics, whilst others minimise them as a 'necessary evil'.


2) Role-Playing wise you can change a lot of fluff and treat it differently, that doesn't mean that having more options (and in fact, being able to have your character do what you want without explicitly changing the rules in the book) is still better.

No doubt a fundamental difference between points of view. A large part of the fun of previous editions was having the freedom to make up and change the rules to suit the campaign. It's the 'Toolbox' approach.
However, a brief read through the 3e DMG reveals that it gives you explicit permission to change the rules of the game, whether by Optional Rules or House Rules. In fact, it encourages you to do so if your game has become unbalanced.

Weredwarf
2007-11-20, 10:11 PM
I'm sorry, did 2nd Ed have a way for a Wizard to get the entire Cleric Spell list on their list? How about gaining always on telepathy? Anything like the Factotum/Chameleon? Metamagic effects?

I don't know what you mean by "discrete mechanical options" but it seems to me that having more of them can only be accurately described as having more options.

6)The main problem I have with them is that they make the game 'turn by turn', whereas previous editions could be played 'simultaneously'. It's a a bit of a difficult concept to explain clearly, but basically, Initiative in previous editions only determined who 'struck first' in the combat round and did not relate to movement.

And that was pretty much my point. Movement in general didn't really matter that much, I know lots of groups that never even bothered dealing with it, You never knew what situation you were actually in, and when you went didn't really even matter. In all it was much less tactical then 3rd Ed. And AoO are a big reason for that.



Well lets see:
1. Well I don't really care about "roles." In 3rd Ed everyone can be anything, and that's good. Class balance isn't important because you can build your characters so that everyone can do cool things and be an important part of the party.
2. There are rules for magic items, and you won't find a Holy Avenger just anywhere. But that said, more magic items isn't bad. It's more options, more power, more of the good things. The only complaints I have about 3rd Ed magic items are that you absolutely need them and WBL is an important part of balance. And two, that the best and most needed ones are usually ones that just add to a number, instead of giving you more options. (IE Handy Haversack is a good item, Belt of Giant Str is a bad one. But you need a Belt more then a Haversack.)
3.More or less campaign settings isn't better or worse. Fewer means they can focus more on the ones they have (or even better, on the more general, non-campaign specific things). Besides, most campaigns are homebrewed settings anyways. And though Planescape is good, Spelljammer was crap, I don't want anyone wasting time on that.


Actually there's a huge difference between spontaneously casting everything you've ever learned and carrying around a book and only casting pre-pared spells. However that doesn't matter because:
1) Mechanics matter. If you don't think so then why are you playing a game that has them? Go play freeform.
2) Role-Playing wise you can change a lot of fluff and treat it differently, that doesn't mean that having more options (and in fact, being able to have your character do what you want without explicitly changing the rules in the book) is still better.

Besides, ignore the Warmage for a second and look at the Dread Necromancer. You can't roleplay most of that class without just cheating the rules. Sure you could have fewer spells of a similar vane with a sorcerer, but you couldn't negative energy touch at will, you wouldn't gain abilities that make you more undeadlike, and you wouldn't be able to rebuke undead.

And that doesn't even touch the various PrCs that almost all give you something you could never just pretend to get by rping.



No we didn't, because Empower doesn't double anything.



It creates balance by dissuading actions that don't make sense. Or might otherwise have no disadvantages, such as right by the fighter to attack the wizard.

And what is it with you and "rules?" The rules for AoO are once again, very simple and quite short. And yes, AoO dissuade many actions, jumping over a table is not often a smart move in combat.

But of course many actions that provoke AoOs could not, if you took the feats. If your character is good at Grappling then he doesn't have that problem, but I bet you didn't take those feats. I bet instead you took the feats that made you better at swinging you sword.

Looking at every single one of your problems I don't think you have more then one. It appears your only problem is that the rules are just to complex for you to understand, which is odd since they are usually pretty simple.[/QUOTE]

1. The problem being that after low-levels clerics wizards and druids do everything and fighters and paladin have no real use it's not a matter of roles it's a matter of me being punished for wanting to swing a big sword.

2. Meaning it's near impossible to run a low-magic campign in 3.5, at least much harder than 2nd.

3. back in 2nd if you didn't want to play Spelljammer you didn't have to, and if you wanted to you could. The same could not be said ofr 3.5

4.Dread necromancer is intersesting, but classes like warmage, healer, samurai and swashbuckler are wasted space that could create a better class or improve and existing class. As for prc's the problem isn't that they give differnet mechinics, it's that there's 20-something more of them with every book.

5. rechecked the rules it 1.5 regardless it interuppts the game

6.In second edition if you wanted to jump on a table you risked a chance of failure. In 3.5 you risk a chance of failure and provoke an attack of opportunity. the basics of attacks to opportunity arn't complex but there is a lot of minor details.

tyckspoon
2007-11-20, 10:30 PM
5. rechecked the rules it 1.5 regardless it interuppts the game


Want to know what's really silly about that argument? In the end, it doesn't matter very much. 15d6 and (10d6) x 1.5 have the same range of possible results. If you like throwing a lot of dice, multiply the dice pool. If you prefer to count up quick and get on with the rest of the fight, roll the normal pool and multiply your end result.

Kaelik
2007-11-20, 10:51 PM
1. The problem being that after low-levels clerics wizards and druids do everything and fighters and paladin have no real use it's not a matter of roles it's a matter of me being punished for wanting to swing a big sword.

Which is fine. Either you make a non-spellcasting build good enough to stay useful and interesting in combat at higher levels or you make a spellcaster that does it. I've done both. What is the problem?


2. Meaning it's near impossible to run a low-magic campign in 3.5, at least much harder than 2nd.

Um? Thats not because there are fewer magic items in 2nd. It's because they aren't an assumed part of the game as much. Nothing to do with the number of them.


3. back in 2nd if you didn't want to play Spelljammer you didn't have to, and if you wanted to you could. The same could not be said ofr 3.5

But why would you want to? And Spelljammer took away resources that could have been directed at better things.


4.Dread necromancer is intersesting, but classes like warmage, healer, samurai and swashbuckler are wasted space that could create a better class or improve and existing class. As for prc's the problem isn't that they give differnet mechinics, it's that there's 20-something more of them with every book.

Yes they are. But space could only be spent on better classes or making core classes better if you follow the 3rd Ed rule, "make more options for the players." Which is directly counter to your point of "more stuff is bad, too many options."


5. rechecked the rules it 1.5 regardless it interuppts the game

It shouldn't interrupt the game because it specifically states that it multiplies the effects by 1.5. That clearly means don't roll more dice, multiply what you have. The only reason it would slow the game down is if you were too simple to understand the rules and/or couldn't remember them. And if either of those is the case then you'll have the same problem with any set of rules.


6.In second edition if you wanted to jump on a table you risked a chance of failure. In 3.5 you risk a chance of failure and provoke an attack of opportunity. the basics of attacks to opportunity arn't complex but there is a lot of minor details.

Well then don't do something that makes it easier for someone else to hit you. Or put ranks in tumble.

Yahzi
2007-11-21, 01:03 AM
I can't believe people are talking about 2e being balanced. The entire point of 2e was that it wasn't balanced. If you were a high-level wizard, you could find a spell to do anything (the original Polymorph Any Object explicitly stated you could polymorph a sand-grain into a beach, or a mummy into a puppy dog!). The goal of 2e was to find the most idiotic breakage possible, and then abuse it madly.

This made it wildly unbalanced. On the other hand, it also made it wildly fun. It was pure power-tripping. (Assuming you played a spell-caster. If you didn't play a spell-caster - at the very least, a multi-classed one - then you were just a chump.)

The essence of 2e is summed up in the Deck of Many Things. If you think the DoMT is hilarious fun, then you'll love 2e. On the other hand, if you think a magic item that contains its own rules and can completely destroy characters and campaigns at random is silly, you won't like 2e... because it was basically full of DoMTs. Every magic item was unique, with no regard for any other magic item. Cursed items could freaking kill you just for touching them. Wishes could do literally anything. It wasn't story-telling so much as rolling the dice and trying to fit the crazy random results into some kind of narrative.

Which is plenty of fun in its own right. The problem with 2e is that its simulation factor was so low. If there was a special rule, you could do it; otherwise, the DM had to make up rules on the spot (such as fighters moving quietly, or climbing a rope). And the internal consistency was non-existent: thieves had to spend more gold in training per level than xp per level, and every gold equaled an xp.

3e is in every way more coherent and better at simulating the various things players want to do (swinging on chandeliers, etc.). However, for sheer fantastic absurdity, 2e had that special elan that made it fun, even when it was abysmally stupid (which it often was). When 3e is stupid (which isn't nearly so often), it's just... stupid.

So it's kind of a trade-off. That said, my next campaign is gonna be 3e.

:smallbiggrin:

horseboy
2007-11-21, 01:05 AM
But why would you want to? And Spelljammer took away resources that could have been directed at better things.

Because I liked Spelljammer and Dark Sun.

Matthew
2007-11-21, 01:16 AM
I can't believe people are talking about 2e being balanced. The entire point of 2e was that it wasn't balanced. If you were a high-level wizard, you could find a spell to do anything (the original Polymorph Any Object explicitly stated you could polymorph a sand-grain into a beach, or a mummy into a puppy dog!). The goal of 2e was to find the most idiotic breakage possible, and then abuse it madly.

This made it wildly unbalanced. On the other hand, it also made it wildly fun. It was pure power-tripping. (Assuming you played a spell-caster. If you didn't play a spell-caster - at the very least, a multi-classed one - then you were just a chump.)

I'm guessing that you're being tongue in cheek here, because this is clearly a play preference within the game system.


The essence of 2e is summed up in the Deck of Many Things. If you think the DoMT is hilarious fun, then you'll love 2e. On the other hand, if you think a magic item that contains its own rules and can completely destroy characters and campaigns at random is silly, you won't like 2e... because it was basically full of DoMTs. Every magic item was unique, with no regard for any other magic item. Cursed items could freaking kill you just for touching them. Wishes could do literally anything. It wasn't story-telling so much as rolling the dice and trying to fit the crazy random results into some kind of narrative.

You are rather overstating the case. There certainly were some balmy items potentially available and there could be a crazy streak to the game, but they were meant for that style of game.


Which is plenty of fun in its own right. The problem with 2e is that its simulation factor was so low. If there was a special rule, you could do it; otherwise, the DM had to make up rules on the spot (such as fighters moving quietly, or climbing a rope). And the internal consistency was non-existent: thieves had to spend more gold in training per level than xp per level, and every gold equaled an xp.

I think you may well be mistaken about this. Those sound like things that could happen, but since both 'training costs' and 'xp for gold' were optional rules, they are just one or two possibilities amongst many. As for task resolution, it was just a probability roll determined by the DM, it wasn't like it was any more taxing then having to stop to look up the guidelines (or any different after Circumstance Modifiers are applied).


3e is in every way more coherent and better at simulating the various things players want to do (swinging on chandeliers, etc.). However, for sheer fantastic absurdity, 2e had that special elan that made it fun, even when it was abysmally stupid (which it often was). When 3e is stupid (which isn't nearly so often), it's just... stupid.

Coherent, yeah. Better? It's almost exactly the same with regard to task resolution. It's still roll 1D20, you have X% chance of succeeding. As a result of codifying so many things, 3e has ended up with a few fairly silly problems [I'm looking at you Drowning, Coup de Grace, Profession Skills...], I wouldn't say there were very many less than 2e.


So it's kind of a trade-off.

Very true.