PDA

View Full Version : Who here dislikes 3rd ed D&D?



Ilya
2007-11-10, 10:41 PM
I do not hate 3rd ed, but I dislike it. First, it is too complicated (a common complaint), but more importantly, it is too modularized. Pretty much any class ability can be fitted to any creature; there is no fundamental difference between gnoll wizard/ranger, wererat wizard/ranger, celestial wizard/ranger and beholder wizard/ranger. Fire/cold/lightning/sonic damage/resistances had become completely interchangeable. 1st and 2nd editions were full of unique abilities -- for example, roar of androsphynx was nothing quite like what any other creature could do, as was chill gaze of some archdevils. I understand that the point of 3rd ed was (in part) precisely to remove such oddities and to bring them to a "common denominator", but to me they were always a major attraction. Does anyone else feel the same way?

When I run a game, my house rules go more or less like this:

1. Start with AD&D 1 - including Unearthed Arcana and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

2. Rangers, specialist wizards, dragons and a few spells are taken from AD&D 2.

3. No level limits for demi-humans -- although I never ran a campaign high enough for that to matter much.

4. Armor Class goes from 10 up, which I think is simply THE best idea of AD&D 3.

5. I like some prestige classes, but modify them to fit into AD&D 1. Thief-acrobat was the archetypal prestige class, and those which I allow follow similar rules.

Tengu
2007-11-10, 10:46 PM
Most new RPGs are heading either towards modularising, or very simple rules.

I dislike all editions of DND, though I must say that they got better over time - if the trend continues, 4th ed. might be actually a decent game in my eyes.

AslanCross
2007-11-10, 10:55 PM
Although I haven't played a tabletop version of 2E, I was able to play a CRPG version of it: Baldur's Gate II. BG2's manual included a sizable amount of actual D&D rules, so I went through it and understood it well enough. I enjoyed the game as well, but I'm glad the computer did all of the crunching for me. When I looked at 3.5, I found the whole thing so much better than 2E, which I found to be quite cumbersome. I actually found 3E simpler. About the most complicated parts of 3E are probably the special attacks such as trip, grapple and disarm. Everything else seems quite straightforward to me compared to "Negative AC = better" and "Save vs. Staff/Rod/Wand".

Serenity
2007-11-10, 11:20 PM
Technically, the BG series is more like 2.5e, as it mixes in a number of 3.0 elements.

Matthew
2007-11-10, 11:22 PM
I wouldn't say I dislike 3e, but I wouldn't say I like it either. For what it is, it's good; for what it isn't, it's bad. If I were to make a list of things I don't like, it would be very long, but full of minor preferential items. The list of things I do like would be rather shorter and largely held in common with previous editions.

Do not judge 2e by Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is an excellent CRPG, but it is not the equivalent of playing AD&D.

Lord_Butters_I
2007-11-10, 11:25 PM
I houserule 3.5 D&D so much that a casual observer probibly couldn't identify it as such.

Skyserpent
2007-11-10, 11:29 PM
I'm posting for most of my friends who find the rules chafing and damaging to the RP context of the Game.

I personally find the edition alright if it's not taken too seriously as a hard-and-fast rule-set that is integral to the fun of the game. I mean, it's fun stuff, it's a good baseline, and it's limiting factors make it fun to try and think inside the box. But pretty much all of my friends prefer White-Wolf. Nonetheless, We still have our fun with classic Dungeon Crawling excitement.

Kompera
2007-11-10, 11:35 PM
Does the question also consider 3.5?

I like D&D 3.5. Having played the game across the years in many different formats, 3.5 is the best for:

1) Allowing the player to customize their character to suit their own vision of what they'd like to play;

2) Eliminating some poorly thought out rules;
- EX: AD&D: Two Fighters. One rolls a 17 STR and therefore gets a +10% EXP bonus. The other rolls a 14 STR and thus does not. So not only is the player whose character has the lower STR going to be overshadowed during play, on average, by the player whose character has the higher STR, but over time that distance will widen as the lower STR character falls behind in level.


It's poor for being too easily min/maxed. This comes with nearly any customization system, but it can be reduced through more careful attention to how rules can be used, as opposed to how the game designers think they'll be used.

Other than that, it's essentially the same game. The GM needs to craft their own game setting, and allow or disallow portions of the rules based on how things fit into that setting. Same as it ever was.

AstralFire
2007-11-10, 11:41 PM
I love 3ed. Modularity is awesome. I can understand the complaint that 3ed went a little too far with it (which is why I'm glad that 4ed allows you to progress in your race at the same time as your class) but keeping core abilities of general classes available to the 'public' so to speak has been great for me in building unique and interesting NPCs as a DM, as well as PCs as a player. Don't understand people who complain that the rules are 'chafing', either. The rules are only really restrictive in combat, which is the only time they *need* to be. Everything else comes down to how clever the player and the character are with their roleplay.

Matthew
2007-11-10, 11:49 PM
Why do they *need* to be?

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-10, 11:57 PM
You play 2nd ed., but think 3rd is too complicated? A comment about pots and kettles would seem appropriate here.

AstralFire
2007-11-10, 11:57 PM
Why do they *need* to be?

Because combat is directly a matter of life and death, so having a well-scripted system of adjudication is greatly appreciated.

With the rest of the system, the existence of the DM Fiat Circumstance bonus solves almost anything that doesn't match up between RP and game 'reality'. Action Points and careful use of said fiat really cover most issues in combat as well. Particularly by this point in third edition, I never feel limited as a player or as a DM by the system, and it's not for lack of creativity (as would be easy to see if you ever went through my files of homebrew creations.)

Icewalker
2007-11-11, 12:04 AM
I've played much, much more 1st edition than 3rd edition, and I think I disagree. A well run game overrides how good the system is though, and the 1st edition DM has been running games for something like 10 years as his job, so he's pretty good :smallcool:

The biggest problem is somewhat fixable, which is that all the 1st edition books are really badly written. Vagueness, contradictions, missing pieces. There is a smaller variety of options in just about every field, such as weapons, magic items, potions, spells, etc (which does make things simpler, but it really isn't that hard in 3rd edition.) Supplemental books give players a lot more choices. To reduce confusion one can limit the game to core only, but for more experienced players a wider array of interesting ideas are available.

Generalizing abilities is a bit of a downside, as a big variety of interesting abilities is always a good thing. I'd say one issue with that though is that the 1st edition's bad writing gets in the way: Because the abilities are unique there is little to no precedence, and the wording has problems often. I think a middle ground is preferable here: unique but clearly worded abilities, possibly even emulating common abilities but with changes.

I question your point about how class abilities can move between creatures. Isn't that exactly the same in 1st edition? Or do you mean in 1st edition monsters can't have character classes? Because IMO that is one of the big improvements moving into 3rd: it allows for more interesting characters.

A couple of more minor notes I think were improvements between 1st and 3rd:

The 10+ AC. It just makes so much more sense, as you acknowledged
Standardized exp per level. Less things to look up on tables
Saves done by bonus and DC instead of...1st edition's wierd way of doing it, with individual saves
Better organized and simpler ability scores. The bonuses make + to dmg and the like so much easier
A little nitpicky: easier to navigate character sheets :smallbiggrin:


Basically, my preference is to run a 3rd edition game, but homebrew just about all my own monsters, which end up quite unique.

(note: when I say '3rd edition' I mean 3.5, although I really don't know where the major differences are.)

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 12:09 AM
I question your point about how class abilities can move between creatures. Isn't that exactly the same in 1st edition? Or do you mean in 1st edition monsters can't have character classes? Because IMO that is one of the big improvements moving into 3rd: it allows for more interesting characters.

That as well as the generality of feats and skill points. Those are quite nice.


Basically, my preference is to run a 3rd edition game, but homebrew just about all my own monsters, which end up quite unique.

I almost never run monsters, myself - the Monster Manuals are incredibly underused by me, as I typically get more use out of taking a PC-able race and building it up with class levels (yay modularity) often multiclass or PrCed. I get by usually with the SRD and the incidental monster listings in supplements like Sharn and ECS.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 12:10 AM
You play 2nd ed., but think 3rd is too complicated? A comment about pots and kettles would seem appropriate here.

Depends how many Optional rules are in play.


Because combat is directly a matter of life and death, so having a well-scripted system of adjudication is greatly appreciated.

With the rest of the system, the existence of the DM Fiat Circumstance bonus solves almost anything that doesn't match up between RP and game 'reality'. Action Points and careful use of said fiat really cover most issues in combat as well. Particularly by this point in third edition, I never feel limited as a player or as a DM by the system, and it's not for lack of creativity (as would be easy to see if you ever went through my files of homebrew creations.)

A well defined system doesn't have to be complicated and combat in 3e is as vulnerable to DM fiat as every other aspect. Circumstance Modifiers are as valid in combat as out.

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 12:16 AM
A well defined system doesn't have to be complicated and combat in 3e is as vulnerable to DM fiat as every other aspect. Circumstance Modifiers are as valid in combat as out.

My group of six has two newbies and we've never had any problems with them understanding combat. I don't see what's terribly complicated about it, aside from the fact that Pencil and Paper games do require a higher level of thought at all levels of play than a video game. That's true of any P&P system. Most of the most complicated rules only get invoked on a regular basis by people who are already familiar with them and are building for a particular style (the wrestler, the tripper, etc.) I picked up and played D&D for the first time after a 50 minute bus ride with the PHB in my backpack, and I'm not particularly bright.

All aspects of any game are equally vulnerable to Game Master fiat, but the open-endedness of the skill system makes it considerably more prone to fiat than a combat system where everything's laid out neatly for you.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 12:18 AM
Depends how many Optional rules are in play

No, I was talking about the basic system. It is easier to explain [roll a d20 and X, here is how you get X, you are trying to hit a total of Y] than it is to explain [roll a d20, sometimes you add X, sometimes you subtract Y, sometimes you are trying to roll under Z, sometimes above Z].

Goff
2007-11-11, 12:20 AM
Ahem... This (http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target179.html) this more or less sums up my position on the constant 'my edition is better' arguments.

Doresain
2007-11-11, 12:23 AM
i was raised on 3e...im sorry, but i could never bad mouth it :(

Matthew
2007-11-11, 12:24 AM
My group of six has two newbies and we've never had any problems with them understanding combat. I don't see what's terribly complicated about it, aside from the fact that Pencil and Paper games do require a higher level of thought at all levels of play than a video game. That's true of any P&P system. Most of the most complicated rules only get invoked on a regular basis by people who are already familiar with them and are building for a particular style (the wrestler, the tripper, etc.) I picked up and played D&D for the first time after a 50 minute bus ride with the PHB in my backpack, and I'm not particularly bright.

All aspects of any game are equally vulnerable to Game Master fiat, but the open-endedness of the skill system makes it considerably more prone to fiat than a combat system where everything's laid out neatly for you.

Yeah, complicated wasn't what I meant (I mixed up my discussion with Skjaldbakka), I meant to say 'chafing' or 'restrictive'. On the other hand, 3e combat is just as or more complicated as previous edition (with some glaring exceptions, such as 1e Unarmed Combat), though it is more clearly laid out.

i.e. a well defined combat system doesn't have to be 'chafing' or 'restrictive'. For what it's worth, I don't think the 3e combat system is chafing or restrictive, which is why I posed the question. The adjudicating actions not covered section on p. 25 of the DMG is what I had in mind.


No, I was talking about the basic system. It is easier to explain [roll a d20 and X, here is how you get X, you are trying to hit a total of Y] than it is to explain [roll a d20, sometimes you add X, sometimes you subtract Y, sometimes you are trying to roll under Z, sometimes above Z].

The degree of difficulty between the two is very small. If you really need to explain it simply you can do it just as easily by explaining that every action has a percentage chance of success.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 12:25 AM
i was raised on 3e...im sorry, but i could never bad mouth it :(

wow, raised on 3rd. You're making me feel old. I started on 1st Ed (back in 1st grade).


The degree of difficulty between the two is very small. If you really need to explain it you can do it just as easily by explaining that every action has a percentage chance of success.

Hense my original statement. Claiming that 3rd is more complex than 2nd is patently false. So is the reverse. They are both somewhat complex.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-11, 12:26 AM
I'm confused why there would people here who didn't like D&D at all...

I like all the editions, honestly, each has their charm to me. I've really only played 2nd and 3.5 extensivly though.

Doresain
2007-11-11, 12:26 AM
im only 19...i started playing back in like 8th grade...

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 12:27 AM
If you'll allow me to turn the tables on you a bit, what's unnecessarily restrictive about 3e's combat system? 'bout the only thing that doesn't make sense to me is the multiturn jump rules.

Yeah, Doresain, I'm 21 - I was raised on 3e as well. My only encounters with 2e have been with a DM who was obsessed with houseruling 3e into the ground to be more like it until none of us understood what was going on anymore so we all quit and he spontaneously exploded.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 12:31 AM
Hense my original statement. Claiming that 3rd is more complex than 2nd is patently false. So is the reverse. They are both somewhat complex.

I still wouldn't agree with that, though. As a whole and without any Optional Rules, 2e was simpler than 3e (bearing in mind that Paladins and many, many other things were optional).


If you'll allow me to turn the tables on you a bit, what's unnecessarily restrictive about 3e's combat system? 'bout the only thing that doesn't make sense to me is the multiturn jump rules.

That's what I was getting at, it's only as restrictive as the DM wants it to be. i.e. the combat system doesn't *need* to be restrictive at all.


Yeah, Doresain, I'm 21 - I was raised on 3e as well. My only encounters with 2e have been with a DM who was obsessed with houseruling 3e into the ground to be more like it until none of us understood what was going on anymore so we all quit and he spontaneously exploded.

Heh, behind every '2e sucks' story lurks a bad DM. That is one thing 3e seems great at, taking the blame for a bad experience from the DM.

SpiderKoopa
2007-11-11, 12:42 AM
Wow, I'm 19 and was raised on 2E (I also feel late, I started my junior year of highschool).:smallfrown:

The DM was great though, and so we had a good time. I didn't even know of any 3.x until my senior year. At first I had problems adjusting to the new system (bad DMs mostly) but after a while it became second nature (I still need help converting characters every once in a while, but I'm getting there).

I think I'll just stand with my argument in the "3.x vs 2E" thread, it's all about the dungeon master and his/her techniques.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 12:48 AM
Whilst that is definitely true, there's the possibility that the systems may be compared assuming DMs of equal skill. I think this is where just plain old preference comes into play. The preperation involved in writing my own customised and comprehensive material for 3e is way higher than for AD&D. On the other hand, I could reasonably easily drop a lot of what makes it so time consuming.

JadedDM
2007-11-11, 12:49 AM
Does the question also consider 3.5?

Are they really that different? I've always classified 3.0 and 3.5 as both "3rd Edition" since I always took 3.5 to just be a mild revision of 3.0 (otherwise, they would have called it 4E, wouldn't they have?)

But to stay on topic, no, I don't like 3E. Never did. That's why I continue to stick with 2E.

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 01:06 AM
Heh, behind every '2e sucks' story lurks a bad DM. That is one thing 3e seems great at, taking the blame for a bad experience from the DM.

Where do you get that out of my story? I've never played 2E and I've never badmouthed it.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-11-11, 01:06 AM
Heh, behind every '2e sucks' story lurks a bad DM. That is one thing 3e seems great at, taking the blame for a bad experience from the DM.

I think thats behind every "D&D ___ Edition" sucks story! :)

All the editions really facilitate fun and adventure, if you like that sort of fantasy. Any legitimate complaints really come from people who should probably be playing another game.

Edit: This isn't me trying to sound snarky- there are plenty of awesome games that aren't D&D, that appeal to different kinds of players. Just like Movies or books, everyone needs something different.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 01:09 AM
As a whole and without any Optional Rules, 2e was simpler than 3e

Unless by that you really mean 2ed w/o supplements is simpler than 3ed with supplements, I disagree. The core mechanic for 3rd is simpler. There isn't much complexity in the PHB.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 01:17 AM
Where do you get that out of my story? I've never played 2E and I've never badmouthed it.

Nowhere, your post just reminded me of it.


Unless by that you really mean 2ed w/o supplements is simpler than 3ed with supplements, I disagree. The core mechanic for 3rd is simpler. There isn't much complexity in the PHB.

Fair enough, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Serpentine
2007-11-11, 01:17 AM
there is no fundamental difference between gnoll wizard/ranger, wererat wizard/ranger, celestial wizard/ranger and beholder wizard/ranger.I disagree. A good roleplayer will make each of these incredibly different. Even without the fluff, just looking at the "fundamental"s, merely altering spell choice and feat selection can make a huge difference to them. So far as I can tell, 3rd ed. gives you the option of playing one thing any number of different ways. The best example of this I think is the alignments - I have absolutely no trouble at all envisioning an evil Ranger, so why shouldn't I be able to play it if I want?

I still wouldn't agree with that, though. As a whole and without any Optional Rules, 2e was simpler than 3e (bearing in mind that Paladins and many, many other things were optional).In D&D, everything is optional, at the very least for the DM. Don't like something? Don't use it. Done. How is that any different to 2nd ed's Optionals? I think the bemoaned modularisation makes it much easier for the gaps left behind by such removals to be filled or plastered over because it's nice and flexible.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 01:20 AM
In D&D, everything is optional, at the very least for the DM. Don't like something? Don't use it. Done. How is that any different to 2nd ed's Optionals? I think the bemoaned modularisation makes it much easier for the gaps left behind by such removals to be filled or plastered over because it's nice and flexible.

Yeah, but there's a difference in stating "these are the base classes" (3e) and "these are the base classes and some optional classes" (2e). About half of the 2e core books were filled with 'add ons' or 'alternative rules' (hell, the entire Proficiencies Chapter was labelled Optional). The core system was very brief.

3e isn't particularly flexible. It's parts are well defined and interchangable, but the rules don't encourage more flexability than the rules for 2e.

Serpentine
2007-11-11, 01:43 AM
Yeah, but there's a difference in stating "these are the base classes" (3e) and "these are the base classes and some optional classes" (2e). About half of the 2e core books were filled with 'add ons' or 'alternative rules' (hell, the entire Proficiencies Chapter was labelled Optional). The core system was very brief.What's the difference between having a bunch of stuff labelled "Optional", and having everything subject to preference?


3e isn't particularly flexible. It's parts are well defined and interchangable, but the rules don't encourage more flexability than the rules for 2e.I disagree, but would like you to explain in more detail/better (also I note that you don't say that 2nd ed is more flexible than 3rd).

Matthew
2007-11-11, 01:59 AM
What's the difference between having a bunch of stuff labelled "Optional", and having everything subject to preference?

The difference is in what you think of as 'core' and how the rule impacts the game when included or not included. Feats and Skills are fully integrated into 3e, whilst the 2e Proficiency System was designed as an 'add on'. It's impact on the game is much smaller. Certainly, I'm not arguing that 3e can't be played exactly the same as 2e by stripping away or ignoring various rules, but then you might as well be playing 2e.


I disagree, but would like you to explain in more detail/better (also I note that you don't say that 2nd ed is more flexible than 3rd).

Sure, I'm not saying 2e is more flexible than 3e, because what made 2e flexible was the same thing that makes 3e flexible, which is a simple core mechanic and a flexible DM. Having ten different Feats that change the rules in various ways, doesn't make the system more flexible, it just gives you more defined options when building a character.

So, for instance, let's say Aldros the Fighter is in combat with two Orcs. For some reason it's important to kill both Orcs in one round and Aldros only has one Attack. 3e has the Cleave Feat which can facilitate this, if Aldros has it. That's a defined option. However, in both systems the player could say "I want Aldros to attempt to strike blows against both Orcs." In neither system is there a rule to cover this explicitly, but the DM can allow it by creating a suitable drawback (such as a -4 AB penalty to both Attacks or a Free Attack from one or more Orcs or both, etc...). That's flexability and it isn't a direct product of the system (though it can be, Castles & Crusades is explicitly designed to accomodate this).

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 02:07 AM
hat's a defined option. However, in both systems the player could say "I want Aldros to attempt to strike blows against both Orcs." In neither system is there a rule to cover this explicitly, but the DM can allow it by creating a suitable drawback (such as a -4 AB penalty to both Attacks or a Free Attack from one or more Orcs or both, etc...). That's flexability and it isn't a direct product of the system (though it can be, Castles & Crusades is explicitly designed to accomodate this).

There is a rule to cover that explicitly. That rule is "You can't". Which is just as well defined in one as in the other. That flexibility is pure GM Fiat.

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 02:11 AM
Are they really that different? I've always classified 3.0 and 3.5 as both "3rd Edition" since I always took 3.5 to just be a mild revision of 3.0 (otherwise, they would have called it 4E, wouldn't they have?)

IMO 3.5 is light years ahead of 3.0; 3.0 got so many things wrong that 3.5 fixed.

To me, the leap from 2e to 3.0 was only a little bit more of an advance than the change from 3.0 to 3.5.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 02:11 AM
There is a rule to cover that explicitly. That rule is "You can't". Which is just as well defined in one as in the other. That flexibility is pure GM Fiat.

Er, yeah, which is what I said. The game is built on DM fiat.

Here's a quote from the 2e DMG Combat Chapter to illustrate what I mean:


Since this isn't a combat game, the rules are not ultra-detailed, defining the exact effect of every blow, the subtle differences between obscure weapons, the location of every piece of armor on the body, or the horrifying results of an actual sword fight. Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, "You can't do that because it's against the rules."
Players should be allowed to try whatever they want--especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.
To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let
him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.
The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and--perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them

If there's no parallel in 3e, then I guess 2e is more flexible.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 03:00 AM
So what you are really saying is that it is better not to know the rules for a game before you start playing it, and that you should rely on your ability to talk your GM into allowing things instead of knowing what you're doing.

And this is supposed to be simpler?

Serpentine
2007-11-11, 03:36 AM
So, for instance, let's say Aldros the Fighter is in combat with two Orcs. For some reason it's important to kill both Orcs in one round and Aldros only has one Attack. 3e has the Cleave Feat which can facilitate this, if Aldros has it. That's a defined option. However, in both systems the player could say "I want Aldros to attempt to strike blows against both Orcs." In neither system is there a rule to cover this explicitly, but the DM can allow it by creating a suitable drawback (such as a -4 AB penalty to both Attacks or a Free Attack from one or more Orcs or both, etc...). That's flexability and it isn't a direct product of the system (though it can be, Castles & Crusades is explicitly designed to accomodate this).The DM of a 3.5 game could just as easily allow (or disallow) this as in a 2nd ed game, with the added bonus of the fighter being able choose a feature that allows him to be better at it. Don't see anything there that makes 2nd ed so profoundly better than its descendent.

Rutee
2007-11-11, 03:56 AM
It might just be me, but I needed to read the Baldur's Gate manual 3 or 4 times before I understood THAC0. The changes to BAB and AC in 3.0 were exceptionally intuitive. "Add X to my roll, if it reaches target number Y I hit." %-based skills were just as weird. I get where they were going with it; between that, Proficiencies, and Magic, they wanted the three core types of characters to each work in a special, unique system of their own. It just never really seemed to work. It felt like I was learning 3 different games, in my limitted experience.

Of course, Fighters are terrible as a straight class now; Who knows, maybe they were before too. But that's certainly a downside to 3e.

For a direct comparison.. despite every single human being at my college who communicates with me for more then five minutes considerring me brilliant, Baldur's Gate, built on ADnD rules, frequently made little sense to me mechanically, to the point where if it wasn't AC, I was winging it (What is this 18/93 nonsense, MInsc? Just get a 19 already). In contrast, one of my friends picks up Knights of the Old Republic, and despite not being mathematically or mechanically inclined at all, grasps it after maybe half an hour of play without RTFM. There is no way I can call 3e more complicated then 2e.

JadedDM
2007-11-11, 06:18 AM
I think what Matthew is saying is more along the lines of this: You could run a 2E game without proficiencies, and this would be no problem. But trying to run a 3E game without feats, and you'll have to rework a lot of the game. It's very easy to ignore or chop out stuff in 2E without it disturbing the game balance in anyway.


It might just be me, but I needed to read the Baldur's Gate manual 3 or 4 times before I understood THAC0.

Not to be too snarky here, but who cares what your THAC0 is in Baldur's Gate? The computer calculates everything for you. All you have to do is click on the bad guy and the game takes care of the rest. I can't imagine you're scrambling to figure out whether you hit it or not in a game of Baldur's Gate.

And THAC0: You take your character's THAC0 score, and subtract your opponent's AC from it. You need that number or higher to hit. So if your THAC0 is 15 and you're attacking someone with an AC of 10:

15 - 10 = 5

You need a five or better to hit.

This stumps you? It's simple subtraction, really. :smalleek:

Somebloke
2007-11-11, 06:39 AM
What I recall from 2e :

- THACO was awful. As a DM I dreaded having to explain it to people.
- The rogues abilities seemed to hint that any low-level rogue attempting to disarm a dangerous trap was just asking for a grisly death. 15%? I wouldn't go near it!
- Proficiencies were just as bad. The entire non-combat system was clunky and put in as an afterthought.
- Certain classes were deliberately stronger than others. I don't care about the Paladin's code, it was an unbalancing class.
- The entirely random generation of ability scores met the deliberate rewarding of higher ability scores over lower ones in terms of xp and class choices and formed an unholy alliance designed to create unbalanced parties.
- To this day I still shudder at having to find a random spell name in the spellbook list.
- Far too much magic treasure (same problem with 3e, mind).
- The saving throws made no allowance for the power of the threat.

I applauded 3e- to be honest, prior to this I had been looking for an alternate system for some time (skills and powers was useful in this regard). I love the extra choices in combat, the streamlining of the skills and the use of feats to create characters who's mechanics backed up what the player thought of his character. I loved the sorcerer, who brought new life back into arcane magic. I liked that you didn't need to roll 16-18 just to get an ability score that had any sort of impact on the game. And while it was not a perfect system, I was quite content to use CR.

Hopefully, 4e will continue this trend.

JadedDM
2007-11-11, 06:43 AM
The rogues abilities seemed to hint that any low-level rogue attempting to disarm a dangerous trap was just asking for a grisly death. 15%? I wouldn't go near it!

Be fair. Aside from modifiers for race, armor, and Dexterity scores, you also started with 60 points you could apply to any thieving ability score (so long as you did not put more than 30 into any one score) and then got an additional 30 each level up. So the only reason a level 1 thief would have a 15% chance to remove traps is because the player didn't put any points into it.


The entirely random generation of ability scores met the deliberate rewarding of higher ability scores over lower ones in terms of xp and class choices and formed an unholy alliance designed to create unbalanced parties.

They...they don't randomly generate ability scores in 3E?

Somebloke
2007-11-11, 06:55 AM
Be fair. Aside from modifiers for race, armor, and Dexterity scores, you also started with 60 points you could apply to any thieving ability score (so long as you did not put more than 30 into any one score) and then got an additional 30 each level up. So the only reason a level 1 thief would have a 15% chance to remove traps is because the player didn't put any points into it.



They...they don't randomly generate ability scores in 3E?

Even so, a low-level optimized thief really only had at best an approximately 50% chance at doing something he or she was really good at. I just seem to recall a lot of dead thiefs at 1st level.

Most low-level dungeons of mine seem to end up involving easy (+10% to chance) traps and locks just so the thief had something to do.

Right now I'm playing a 8th level rogue in my campaign who specialises in acrobatics. Now when I tell the DM "I want to jump over to the tomb, avoiding all of the strange green mist hugging the floor, then use the pole to tightrope-walk over to the doorway- then attempt to pick the locking mechanism hanging from the archway" he doesn't have to make rules up on the fly to cover this (although he does so love to set high DCs).

As for ability scores, 3e provided alternate means for ability generation- a good, useable system- right off the bat. They also didn't make most classes dependant on having relatively high ability score- and when they did, the base means of generation meant that you often had at least one decently high ability score to slot in where you wanted.

And let's not forget the 10% XP bonus- what were they thinking?

Kizara
2007-11-11, 08:01 AM
Even so, a low-level optimized thief really only had at best an approximately 50% chance at doing something he or she was really good at. I just seem to recall a lot of dead thiefs at 1st level.

Most low-level dungeons of mine seem to end up involving easy (+10% to chance) traps and locks just so the thief had something to do.

Right now I'm playing a 8th level rogue in my campaign who specialises in acrobatics. Now when I tell the DM "I want to jump over to the tomb, avoiding all of the strange green mist hugging the floor, then use the pole to tightrope-walk over to the doorway- then attempt to pick the locking mechanism hanging from the archway" he doesn't have to make rules up on the fly to cover this (although he does so love to set high DCs).

As for ability scores, 3e provided alternate means for ability generation- a good, useable system- right off the bat. They also didn't make most classes dependant on having relatively high ability score- and when they did, the base means of generation meant that you often had at least one decently high ability score to slot in where you wanted.

And let's not forget the 10% XP bonus- what were they thinking?

Seriously.

"I'm really strong... and so I learned fasters then you!"
Wtf?
I can see a stronger person killing more and getting more XP that way, through ability, but not recieving a flat bonus just because he's intrinsically BETTER than you, that not only makes nearly no sense, but is horrible from a balance perspective.

A 3.X example:

1) I'm a 5th level Wizard with 16 Int. I have a bonus spell on first, second and third level. My spell-saves are 13+ spell level, for a max of 16.

2) I'm a 5th level Wizard with a 20 Int (racial bonus, etc). I have 2 bonus first level spells, and 1 bonus second and third level. My spell-saves are 15+ spell level, for a max of 18.

Is Wizard 2 > Wizard 1? Certinally, as only makes sense. However, Wizard 1 is still quite playable and isnt horribly outclassed by wizard 1. Many wizardly things (utility, buffs, battlefield control) are quite doable with a sub-par Int score, and he only has 1 less spell per day.
Now, Imagine that he got a bonus to damage on his spells, had them last 20% longer, and got 10% more XP then wizard 1. Now, imagine playing wizard 1 in the same party as wizard 2. Life sucks, don't it?

Matthew
2007-11-11, 08:02 AM
So what you are really saying is that it is better not to know the rules for a game before you start playing it, and that you should rely on your ability to talk your GM into allowing things instead of knowing what you're doing.

And this is supposed to be simpler?

*Sigh* No, what I'm telling you is that improvisation is part of the game. In 2e it was perhaps a more important part (though my 3e games operate in a similar manner to 2e, so I wouldn't say definitely either way).

Knowing the rules and knowing how to improvise are complementary, not exlusionary. If you only ever use the explicit rules as presented in 3e then you're potentially missing out on a whole area of the game legislated for on page 25 of the 3e DMG.

What I'm talking about is flexability, not simplicity, but yes it's still very simple. A Spot Check in 3e requires checking a number of modifiers, adding them to a die roll and determining a DC. A Spot Check in 2e is determined by the DM as a percentage chance or a modified Wisdom Check. It is way simpler, but potentially less systematic and consistant.


The DM of a 3.5 game could just as easily allow (or disallow) this as in a 2nd ed game, with the added bonus of the fighter being able choose a feature that allows him to be better at it. Don't see anything there that makes 2nd ed so profoundly better than its descendent.

Who said anything about 'better'? A person could prefer one or the other, but there's no reason for one to be considered absolutely better. In my opinion, Feats and Skills are not necessary and add little to the game experience. In fact, I think they detract from it, but that's just my opinion. Other people find them to be an integral part of the game. The point is that 3e, as a system, is not more flexible than 2e, they are pretty much on a par because flexability is the province of the DM.


It might just be me, but I needed to read the Baldur's Gate manual 3 or 4 times before I understood THAC0. The changes to BAB and AC in 3.0 were exceptionally intuitive. "Add X to my roll, if it reaches target number Y I hit." %-based skills were just as weird. I get where they were going with it; between that, Proficiencies, and Magic, they wanted the three core types of characters to each work in a special, unique system of their own. It just never really seemed to work. It felt like I was learning 3 different games, in my limitted experience.

Nobody is saying that ascending AB and AC is more intuitive for people to understand; the point is that it's not particularly difficult either. 2e worked on the principle of 'probability'. Every action had a 0-100% chance of success and the expression of that probability was slightly different between the six basic functions of the game: Surprise, Initiative, Attack Rolls, Ability Checks, Action Resolution and Saving Throws.


Of course, Fighters are terrible as a straight class now; Who knows, maybe they were before too. But that's certainly a downside to 3e.

Well, I can tell you, as can any other AD&D Players. Fighters were a *lot* better in AD&D.


For a direct comparison.. despite every single human being at my college who communicates with me for more then five minutes considerring me brilliant, Baldur's Gate, built on ADnD rules, frequently made little sense to me mechanically, to the point where if it wasn't AC, I was winging it (What is this 18/93 nonsense, MInsc? Just get a 19 already). In contrast, one of my friends picks up Knights of the Old Republic, and despite not being mathematically or mechanically inclined at all, grasps it after maybe half an hour of play without RTFM. There is no way I can call 3e more complicated then 2e.

A bold claim. Seriously, though, playing Baldur's Gate is not equivalent to playing AD&D.


Even so, a low-level optimized thief really only had at best an approximately 50% chance at doing something he or she was really good at. I just seem to recall a lot of dead thiefs at 1st level.

What's the chance of a Level 1 3e Rogue overcoming a typical Trap? Isn't it about 50%?


Most low-level dungeons of mine seem to end up involving easy (+10% to chance) traps and locks just so the thief had something to do.

A perfectly valid method and exactly the same as giving a Trap a low DC.


Right now I'm playing a 8th level rogue in my campaign who specialises in acrobatics. Now when I tell the DM "I want to jump over to the tomb, avoiding all of the strange green mist hugging the floor, then use the pole to tightrope-walk over to the doorway- then attempt to pick the locking mechanism hanging from the archway" he doesn't have to make rules up on the fly to cover this (although he does so love to set high DCs).

Creating a high DC is exactly the same result as assigning a percentage chance of success or requiring an Modified Ability Check. You don't have to make up rules on the fly, you just have to assign a probability.


As for ability scores, 3e provided alternate means for ability generation- a good, useable system- right off the bat. They also didn't make most classes dependant on having relatively high ability score- and when they did, the base means of generation meant that you often had at least one decently high ability score to slot in where you wanted.

Are you serious? The Attribute Spread in 3e is one of the most unbalancing things about the game.


And let's not forget the 10% XP bonus- what were they thinking?


Seriously.

"I'm really strong... and so I learned fasters then you!"
Wtf?
I can see a stronger person killing more and getting more XP that way, through ability, but not recieving a flat bonus just because he's intrinsically BETTER than you, that not only makes nearly no sense, but is horrible from a balance perspective.

A 3.X example:

1) I'm a 5th level Wizard with 16 Int. I have a bonus spell on first, second and third level. My spell-saves are 13+ spell level, for a max of 16.

2) I'm a 5th level Wizard with a 20 Int (racial bonus, etc). I have 2 bonus first level spells, and 1 bonus second and third level. My spell-saves are 15+ spell level, for a max of 18.

Is Wizard 2 > Wizard 1? Certinally, as only makes sense. However, Wizard 1 is still quite playable and isnt horribly outclassed by wizard 1. Many wizardly things (utility, buffs, battlefield control) are quite doable with a sub-par Int score, and he only has 1 less spell per day.
Now, Imagine that he got a bonus to damage on his spells, had them last 20% longer, and got 10% more XP then wizard 1. Now, imagine playing wizard 1 in the same party as wizard 2. Life sucks, don't it?

Erm, how is a 10% Experience Point Bonus any different from any other advantage yielded by high Attribute Scores? A Wizard with 15 Intelligence has 200,000 Experience and a Wizard with 16 has 220,000, the number required for the next level is a long way off for both.

Let me put it another way.

Wizard A: 2,500, 5,000, 10,000, 20,000
Wizard B: c. 2,300, c. 4,600, c. 9,100, c. 18,200

Personally, I don't use them because they're unnecessary, but I can tell you why they exist. Originally, the only advantage a high Attribute yielded was an experience point bonus.

KIDS
2007-11-11, 08:17 AM
I pretty much like D&D 3E (3.5, specifically) and think that with the newer books, it is very close to the peak of what our dearest RPG game should be. However, I don't have anything against 2E either, it has its good points too.

I can't agree with the "no difference between class combinations" or the more precise "classes aren't different enough" - that is the whole point of the game. You are not playing a class. You are playing a character and taking the class. Where your character goes depends on how you RP it and which abilities you pick. It being determined by a prewritten "flavor text" from an underpaid, overworking designer who didn't feel very good at a time is a killer for individual imagination, and a killer for games where DMs enforce things like one class only or such things.

Premier
2007-11-11, 08:18 AM
- THACO was awful. As a DM I dreaded having to explain it to people.

As explained above, it's "take a static number (which only changes when you level up), subtract another static number, add/subtract modifiers. Roll higher than that" as oppposed to 3E "take static number, add/subtract modifiers, add die roll, compare to target number". The only difference to the algorithm is one subtraction instead of addition. And AD&D generally had fewer modifiers to keep track of.


- The rogues abilities seemed to hint that any low-level rogue attempting to disarm a dangerous trap was just asking for a grisly death. 15%? I wouldn't go near it!

As said above, that's only if you've put no points into that skill whatsoever, and if you haven't than don't complain it's weak. The same character probably has a 30%+ or 40%+ skill in something else, and at first level. Plus, thieves level up the fastest, so they won't stay that incompetent long.


- Proficiencies were just as bad. The entire non-combat system was clunky and put in as an afterthought.

And it's labeled optional. Don't criticise "core" AD&D because of an optional ruleset.


- Certain classes were deliberately stronger than others. I don't care about the Paladin's code, it was an unbalancing class.

And that's exactly why the more powerful classes require more XP to advance levels. And as for Paladins, specifically, if the DM doesn't enforce the code, then he's practically just houseruling it away in practice. Don't break a class via houseruling and then blame the brokenness on RAW.


- The entirely random generation of ability scores met the deliberate rewarding of higher ability scores over lower ones in terms of xp and class choices and formed an unholy alliance designed to create unbalanced parties.

There are several methods for generating ability scores, offering different levels of player control. As for the paltry 10% XP bonus for high scores, that will never put the character more than 1 level ahead of a less capable one. Big deal.


- To this day I still shudder at having to find a random spell name in the spellbook list.

True, it could have been a bit more ease to use. But that's an editing problem with the book, not an inherent rule problem with the game.


- Far too much magic treasure (same problem with 3e, mind).

To each his own, I guess. Matter of personal preference. I kind of agree with you, personally.


- The saving throws made no allowance for the power of the threat.

"Make the saving throw with a bonus/penalty of X". A line quite often encountered in modules.

Somebloke
2007-11-11, 09:02 AM
[
QUOTE=Premier;3500218]As explained above, it's "take a static number (which only changes when you level up), subtract another static number, add/subtract modifiers. Roll higher than that" as oppposed to 3E "take static number, add/subtract modifiers, add die roll, compare to target number". The only difference to the algorithm is one subtraction instead of addition. And AD&D generally had fewer modifiers to keep track of.

It was confused and a very counter-intuitive method to use. Just about every player I discussed this with found it so, and all of them preferred the 3e method of tracking 'to hit'.



As said above, that's only if you've put no points into that skill whatsoever, and if you haven't than don't complain it's weak. The same character probably has a 30%+ or 40%+ skill in something else, and at first level. Plus, thieves level up the fastest, so they won't stay that incompetent long.



And it's labeled optional. Don't criticise "core" AD&D because of an optional ruleset.

3e made variable checks core (which they should have been) and took half a dozen disassociated concepts like rogue skills, proficiencies, burst doors/bend bars rolls and encounter diplomacy checks and streamlined them into a useful, easily understood and even more easily governable system- the d20 check.



And that's exactly why the more powerful classes require more XP to advance levels. And as for Paladins, specifically, if the DM doesn't enforce the code, then he's practically just houseruling it away in practice. Don't break a class via houseruling and then blame the brokenness on RAW.

My point wasn't so much that the code wasn't used, it was that it didn't really stop the class pwning (or 'being better than', as was the parlance of the times :smallbiggrin: ) the other classes. And the use of levels as a means of maintaining class balance was a very unreliable method- simply balancing the classes, like 3e at least made a stab at, every level is much, much more effective.



There are several methods for generating ability scores, offering different levels of player control. As for the paltry 10% XP bonus for high scores, that will never put the character more than 1 level ahead of a less capable one. Big deal.

But it really should'nt have been there to begin with. It served no purpose and tended to cause some ill-will every time XP was handed out. A slightly bad rule is still worse than no bad rule.



True, it could have been a bit more ease to use. But that's an editing problem with the book, not an inherent rule problem with the game.

Pet hate. Thought I should bring it up though.


To each his own, I guess. Matter of personal preference. I kind of agree with you, personally.I like low magic settings. That's one thing I hated with 3e- 2/3 of all of the classes had spells or openly supernatural talents. You're a gritty urban avenger...who uses spells. Because.



"Make the saving throw with a bonus/penalty of X". A line quite often encountered in modules.And 3e made it core, where it belonged.

Somebloke
2007-11-11, 09:06 AM
[QUOTE]What's the chance of a Level 1 3e Rogue overcoming a typical Trap? Isn't it about 50%?

Assuming that he put around 4 points into it, probably. A 2nd ed rogue would need to put a significant number of points to get anywhere close to the same odds.


A perfectly valid method and exactly the same as giving a Trap a low DC.
Creating a high DC is exactly the same result as assigning a percentage chance of success or requiring an Modified Ability Check. You don't have to make up rules on the fly, you just have to assign a probability.Which was useful to be made core.


Are you serious? The Attribute Spread in 3e is one of the most unbalancing things about the game.

...how so?


Erm, how is a 10% Experience Point Bonus any different from any other advantage yielded by high Attribute Scores? A Wizard with 15 Intelligence has 200,000 Experience and a Wizard with 16 has 220,000, the number required for the next level is a long way off for both.

Let me put it another way.

Wizard A: 2,500, 5,000, 10,000, 20,000
Wizard B: c. 2,300, c. 4,600, c. 9,100, c. 18,200

Personally, I don't use them because they're unnecessary, but I can tell you why they exist. Originally, the only advantage a high Attribute yielded was an experience point bonus.As discussed above.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 09:41 AM
For a direct comparison.. despite every single human being at my college who communicates with me for more then five minutes considerring me brilliant, Baldur's Gate, built on ADnD rules, frequently made little sense to me mechanically, to the point where if it wasn't AC, I was winging it (What is this 18/93 nonsense, MInsc? Just get a 19 already).

"Not making sense" is not the same as "difficult to understand". Exceptional strength is easy to use (this number gives you that bonus), but trying to understand why the rule exists is a different cup of tea.

And frankly, calling 2E difficult because of the (admittedly stupid) exceptional strength rule, is the same as calling 3E difficult because of the grappling rules. If you don't like explaining THAC0 to players, how about explaining to them which of the rather long list of things you can do in combat are considered standard, full round, move-equivalent, swift, immediate or not an action? Or which do or do not allow for attacks of opportunity?

Ironically, it seems that WOTC is changing the ability score modifiers to not run from -4 to +4 in 3E, to run from 0 to +8 in 4E, so that people won't have to deal with the "difficulties" of subtraction any more...

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 09:43 AM
Dislike it? I out right hate it! It's a worthless piece of $%*)@*(% RPG.

Overlard
2007-11-11, 09:58 AM
Dislike it? I out right hate it! It's a worthless piece of $%*)@*(% RPG.
Aww honey, I was wondering when you'd turn up.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 10:23 AM
And 3e made it core, where it belonged.

It was always core, check your 2e DMG under 'Modifying Saving Throws.'


Assuming that he put around 4 points into it, probably. A 2nd ed rogue would need to put a significant number of points to get anywhere close to the same odds.

Well, let's check the veracity of this:

According to the 3e PHB, the DC of Disabling and Finding a typical Trap is 20. Given that a 3e Rogue has a Dexterity of 15, Intelligence 14, 4 Points in Search and 4 Points in Disable Traps, he has to roll 13 twice in a row, which is a probability of [0.4 x 0.4] or 16%. That sounds very similar to the 2e Thief to me, who needs to invest 25 of his 60 Points to achieve the exact same results and who can rise in ability fairly quickly (at a rate of 15% per Level). the expenditure of starting character resources is similar to 3e, even if the 3e Rogue is on the whole initially more powerful (which is true across the board with 3e characters).


Which was useful to be made core.

Traps weren't explicitly said to operate this way, but Locks certainly were. If you chose not to discern between Trap quality because it wasn't explicitly legislated for, that's really up to you.


...how so?

The short of it is that Attribute spread makes it much more difficult to assess the impact of Level. A Level 20 Fighter with Strength 30 is in a whole different league from a Fighter 20 with a Strength of 11. To put it another way, the degree of variance has hugely increased, which was one of the most heavily criticised parts of AD&D. The old 'Orcs aren't a challenge anymore' problem.


As discussed above.

As I said, it's an artefact of the original system. I never saw it cause any ill will between Players, at least not any more than the Fighter with 18 Strength being better in melee than the Fighter with 14 Strength.

Jayabalard
2007-11-11, 10:46 AM
So what you are really saying is that it is better not to know the rules for a game before you start playing it, and that you should rely on your ability to talk your GM into allowing things instead of knowing what you're doing.I think he's pretty clearing saying that it's better for there not to be hard and fast rules for a game; that allowing things that make for a better adventure story is a good thing even if they don't agree with the holy book of RAW.

More than anything else, it's probably that change in attitude between earlier editions and later editions that determine how someone feels about the system.

Rutee
2007-11-11, 01:34 PM
"Not making sense" is not the same as "difficult to understand". Exceptional strength is easy to use (this number gives you that bonus), but trying to understand why the rule exists is a different cup of tea.

And frankly, calling 2E difficult because of the (admittedly stupid) exceptional strength rule, is the same as calling 3E difficult because of the grappling rules. If you don't like explaining THAC0 to players, how about explaining to them which of the rather long list of things you can do in combat are considered standard, full round, move-equivalent, swift, immediate or not an action? Or which do or do not allow for attacks of opportunity?
Well, no, it isn't. Exceptional Strength is more likely to come into play then Grappling Rules, because it's just a really high attribute. You can happily run a game without grappling (Though a lot of monsters in the 'core' books use it). And we're talking just one of the many nonsensical rules. There's THAC0, of course, and the related stories that are coming with it (I think the most common comment is "I didn't really need to explain BAB, but I had to explain THAC0". By definition, that does sorta place BAB and D20 to hit as 'easier'..)

Just, I dunno. Being able to shear away aspects at will doesn't seem to make the game easier, and with DnD, I usually find myself needing to add, not subtract.


More than anything else, it's probably that change in attitude between earlier editions and later editions that determine how someone feels about the system.
I'm pretty sure that, word for word, that's in the first chapter of the 3e DMG... Or did you mean some different attitude, not "Change the game if it's better for you, by all means!"

Matthew
2007-11-11, 01:49 PM
Well, no, it isn't. Exceptional Strength is more likely to come into play then Grappling Rules, because it's just a really high attribute. You can happily run a game without grappling (Though a lot of monsters in the 'core' books use it). And we're talking just one of the many nonsensical rules. There's THAC0, of course, and the related stories that are coming with it (I think the most common comment is "I didn't really need to explain BAB, but I had to explain THAC0". By definition, that does sorta place BAB and D20 to hit as 'easier'..)

Sure, but exceptional Strength, once noted down, rarely changes. If it does, then it's just a matter of looking at the table. Grappling in 3e, however, is a fairly involved process (though not as much as in 1e).


Just, I dunno. Being able to shear away aspects at will doesn't seem to make the game easier, and with DnD, I usually find myself needing to add, not subtract.

I completely agree, but this is the argument in favour of 2e, in that it's easier to build on 2e than remove aspects of 3e. Not everyone agrees. A lot of people feel its easier to subtract from 3e than add to 2e.


I'm pretty sure that, word for word, that's in the first chapter of the 3e DMG... Or did you mean some different attitude, not "Change the game if it's better for you, by all means!"

I'm pretty sure you're right. On the other hand, it was given a lot less prominence in 3e than it was in 2e.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 01:54 PM
Well, no, it isn't. Exceptional Strength is more likely to come into play then Grappling Rules, because it's just a really high attribute.
Well, no, it isn't. You can happily run a game without exceptional strength (if nobody plays a warrior, or nobody rolls an 18, or nobody puts their 18 on strength, or the player that does has a race with str penalty) - whereas if you run any RPG for a few sessions, at some point some character will want to grapple somebody. The latter is an in-character decision, the former is not.

I don't disagree that 2E has many nonsensical rules - but as I said before, just because a rule makes no sense doesn't mean it's difficult. If a rule would say "whenever you roll a 14, add 1 gold piece to your character sheet" makes no sense, but is very easy. And, note that 3E (and indeed, just about every other RPG) also has its share of nonsensical rules.

Yes, THAC0 is more complex than BAB - but 3E has different complexities, such as the standard actions table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm). Or the conditions list (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) (do you know if "frightened" is better or worse than "cowering", "shaken" or "panicked"?) Basically, you can't point to any system with dozens of rulebooks, including 1E, 2E, 3E and GURPS, and realistically call it "not complex".

You're really saying "I can find one rule in 2E that is more complex than its 3E equivalent, and therefore 2E as a whole is more complex", and saying "I can find some rules in 2E that are illogical, and therefore those rules are complex" - both of which are total non sequiturs.

horseboy
2007-11-11, 03:24 PM
People keep talking about this modularity in 3.x, what exactly is this?
As to this thread, am I to list my dislikes for 3.x or can I just raise my hand, signifying that I dislike it?

Matthew
2007-11-11, 03:39 PM
People keep talking about this modularity in 3.x, what exactly is this?

Interchangable Feats, Classes, Races and Templates, I think. Probably also Monster Hit Dice and ability to make them Classed.

horseboy
2007-11-11, 03:45 PM
Interchangable Feats, Classes, Races and Templates, I think. Probably also Monster Hit Dice and ability to make them Classed.

So, all the stuff that other systems have had for the last 20+ years? :smallconfused:

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 03:52 PM
So, all the stuff that other systems have had for the last 20+ years? :smallconfused:

The modularity comments are in relation to older versions of D&D.

Matthew
2007-11-11, 03:53 PM
So, all the stuff that other systems have had for the last 20+ years? :smallconfused:

I guess... I don't really know, as I tended to stay away from other games with Classes and Levels. Certainly a Class and Level for everyone is one of the things I most dislike about 3e, along with Templates and Racial Hit Dice that have become a kind of 'Class'. Previous editions were a lot more like Savage Worlds, where NPCs and Monsters are just given whatever is necessary to make them work (which sometimes was a Class and Level).


The modularity comments are in relation to older versions of D&D.

I think in that case, we're talking about the modularity of Player Characters, or rather of Classed and Levelled Characters. Easy Multi Classing Rules, really (I wonder if that's the crux of some of these disagreements, as I hate Multi Classing, so am not impressed by this aspect of 3e). Even then, for the last quarter of AD&D's run, Player Characters were very customisable, if not very modular.

Kizara
2007-11-11, 05:19 PM
I guess... I don't really know, as I tended to stay away from other games with Classes and Levels. Certainly a Class and Level for everyone is one of the things I most dislike about 3e, along with Templates and Racial Hit Dice that have become a kind of 'Class'. Previous editions were a lot more like Savage Worlds, where NPCs and Monsters are just given whatever is necessary to make them work (which sometimes was a Class and Level).

I think in that case, we're talking about the modularity of Player Characters, or rather of Classed and Levelled Characters. Easy Multi Classing Rules, really (I wonder if that's the crux of some of these disagreements, as I hate Multi Classing, so am not impressed by this aspect of 3e). Even then, for the last quarter of AD&D's run, Player Characters were very customisable, if not very modular.

To be honest, even though I like 3.x DnD a great deal, this is actually a complaint of mine.

I dislike how in 3.5, especially the more recent suppliments, have broken what in my opinion were carnal laws about what were feat-powers, what were class abilities and what were PrC abilities.

IMO, feats cannot grant you spellcasting (although they certinally can improve it). They cannot grant you a familiar, or anything like the ability to rage, sneak attack or find traps.

I agree with you that somethings should remain the parlance of certain classes, in exclusion. If you want to smite evil, you better be a paladin or a paladin-esque PrC, etc.

AstralFire
2007-11-11, 05:46 PM
To be honest, even though I like 3.x DnD a great deal, this is actually a complaint of mine.

I dislike how in 3.5, especially the more recent suppliments, have broken what in my opinion were carnal laws about what were feat-powers, what were class abilities and what were PrC abilities.

IMO, feats cannot grant you spellcasting (although they certinally can improve it). They cannot grant you a familiar, or anything like the ability to rage, sneak attack or find traps.

I agree with you that somethings should remain the parlance of certain classes, in exclusion. If you want to smite evil, you better be a paladin or a paladin-esque PrC, etc.

See, I rather like that gradual change.

Mojo_Rat
2007-11-11, 06:29 PM
To be honest i dont think older or newer editions of the game are better or worse than other versions of the game. I will admit the 1st edition AD&D was poorly laid out and the information not written the best. But to be honest I think thats an editing issue and a factor of it being the leader int hese types of games when there was nothing to compare it to.

Generally speaking for the modern version of the game its strengths and its flaws Lie in the same area. Everything is much more defined in rules and action this allows players and DM's to act within those rules.

I find however the problem Arises in that in the older versions of the game If i say 'hey how do i do this' the DM might make an arbitrary decision on how to do something and i would have saiid 'okay' and gone on from there follow the rules the Dm just laid out.

However chances are in 3.5 how to do X is probably llready laid out there are just multiple options on how to interpet the rules to do X. So I find myself almost wanting to say to the DM 'that isnt how it works' Which is something a player should not be doing.

All these choices given to players in the modern version of the game also lead tot he power imbalance issues the game has. Choices are good and bad but how they are used can be a creator or destroyer of a game.