The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons
Change can be a good thing. Without change, several of history's momentous events would never have come about. We would be currently living a life so much dissimilar to what we know it would hardly be recognizable. Change is not always good, though. Some things are better left the way they were. I'm not sure what Wizards of the Coast was thinking when they started this grand venture, but I'm hoping they missed the mark and are just too embarassed to admit it.
Change can be a good thing. Without change, several of history's momentous events would never have come about. We would be currently living a life so much dissimilar to what we know it would hardly be recognizable. Change is not always good, though. Some things are better left the way they were.
Wizards of the Coast have been a rising force in the gaming world since the advent of Magic: The Gathering. They have taken great leaps of faith in a card game that was sure to fail, it was so different from the norm. But, in the face of adversity, Magic flourished. Now WotC is turning it's visionary viewpoint on a tried and true favorite of gamers around the world, AD&D.
Dungeons & Dragons has went through a few changes already, from first edition to second edition, from basic to advanced. I have played D&D for 16 years now and was never so happy as to see 2nd edition grace the shelves of bookstores and game shops. It was new, refreshing and an answer to many problems and questions that arose out of 1st edition. Don't get me wrong, 1st edition was a blast to play and was a revolutionary step in roleplaying. 2nd edition, however, raised the standard even higher, adding new elements to the rules, changing some monsters and adding new ones. Some creatures were removed from the game, a few to placate angry parents who thought there was a satanic undertone to the game and a few to balance out the worlds created by the designers and gamers alike. Over all it is the best game, I feel, to ever come out of man's imagination and creativity. Now we have AD&D, 3rd edition.
I'm not sure what Wizards of the Coast was thinking when they started this grand venture, but I'm hoping they missed the mark and are just too embarassed to admit it. From the few bits and pieces about the 3rd edition I've seen, many changes have taken place, so much so that the original core set of rules almost seems non-existant. THAC0 has been removed entirely, relying on a challenge rating of the creature being fought by party members as well as a rating assigned to the party themselves. Action or battle also consists of feats, instead of proficiencies. Saving throws have been reduced to 3 categories and initiative has been reverted to highest number goes first.
Initiative
Initiative has always preceded any other action in a round of AD&D combat mode. Your necromancer wants to cast that spell he's been drooling over? Roll initiative. Your paladin took personal affront to the orc spitting on his holy symbol? Roll initiative. It's been the basis of combat and action since the game began. I have nothing against the change back to higher goes first. However, the roll is now made with a d20 instead of the d10 previously used. This may not be that big a deal, and certainly wouldn't make the game any less enjoyable, were it not for the fact that there are now all kinds of variables to add or subtract from the initiative roll. No longer do you have to take into account weapon speed or the casting time of spells, but now you have the feats and other special bonuses, etc. to make your roll higher or lower, depending on what it calls for. I'm sure the thought all this would make combat rounds much easier, but I fail to see their line of thinking. Adding in that many variables to take into account for such a simple part of the round as initiative does not seem, to me, to be beneficial and would take much more time rather than make the play more fast paced. Another change to initiative is the fact that you keep the same roll throughout the combat session. If you go third on the first round, you go third for each subsequent round. Unless you choose to focus your action, wherein you lose your action for that round but are allowed to automatically go first next round. Why not just keep the tried and true method of deciding who goes first each round?
Armor Class and THAC0
Since the change between 1st edition and secone edition, THAC0 has been an integral part of combat. It was a simple equation to figure out how hard it was for you to hit whatever you decided to attack. The monster's AC is 0, you're a 2nd lvl warrior, so you need a base roll of 19 to hit the offending foe. Simple, right? Apparently Wizards of the Coast didn't think so. They wanted to simplify the rules for D&D even more and do away with THAC0, replacing it with a greater number of variables to add or subtract from your ability to damage a certain adversary. Challenge ratings, difficulty ratings, etc.. There are now so many different pluses and minuses that I wonder if the rulebooks will resemble algebra textbooks from high school. You can hit if your (blahblah) is added to the initial roll of (ugh), then subtracting your (squeak) from the base number of (honk)... OK, I'm generalizing and probably making it sound more complicated than it really is. But in my mind it's more difficult to do all this than to just keep it the way it was. Which brings me to Armor Class. They've changed that, too. Now, the higher your AC, the better. An AC of 20 is incredibly good for the defender and disheateningly bad for the attacker. What was wrong with the way it was? Nothing that I, nor the group I've had the fortune of DM'ing and playing with for years, could see.
I don't claim to know everything about the 3rd edition of our favorite roleplaying game (and the cause of many late, sleepness nights of pizza and bloodshed). I don't claim to be an expert on 2nd edition. What I am is a concerned gamer. Concerned with the path Wizards of the Coast has chosen for my favorite roleplaying game of all time. What's next? Will Tiamat become the very model of a modern major general? Will Elminster become a necromancer? Will umberhulks become the choice pet for kings and queens the land over? How many licks does it take to get to the center of... OK, you get my point.
Folks of the board,
I found this an interesting thread. I had a few comments, first on the thread itself, then on 3rd edition.
The thread: An interesting mix of "I like it" and "It sucks". The usual amount of personal attacks generated at the second round of interaction (but how do you roll for initative?? ;) ). The average age of the board would be, at a guess, be in the late 20's or early 30's. Like myself.
The 3rd edition itself:
I have been a fan of anything Johnathon Tweet, I have played most of the games he helped create (especially Over The Edge and Everway), frankly, anything he touches gamewise turns to gold. You need only look at his work history to see that.
I bought 3rd edition SOLELY because of his direction and involvement. The result? I am running a new campaign of D&D, with in house classes and bronze/iron age arabic/mongol/african world, the first D&D game I have played since 1983. Having done the gamut of RPGs; Cthulhu in the late 80's, Cyberpunk and Champions in the early 90's, cathartic crap... I mean, White Wolf games in the mid 90's, and freeforms and systemless stuff in the late 90's, I have returned full circle. And, oddly, I am happy about it.
3rd edition is not perfect, but this reflects the desinger's instructions to preserve the "sacred cows" of the game. I can respect that D&D has a long history and many players (many of whom have quite vocal opionions about the game)have fond memories of their involvement with the rules, worlds and products.
The new rules are smart, consistent, and easy to understand. A skills system in D&D? About time! Feats? A great idea, now Figthers are not the mugs they were at 10th level; shortchanged by rangers and especially by Paladins. An index? Alphabetical order?? Could this be the work of Johnathon Tweet? Although not OTE in its completeness, it works.
My local gamestores here all say the one thing: Sales have been huge. This is a great thing for WotC (and TSR), whom need to be careful in the next few years in order to survive as a business.
Those who despise games companies as a business need to stop living in their parent's garage and earn a living. It is a business; not a big one, but a business nevertheless. I run by own business, do well and have learned from experience to respect those that can succeed.
I hope things go well for the game. Its a great system, not perfect, but perfection is a myth.
I hope the game continues to do well and enjoys a growth spurt of new players.
I am one of them.
And although I am not a fan of fantasy (or fantasy novels; I still prefer actual legends from our world's past and its histories and cultures)I will gladly consider 3rd edition to be the best so far.
I have not yet seen the D&D movie. My comments? All I WILL say is that I look forward to Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings Trilogy".
Good luck to 3rd edition, my apolgies to the wowsers, but perhaps you should have stayed on the prior side of the Millennium. Nostalgia as memory is a powerful distorter.
All i would like to say is i love 2E and 3E is pointless when 2E is so good to begin with. my friends dont reall y like it that much either but one got it for christmas and were trying for him. we played our first senerio last week.
We started next to a cliff, therer was ledge witha cave 'bout 20 feet down. we hung a rope down and tried to climb it. we all fell off and died! Just by climbing down a rope! I had a modified 6 in climbing and trying to climb down a rope i fell to my death! *$#% that!!! this sucks!!!!!!!!!
I know that this has nothing to do with the discusion but if you have a chance pick up Die Vecna Die. It is hands down the best modual I have ever played. The story line is great and the battles are even better. I just took the time to write it here because I know a lot of gamers like yourselves would be interested in this info.
D&D is making a new impact in the world. i'm an every weekend playe4 and i have to say, It's awsome. Everytime i play i see more and more people getting involved. It takes the player away from everyday problems and worries and puts them into a fantasy land where they can do whatever they want. i think it was better left alone instead of changed. well, 2nd edition was kewl to but their starting to take this to far...LEAVE IT ALONE!
Now, Venn I hope you realize that the beauty of 3e is that encumbrance now makes sense. If you have a crappy strength, are wearing plate armour, or any number of other factors they can all affect the outcome of your roll. Your entire party died? They weren't all wearing plate armour, were they? It sounds to me like you either have a killer DM who's out to finish off your characters, OR an unexperienced 3e DM (which is perfectly acceptable, since the books have only been out for a couple of months.). Either way, I don't wanna preach to you the actual difficulty of climbing down a rope onto a cliffside ledge, but don't judge the whole game on one freakish incident.
Hey guys..., Im trying to start up a group for D&D. Weve never played before, and Ive only got the players guide, 2nd edition, and the dice, and some knowledge on the subject. Can you guys help me get going. I need some simple modules to start the charactors off. I'm over in New Zealand and you cannot get the modules even second hand. If anyone has copys of the D&D manuals in txt, or anything else, tip, suggestions, anything, please e-mail me. I'm 33 years old and have been tring to get into this for years.
I have been a big fan of D&D since I started playing, but for all you people that dis 2nd edition, your wrong. If you have the right DM and good friends to play any edition can be fun. I have never played 3rd edition yet but I have herd it is good. I've paged through the players handbook and the new character classes look sweet. The monk class looks the most promising and I hope to try playing it some day, but to dis 2nd edition and say that the character classes are lame then just ask your DM if you can pick a class from 3rd edition and have your DM convert the charts to 2nd edition. Thats what a friend of mine did I it worked out great.
I have played D&D for over 15 years. I also have played the Orignal D&D, 1e, 2e and I now play 3e. This is the best incarnation of D&D since I got the Red Box basic set fop christmas. They changed everything for the better. No more trying to remember that obscure table or changing the rules so they would make sense. And as far as the old " well dagnabit if I had to learn thaco the hard way then by the golly so should you". No it is not hard learn thaco but I am sure it wasn't that hard starting your car with a a big crank on the front but I know I would rather just hop in and turn the key. That is what 2e is the reliable old Model T while 3e is a 12 cylinder Ferrari. Eat my dust grandpas. ;)
I would just like to say that I lothe Wizards of the coast. I would rather Dungeons and Dragons died than be raped by these a-holes. I know for a fact that in all of there stores that insted of selling 2E minuatures and books for 1/2 off or even just making them avalable, the employees were ordered to distroy them. They distroyed all these items to take them out of circulation and force the comsuner to buy the 3E products. This company is evil! I loved 2E and to even see 2E stuff distroyed makes me pissed.
First off i wanted to say that your review was just that!..It lacked fact......I know you keep saying that you got these from the wizards hompage but at that time it was still in prototype ....Anyways play D&D all of them at one time or another....I think D&D3rd E. is the best one for the fact that it did simplify things in the long run and the detail it presents with the character customization features are beyond that of any other D&D setup so far...( unless you have access to every D&D core rules book, supplements, etc...) I liked the way the review was made out...And i am only sorry that it took me this long to find it..
Peace out and Happy hunting ...
Well. I've taken the liberty of *not* looking at the previous 8000 lines after the review. But I have to say this much: the D20 system is much better than the original system. I refused to play D&D or any game it spawned until 3rd simply because it was too screwy to deal with. D20 system simplifies it immensely. It's actually, *gasp*, fun to play!
Oh yeah, and just because it's true: WotC copyrighted the D20 system, which is completely fucking gay. Die WotC die.
You know what all editions of all RPG's are? They're tools. They are tools for the creation of and navigation through an imaginary world that allows us to do things that we might never get to do in real life. The GM is God in RPG's, and it is up to Him/Her whether the world is rich and colorful or lifeless and grey, not the edition of the rulebook. If a game sucks, it's almost always because the GM is weak.
Now, you might say that not all GM's are stellar and the better tools you give them, the better the result. I guess that's true, but so what? You put me on a computer and Carl Sagan on an abacus, you're still going to get better results with Carl.
I've been playing with AD&D 2nd Edition for 8 yrs, now. Last week, the GM said we have a month to learn 3rd Edition for the next campaign. So I will. Why?
Because, although I will roll different dice and follow different rules--some of which I might find to be utterly ridiculous--once a week, I'll still get to be one of the coolest people in a rich and colorful universe.
It's fun to gripe about the tools we have to work with, but utimately it's ourselves at whom we should be pointing accusing fingers when things go bad.
Right from the beginning I would like to make one thing absolutely, crystal clear - 3e is utter crap. I have played OD&D and AD&D (1st and 2nd Edition) for about 12 years and I can honestly say that 3e is the worst thing that has ever happened to the game. I fervently hope that the marketing wizards at Wizards who thought that this new edition was an improvement on previous editions go to gamer hell.
3e is the sad dumming down of a system loved by millions of people across the globe. It is not 'dummed down' because the rule changes are supposed to be more streamlined and simpler to learn (but that is a load nonsense anyway) but because the tone of the new rules is akin to, as someone said above, a computer game on paper. Quite frankly, hearing 3e fighters being excitedly described as 'killing machines', scares the hell out of me ... Individual mechanic changes are not the only problem - it's also the removal of all the deliberate game restrictions (developed over nearly 30 years of gaming) which were designed to maintain a balanced system.
The new tone of the 3e will appeal to adolescent power gamers and 14 year old boys who like to spend their time killing everything that moves (nothing wrong with 14 year old boys, by the way ... I used to be one you know). Where OD&D and AD&D sought game balance, 3e seeks Half-orc/Paladine/Rogue/Lord of Heaven/Scourge of ...... etc. etc. that can slay dragons with a toothpick on their first level date.
Gone are all the 'quirks' that made D&D unique. These quirks are what made D&D feel different from any other system. Now that 3e could be any system, why not just go for a more slick system? No, 2nd Edition isn't perfect, but that's why we love it - the quirks are what make it worth playing. By the way, for those WotC/3e apologists who whinge about the AD&D core rules supplementary materials - just ignore them. If you felt that the Complete Handbooks and Player's Option books unbalanced the system, well, don't bloody use them for gawd sake.
Essentially, what is left of the system we know and love, after WotC butchered it, is a bland, pedestrian system (is there anything more seriously unimaginative than "roll a dice, add a modifier"?) where Monty Haul has been elevated to the heavens and reigns unchallenged as the Supreme Being of the 3e universe.
Some of the individual rule changes make sense taken by themselves, but all taken together they constitute a completely different system, barely resembling D&D. The absolute core of the system - the combat mechanics, proficiency/skill mechanics, saving throw mechanics etc., are not just tweaked a little to iron out a few bumps in the system, but total rewrites. Lets face it, when you nip and tuck practically every part of the game, your Uncle Bob is now you Aunty Jane. WotC have treated 'D&D' as though it were nothing but a brand logo that they have stuck on completely different system to sell it.
The problem for WotC is that the new system is SO different that the vast majority of OD&D, AD&D (1st and 2nd Edition) player's really have little motivation to convert to 3e as to do so would assign their previous edition collections to the rubbish bin. There needed to be a balance in the new edition that could attract new player's as well as keep the old ones. That balance, sadly, isn't there.
I'm sorry, but converting 2nd Edition to 3e is a truly monumental pain in the arse. Not because changing, say, THAC0 to CR is difficult, but because the 3e is balanced (or unbalanced) differently. A 'simple' conversion just doesn't apply. I can pick up a second hand module written in 1979 - OD&D or AD&D - and run it with practically no fundamental game mechanic changes. After buggering around with the 3e rules for five minutes you want to chuck the damn books out a closed window ....
Yeah, graphically the books are attractive - but that is a matter of taste, I personally prefer the original 2nd Edition products myself. However, the 3e books are so stuffed full of artwork and graphics, spread throughout the text, it is a complete bugger to find anything quickly. Remember, these products are meant to be reference 'rule books' - not picture story books. With all the artwork and graphics interspersed throughout the text it's enough to set off someone's epilepsy.
The above complaints aren't about opposing ANY change, it's about opposing BAD change. Instead of reworking AD&D to a new exciting level building on the past, WotC have just slaughtered it. To use an old Aussie saying - WotC can go stick their collective heads up a dead bears bum - and they can take their 3e with them.
D&D 3E is not D&D. It isn't AD&D in any of its incarnations. It is not part of the legacy that those of us who started playing back in the seventies, remember with fondness OR distaste. When I open the books, I don't think of the fantasy gaming milieu but nor do I think that it's a piece of dung. It is just another RPG on the market. 3E's rules are neither streamlined or sufficiently modular to be considered innovative. It is arguably one of the worst systems in the market. Yet, I hope that 3E revitalizes the 'medieval' fantasy RPG market.
I could care less if WotC makes a single shilling off of D&D 3E, but I hope that there will be renewed interest in RPGs in general, due to marketing efforts. As a long-time GM/DM/Judge and player (late 70's), I'm used to hacking away at crappy rules, converting adventures into other systems, and throwing it all out the window in order to make it fun for everyone. So there's the gist of it. If you like the system, fine. If you hate the system, that's 'ok' too. When it comes down to it, it needs to be fun (a.k.a. enjoyable, pleasant, etc.) for players and judges. No matter how good or bad the system is, it's up to everyone playing to make it fun.
Take what is useful. Discard the rest.
TOG, I agree with your final point (perhaps not the rest of it, but let's not worry about it). Take what is useful. Discard the rest. An excellent piece of advice for any game product or system.
Tas, I couldn't agree with you less. Converting 2e to 3e is NOT (as you claim) a monumental pain in the arse. Have you tried to convert stuff? I can usually convert a 64-page module in under an hour. I've been working with the system for months. I have won adventure design contests. I have a 72-page netbook scheduled for release this week. I have DMed for 16 years. Trust me, converting to 3e is not that bad given the ease of use 3e offers.
All the artwork and graphics interspersed throughout the books? Oh, you must mean the archetype illustrations and the diagrams - with the occasional piece to liven it up. Or perhaps you were referring to the Monster Manual. Nah, we wouldn't want to know what monsters looked like. There are "gratuitous" illustrations in 3e rulebooks - but would you like the little cartoons featured in 1e rulebooks instead? Or the 2e rulebooks "wasting" a page at the front of every chapter with a full page illustration? God forbid they should break up the monotony of text!
The proficiency/skill change was LONG overdue - when you picked up a proficiency in 1e or 2e, it almost never got better. Not only that, it was tied too closely to its mother attribute. Honestly, the difference in a 1st level character's blacksmithing and a 20th level character's blacksmithing was literally nil (at most 5 proficiency slots or 125% of the 1st level character's skill).
Or saving throws... did it ever confuse you when you were dealing with something that was not "Dragon Breath, Wand, Staff, Rod, Spell, Poison, Death Ray, Paralysation, or Petrification" why a certain save was picked? At least now you have some idea why - you get out of the way, grin and bear it, or shrug off a mental attack. Why should it be as easy to save against poison as a death ray? What about a petrification ray? No, that's a save vs. petrification. Unless it came from a spell. And don't even get me started about System Shock rolls - another form of "save".
And your comment about restrictions "being developed over 30 years of gaming" is, pardon my French, complete bullsh#t. The restrictions you refer to were put in place at the beginning of the AD&D game and were never removed. The 3e rewrite was done in order to allow Gandalf to use Glamdring and be okay in D&D.
Keep in mind that the old AD&D engine was originally an outgrowth of MINIATURES gaming. It consisted mostly of tables and arbitrary restrictions. It was NOT conducive to role-playing. 2e served to smooth out a couple of wrinkles, but the basic flaws of the system remained. In short, this was an engine that was so badly broken that 3e couldn't be a tune-up but instead had to be a major overhaul.
2e's inconsistent rules were the main reason for this. Can you tell me off the top of your head the chance for a drow (surprises opponents 7 in 8) to surprise a barbarian (surprised only on a 1 in 12)? Didn't think so. How about thief skills - did it ever strike anyone else as ludicrous that thief skills go over 100% (and in 2e cases can go over 200%!)?
And I can think of one thing less imaginative than "roll the dice, add a modifier"... "roll the dice, consult a cookie-cutter table that makes every character a carbon copy."
3e fighters being killing machines? Excuse me - isn't that exactly the point of a fighter. Any low-level campaign needs "meat walls" but after about 5th or 6th level, fighters are outclassed and outgunned by wizards in 1e and 2e. And with rangers and paladins, there is no reason at all to be a fighter other than low ability scores. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot - players should have their choices severely restricted and be penalized the entire gaming career of the character by the arbitrary chance of a poor 6 rolls during character creation. And no chance to improve (unlike 3e). I'm sorry. I forgot that the game wasn't about fun but slavishly following tables and rules that quite honestly, make no sense.
Which brings me to my final point. The problem with the 1e and 2e systems was that they weren't - systems, that is. They were literally a thousand different game mechanics forcibly cobbled together and published essentially as a book of tables - instead of focusing on the game, one has to constantly refer to tables. If this is what you mean by "quirky, but loved", keep your f#$%ing quirks. 3e, by forcing players to master but a single mechanic, dramatically increases playability. Is it as detailed as 1e/2e? No. Is it as realistic? No. Is it more playable? Yes, absolutely.
Don't get me wrong, I loved 1e and 2e. I loved bD&D more, but that's because I liked the various focuses of bd&D as characters rose in level (dungeon then wilderness then baronies/dominions then the quest for immortality). However, drop your blinders and recognize 1e/2e for what it is - NOT a system, but rather a bunch of different systems only held together by the fact that they happened to be printed in the same book. That is what attracted me to 3e - I no longer have to play with 200 tables in front of me - I can play with only the table my drinks and chips sit on.
Firstly, The Sigil, to your specific comments ....
You are, of course, correct - game restrictions, such as to class, race and level, were adopted at the very beginning, however, these checks and balances were KEPT (yes, over nearly 30 years of gaming) to maintain game balance - now you have the idiotic possibility of a halfling being as strong as a half-orc! Your complaint that previous edition characters were 'carbon copies' of each other only applies if you 'slavishly' followed those supposedly 'inonsistent' 1e and 2e tables and rules. I remember a time (way off in the Long Before) when a PC was customised through role-playing and not by rules such as those munchkin Feats. As for your comments about a character being penalised by the 'arbitrary chance of a poor 6 rolls during character creation' - there are plenty of character creation methods in AD&D to ensure that a player gets to play the PC they desire. Again, these sort of concerns were only a problem if you 'slavishly' followed every 'table and rule' as though it were the word of God.
If you were looking to original D&D and AD&D for the sort of integration you seem to crave, then you were always looking at the wrong game - as I said, that's not why we love it. THAC0 may, for example, have been a difficult concept for some to grasp at first, but it was all 'D&D'. As for saving throws - if you are confused, I would suggest that you reread the explanation of the hierarchy and purpose of each saving throw in the 2e DMGs (under the heading of 'Saving Throw Priority') - it all seems perfectly straight forward to me.
As for my concern about fighters being gleefully described as 'killing machines' - I had the following comment by Cerwyn Steel in mind ... "My human fighter could stand toe-to-toe with his entire party of five (cleric, paladin, rogue/sorcerer, fighter/rogue/wizard, ranger/druid)! talk about a walking talking killing machine!" It's a system that allows, nay encourages, this type of PC development and game play that scares the hell out of me. The focus of the 3e rules is on building a more powerful deck, oops ... I mean character, not on role-playing. Any good system seeks to balance the two, 3e simply doesn't even try.
Sure, almost any system, if you fiddle long enough, can allow power gaming, and the tone of our own campaigns, set by each gaming group, can range from the intellectual to the guttural. However, the tone of the 3e rules encourage this kind of power gaming - open restrictions on class, race and level (not to mention Feats, extra spells per level, the increase to an Ability every four levels! etc.) are there for one purpose only - not 'flexibility' as some would contend - but to get a pimply faced boy's heart racing .... "Cool! I can slaughter a whole tribe of goblins with my new half-orc/paladine/mage/rogue/god crusher!". Ding. Ding. All off at Munchkin City Central.
Yes, Sigil, I have converted 2e to 3e and vice versa, and I still think that it's a monumental pain in the arse. As I said, converting each individual mechanic is not the most difficult thing in the world, but because 3e is balanced differently to favour mega PCs and a more hack'n'slash combat orientated game style, a simple transfer is not possible as the new rules create a different power structure. The second problem is that you have to convert EVERYTHING - OK, that's what you might expect if you were converting from one game system to another, but c'mon, not when you fork out a fortune on a new edition of supposedly the same bloody game.
As for the actual graphic presentation of the rulebooks - I stand by my criticisms. I didn't say to much about the artwork itself because it's all very subjective (although the overall effect is attractive, I personally I think the artwork is ugly). Therefore, I kept my criticisms to the overall presentation and layout. The layout is cluttered .... the faint lines and graphics interwoven throughout the actual TEXT is distracting and makes reading the books and finding rules quickly just that little bit more annoying than it usually is. It's a design issue - remember Sigil we are talking about reference 'rulebooks'. There is nothing wrong with artwork to make a product more attractive or help illustrate a rule (or monster), however, the artwork shouldn't detract from ease of use of the text. The layout in 2nd Edition was neat, attractive, straight forward, and very usable.
I had an opportunity in my last posting to vent and so I grasped the opportunity with both hands. However, fundamentally, my key criticisms remain - the RPG that some deluded souls now call DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 3e just aint D&D. When practically every significant game mechanic is replaced - not tweaked - it simply ceases to be the same system. The game has been dumbed down by WotC to appeal to a younger Magic: The Gathering type market instead of releasing a revised D&D system that can appeal to both good ol'fashoned hack'n'slashers and cerebral role-players alike.
So why play 3e? - it lacks either the character or 'feel' of OD&D or AD&D and has none of the sophistication and innovation of a dozen other well presented, highly playable systems. If you've got an extremely serviceable and enjoyable library of previous edition material, there is nothing in 3e to lure you to the new bastardised version. Sigil, mate, 3e still sucks.
On another topic or two...
Get your facts right. WotC did NOT copyright the d20 mechanic - they copyrighted the Logo and some of the explanations of the "d20" mechanic. Palladium Books (among others) has been using this mechanic for a good decade, so it will be nigh unto impossible to copyright the "roll a die, add a modifier" mechanic.
If you want to pick up all the Core Rulebooks for 2e, buy the Core Rules Software (probably still available if you look) on CD-ROM or search the net - I've seen pirated versions of the RTFs of all the Core Books that appear on the CD-ROM out there (I myself own the CD-ROM and Expansion Pack).
I'm not going to dis 2e (or 1e, or Chainmail, or whatever). It was a fun system and you can certainly have fun playing it. But I have to call a spade a spade, and it's true... 2e is a nice new frame put over the 1e Model T engine. 3e is the Dodge Viper. Eat our dust, grandpas... ;-)
Well... isn't this a heafty debate. However, most of these comments are opinion based. I would like to focus this post toward game mechanics of 3E.
I have been playing in a 3E game for about 3 months now. Currently I am designing my own campaign world (which will be 2E), and we have decided to play some 3E just to check out the game.
First off I would like to state that I too believe that this is another game entirely. It merely has the DND logo slapped upon it. I don't think that it is a horrible game but it is different. In fact I have dubbed it "OtherGame TM".
The game definately pushes the "power character" and "power gaming". I think that they needed to evaluate the Challenge Rating of the encounters a little more thoroughly. Our basic challenge rating should be around 8 however we need at least a 10 - 12 to even be challenged because our characters are so raw.
In the upcoming 2E campaign that I am about to run the characters start out being the sons of small farmers from a tiny village. They will be at first level and thus inexperienced. What they know of swordplay has been taught to them by their fathers and some of the local militia. So what I am shooting for is a simple beginning with simple people who will evolve into epic heros. If I were to use 3E with all of it's feats and special abilities I don't think that I could capture the feel of small town beginnings. The characters fathers certainly didn't teach them Cleave or Power Attack! That would be nearly absurd. So I agree that the focus of the game is on having the toughest character possible at the start. You see, in 2E it is possible to Min/Max at the beginning. Yet you must be especially knowledgeable in the game in order to pull it off. Generally it takes using abilities like 2 weapon style and ambidexterity and such to become awesome. Most players realize that they can do these things but they also realize that these methods generally lead to the same sort of character over and over again. Who want's that?
In 3E WotC is going for a great level of diversity. This is a good thing. But instead of creating diversity they have made the special abilities the focus of the game... not an additive.
I also have discovered some problems with AC. We have spent the last couple of sessions combating against creatures of our basic CR. These fights are idiotic. Pretty much as long as the creatures don't roll a 1 they will hit us. It is somewhat the same for us as well. My fighter/sorcerer (6/2) has a magical sword and when all things are accounted for has a +15 Attack Rating. Anyway... my point is we were fighting these spiders (CR 9) and they had an AR of +32. Now I got to thinking about this and realized that these CR 9 creatures are totally rediculous. Assuming I was a fighter with +5 Plate and a +5 shield my max AC would be a 30. Now maybe in 3E +5 plate and shield are common or something, I don't know, but this basically means that these CR 9 spiders would still only need a 2 or better to hit me! Sure you can make an arguement that I could boost myself with spells and such... but I am looking at the stand alone warrior squaring off against an opponent.
In 2E the best Thac0 that a creature can ever have is 5. So a fighter with the best AC possible (-10) would be able to be hit on a 15 or better. A little harder than average for the best creature vs. best armored warrior. Once again I don't thing that 3E was play tested fully. When you play for several months and see characters develop you really begin to understand the quirks of the game.
I read one post where some guy was claiming that 2E was just for marketing? Um... take a look at 3E kid. It's target market has to be kids between 8 - 14. It is really easy to use. But what's wrong with a complicated game? When most people gripe about not understanding the rules of 2E you generally find that it's because they did not take the time to read the rules. Everything is right there in front of you! Look it up. I don't see anything wrong with a little extra reading and figuring... You know, I thought that DND was generally a past time for the intellectual and imaginative... for those people who want to be mentally stimulated. I mean, jeez people, TV is directed at a 7th grade educational level... that's pretty sad. Our we to take our game and do the same? Are we just statistics and dummys like the media and marketers think we are? Plus I think that if you examine the corolation between the DND movie (crap) and OtherGame TM you realize that marketing is at an all time high. Of course they do have to make money or go under so this is understandable.
I think that the true problem with marketing DND is that you truly only need 3 books and then you never have to purchase anything else. 1 DMG, 1 PH, 1 MC and your set. Hell... if you really wanna do some work you don't even need the MC!
Now, what get's me PO'ed is that there will be no more 2E supplements put out. I mean, you would think that WotC would still continue the 2E line along with the 3E. I mean at least they could get the most income possible. But it's funny that in all the hobby stores nearby the 2E shelves are barren. I can't even get character sheets! That's what pisses me off the most. It's basically like they said, "I know some of you have been playing 2E for 15 years but you can't have anymore stuff." Whatever... That's such crap. I can't even order backstock directly from them. I know that they did the same thing with 2E but 2E was still AD&D. It was just fleshed out, organized and supplemented. This is well... OtherGame TM!
Oh... and BTW Sigil... the reason that thief skills can go so high in 2E is because of the possibility for negatives. There are a plethora of negative modifiers that thieves have to cope with. So if you have a 120% PP and you get the -20% because of a tough situation it's good to know that you can still have a perfect chance of making it. Of course I'm sure that your lack of knowledge in this stems from not reading the rules of 2E... thus OtherGame TM is perfect for you.
:)
I love being flamed.
Seriously, I *did* know about the modifiers and such for thieves in D&D/AD&D (e.g., the 5% bonus/penalty per level differential when picking pockets). It just always struck me as silly that under "normal" conditions you could have a character with a 105% chance to climb walls.
As for the "I'm clinging to 2e" posts and "why doesn't WotC keep publishing 2e stuff," I again refer you to 1990-ish. Did you piss and cry because TSR no longer published 1e stuff? Or when D&D Boxed Sets died c. 1992/93 did you whine and complain because TSR didn't keep publishing for a dead system. No. Let's get it straight - you like 2e. I won't argue with that. 2e is a nice system. But unfortunately, it's now dead. Quit crying and adjust. By your logic, I should see Book V, the last in the Eldritch Wizardry / Blackmoor / Men and Monsters / Deities and Demigods series. And Chainmail II. And another UA/OA 1e book. And Gazetteer 19 for D&D. And more Star Frontiers / Top Secret / Gamma World / Alpha Dawn / Boot Hill books.
When a publisher decides a line is dead, accept it. If you want to call 3e OtherGame, so be it. Accept that 2e was broken, no longer viable, and so WotC dropped it and published OtherGame. Since 2e was AD&D and 3e is just D&D, it's not the same game, it's just very similar. If that's how you want to look at it fine.
As for everything changing, and 3e being OTHERGAME, what's wrong with shifting some of the bell-curve scales to flat curves and sliding the curves up and down? Since when does that make a game feel un-D&D?
I won't even address your crack at my "lack of knowledge" except to say I have read literally every D&D/AD&D book published prior to 1995 (when I thought 2e turned into sh!t with all the Complete Munchkin Handbooks and Skills & Munchkin Powers).
I find it infinitely amusing that hordes of 2e players are crying "munchkin" when Skills and Powers and the Complete X Handbooks were far more Munchkin than 3e.
As for the comment about 3e being munchkin, I again bring up the point:
The PCs have gotten a power-up from 2e. I won't argue with that.
BUT... the monsters have gotten an equal or greater power-up.
If inflation is the same, is it really inflation?
For example, if I earn twice as much this year as I did 5 years ago, but everything costs twice as much, nothing has really changed.
I could go on, but I won't be dragged into a flame war. There are some of my points. Do remember that I did enjoy core 2e - and I enjoy core 3e as well, because I find it much more fluid than 2e. Matter of taste. But just as I disliked the Complete Munchkin Handbooks for 2e, I'm no fan of the ones they're releasing for 3e (read: Sword and Fist) and will not be allowing those into my campaign. Core rules with a few minor "world - flavor" mods are generally all right no matter what system you're in for D&D - 1e, 2e, 3e, or OD&D. It's the extras you gotta watch out for.
Sigil,
The reason why I am pissed about them discontinuing the 2E line is not because I think it was broken. And I wasn't upset about the change from 1E to 2E. That change was merely a clarifying of rules, organization and adding some badly needed factors to the game. It was not a new game.
I love how you tell me to "quit crying and adjust." You make it seem as if all DND players have no choice but to play OtherGame TM. That's a joke... haha! It's funny but all of the guys that I play with (have been playing with for 3 years, every weekend), say the same thing, "3E is cool for awhile, but I can't wait to get back to 2E."
I think that the complete handbooks are awesome. They add alot of role playing flavor to the individual characters without going overboard. Don't think for a minute that 3E isn't going to turn out tons of handbook supplements... it's the way of WotC and most other companies. Hell, they're already getting set to come out with the psionics handbook. I think that they should bring out more handbooks too. My 6/2 Ftr/Sor. already has most of the good feats in the PH.
Concerning the players option stuff... you should realize that they were only a precursor to 3E. I have never used them and will not. That's where your munchkin lies.
Combat is still rediculous. I am fully confidant that a time will come when, at higher levels, both the party and the monsters will only need to avoid rolling 1 to hit one another. Armor will hardly be a factor.
You know what I should call 3E? Instead of OtherGame TM... I should call it FeatQuest... yeah that's it!
FeatQuest, I love it! That sums up 3e perfectly - "FeatQuest - The ultimate Munchkin Quest for the most powerful Character ever! - Available from your favourite game stores now!" Or, how about we dub 3e - MUNCHKINS & MONSTERS?? Yeah, I like that too!
I agree with Starkus, the Complete Handbook series added a lot of colour without unbalancing the game to much - although some books were more useful and better written than others. I also agree that the Player Option series was ridiculous - reading through them you can certainly see the munchkin seeds of 3e.
Sigil, although there was an increase in power of the monsters to compensate for the power of the PCs, that just meant that the focus of MUNCHKINS & MONSTERS is on powerful things bashing other powerful things - just like in a computer game. When everyone's got a sword +275 the magic is lost.
..... the funny thing is that millions of gamers around the world played AD&D because they (shock, horror) liked it. They didn't think AD&D was 'broken'. And they, like me, eagerly awaited a revised, repackaged D&D for the new millennium (*groan*). So, what did WotC decide do with our much loved AD&D? They chose to destroy it and replace D&D with MUNCHKINS & MONSTERS!
That's why we are so pissed off - WotC killed D&D ... you bastards!
One quick question...
Did all of you who loved 2e use any "house rules?" That is an instant indication that there is at least something in the system you didn't like.
There is no perfect system. But I have found that the fewer house rules I need, the more balanced the system is.
Rifts (the ultimate in munchkin gaming) required over 500 pages (!) of house rules in order to be usable. GURPS required about 50. 2e required about 200. 3e requires 5.
As for the whole "FeatQuest" thing, yes, feats are important. But look at what the feats do and tell me again it's munchkin. Hmm... a +1 AC bonus vs. a single attack (Dodge). Hmm... Weapon Specialization (much less powerful that WS in 2e). Hmm... drop a component from spells (but the spell acts as though it's a level higher). Hm... a method for creating magic items that actually makes some sense (did ANYONE create magic items in 2e or 1e without house rules)? There are a few, limited feats that might be munchkin, especially in combination (whirlwind attack/great cleave anyone), but on the whole, feats represent a way to incorporate into the system all those things that just felt - well - artificially cobbled on in 2e.
And as for WotC "killing" D&D, you couldn't be more wrong. T killed D&D by producing loads of crap that even 2e-lovers wouldn't gobble up because it was so appallingly bad.
The Players Option books were NOT the product of WotC, they were the product of T. Which means that no matter how you scream and howl to the contrary, the game was heading in that direction anyway, whether WotC stepped in or not. What you call the "seeds" of 3e were sown by T.
T was losing money with this system. They were losing money badly. The only reason WotC was able to acquire them was that T had essentially committed suicide - by pushing out mounds of crap that nobody wanted. D&D was on its death bed.
Enter WotC. They bought T and gave CPR to D&D. They changed stuff, to be sure. They reshaped D&D somewhat. Nobody's arguing that. But not nearly as much as T had already reshaped it with Skills and Powers.
That's why I'm pissed off at you folks... you refuse to understand that TSR killed D&D, you bastards!
Again, you may not like D&D3e, but it's a damn sight better than the alternative - NO D&D at all because T went belly-up.
Either way, you nitwits were going to lose your precious 2e. At least WotC gave you another year or two of 2e products and you still have SOME alternative now.
What annoys me are you f***ing ignorant ingrates who refuse to accept the economic reality that 2e was dead. 3e is alive. Deal with it. Whine if you want, but don't accuse WotC of killing D&D - accuse it of reincarnating it in another form if you wish, but get one thing straight...
T and T alone is responsible for the demise of 2e.
Damn straight. Actually I don't see why they can't just have both editions in print. The games are so different that one would not conflict with the other. The old time gamers would be happy and the new little kiddies would have a less complicated, lower intelligence level edition so they won't have to think as much.
Your right about the video game feel. That's why I must say that 3E is fun for a short while. Its great to have a mega powerful munchkin that whoops but for awhile. I love to get mega bonuses and do tons of damage. But it get's old in about seven or eight sessions.
Like I said before you really can't have a serious, story driven campaign with 3E. The characters know too much at the beginning.
So, Sigil, basically your wrong and we are right. You need to begin burning all of your 3E stuff. Go on Ebay and get new stuff and then come over and game with me and Tas.
Sigil... jeez we must have been posting at the same time.
Now yer just getting nasty. I love how you say that if TSR or Wizards went under there would be no DND at all... are you missing something?
ONCE YOU BUY THE CORE BOOKS YOU DON'T NEED TO BUY ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL.
Even if WotC went under today I would still have my saturday night game. I would still play DND. 3E or no 3E we will continue to play DND.
Nobody killed DND... DND is still the same for me as it was 17 years ago. I still play and will continue to play. Jesus, Sigil, you make it seem as if the role-playing police are going to come into my house and give me a ticket for playing 2E. I don't have to change to continue playing DND, no one does.
Wanna know what I really think?? The only real problem that I have with the discontinuation of 2E is the fact that I can't get the cool green character sheets! Other than that it doesn't matter. I long ago realized that I could make better adventures than anything which TSR or WotC had been putting out. In fact the last great module write was Gygax! Fortunately I own all of his works.
So whatever you say man. 3E is a kids game, kid. Enjoy your zelda buddy.
>The characters know too much at the beginning.
They do? One of the gamers in the group I'm gaming with right now (he's about a 10-year gaming vet) said one of the things he liked about the 3e campaign was he didn't know what to expect. In fact, IMC we have had...
- one dungeon crawl
- two city adventures
- one "murder mystery"
- one "mass combat" (goblin hordes vs. a town)
- one "race against the clock" (character dying of mummy rot)
- six "role-playing" sessions (sessions with one combat or less)
The characters have 3 recurring foes, several allies scattered throughout the country they are in, and are currently working to help stave off a goblin/orc invasion from the north. This has included a diplomatic mission to an orc tribe, the wild defense of a town, the infiltration of a goblin lair, the rescue of a political prisoner from a slave ring (get in and get out cuz straight-up combat will see you steamrolled). Nah, no role-playing there.
Or perhaps you refer to the skill sets characters have. It seems to me that (except for wizards) 2e characters know too much at the beginning. Answer me honestly, other than more hit points and an improved THAC0, what separates a 3rd level fighter from a 1st level fighter in 2e? That's right, boys and girls, absolutely nothing. Characters' skill sets are FAR more static in 2e than in 3e. I guess you could argue with me on this, but I don't really think you will - I think everyone realizes that skills improve and diversify much more quickly in 3e (with skill points per level) than 2e (with starting proficiencies and... um... er... uh... one more proficiency every 3 to 5 levels). VERY nice character development.
"Go on ebay and get new stuff?" Listen, the new stuff is 3e. Or perhaps you refer to getting 2e and 1e stuff. My collection of that is QUITE complete, thank you (I have roughly 200 books for bD&D, 1e, and 2e, including every version of every hardback ever published). And (gasp) I use them for ideas for my 3e game (sacrelige)! My ICE, GURPS, Palladium, and other books (another 50 or so of those) work well for this purpose, too.
Basically, the reason I like 3e is NOT the combat. I like it because Charisma actually MEANS something now. There is a codified skill set for trying to do non-combat tasks (Bluff, Gather Information, Diplomacy, etc.) - of course as a DM I can fudge stuff, but it's nice to have a system already in place.
IMO, the 2e combat system is superior to 3e. Weapon Speed is more realistic. Casting times are more realistic. But I want to get combat over with and get to the real MEAT of role-playing - which 3e is ideally suited for. 3e combat is streamlined. And since combat has never been an emphasis IMC, this is an improvement. I doubt it's munchkin to say "I want to skip combat and get to the important stuff." And is it video game to want to get through the "boring" combat part? I though video game RPGs were 99% combat! Your comment doesn't fit.
I agree that most of us produce better modules than TSR/WotC. In that case, who cares that 2e died? Why make such a fuss if all you wanted was the character sheets? Photocopy those bad boys! It's sure cheaper than paying TSR 8 bucks for a dozen sheets! :)
And you are absolutely correct. The RPG police will not come in and arrest you for playing 2e. I play 3e because I like it better than oD&D. Before 3e, I played oD&D because I liked it better than 1e or 2e.
As you said, once you have the core books you're set. If you want to claim you like 2e better, fine. That's a point I can't argue (who am I to tell you what you like or don't like?) - but I can argue whether or not a D&D system is "better" (of course, defining "better" is somewhat difficult). But it comes to this...
I prefer 3e. You prefer 2e.
I think both of us try to use our preferred systems to role-play, not roll-play. So I'll let it go at that. I did some flaming early in the post, but I will cease flaming as arguments involving opinion serve only to convince each party more thoroughly that he is right.
FINALLY!!! My brothers of 2E, Tas and Starkus! You my friends have no idea of how much in the minority we are my friends. Since 3E has shown its ugly head in my area, I've been called names and told that 2E is crap. The people at my local gaming store (dark forest games in Montclar, CA) are selling all of there 2E stuff for 1/2 off taking a loss on the books because the love 3E so much. My favored worlds Dragonlance and Ravenloft and Planescape all wiped from the face of the earth because of 3E. And they have the dumbest rules. Like the 3E rules for healing by resting. If I was at 1hp, thats the equivlence of being in a body cast with a punctued lung, but by 3E rules if I'm 30th LV I'd wake up the next day with 30hp! Thats totaly stupid! This game is exactly like playing a video game, very unrealistic. Thats always why I prefered real life RPG's to computer rpg's. WotC has dumbed it down to the stupidest factor. I'll take realistic hard rules to stupid easy rules and day.
P.S. Thanks Starkus and Tas, I know that I'm not alone.
P.S.S Sorry If I didn't spell everything correctly "the Sigil" I know that you hate that. Also what do you do, LIVE on a computer, I mean damn, you write a lot.
Fear not Ghost, I suspect there are more 2e players out there than you might think. I don't doubt for one turn, or even a whole round, that there are many true D&D (Classic D&D, AD&D - 1E and 2E) fans that feel the same way as us. What is interesting is that all those 3e freaks that claim 2e is crap didn't seem to have a problem playing it for 10 years. I mean, for gawd sake, if it was that bloody bad why did they bother to play it??
As for the - Is 3e munchkin? - debate (was there ever any doubt?), Your Honour, I submit Exhibit A .. recently, I came across the following on a list of AD&D jokes entitled - How to spot a MUNCHKIN!:
"Your original character was gonna be a Paladin/Mage/Druid/Assassin/Monk, but when your DM wouldn't listen to your 'reasonable' request, you whined for a moment then chose your present character."
Sound familiar? Yesterday's munchkin joke is today's standard 3e PC!!
Sigil, the Player Option series was just that .. 'optional'. These products were 'add-ons' which could be (and were in my case) completely ignored. However, in 3e many of the worst munchkin elements are essential parts of the 'core' rules. Personally, I have always regarded non core supplements as 'merchandise' rather than true 'core' material. As starkus said, the PHB, DMG and the Monstrous Manual/Compendiums etc. are all that are needed. All the rest - no matter how useful (and many items were very useful) - are just extras.
By the way, TSR went bust because of bad management, not because AD&D was unpopular or 'broken'. It is no secret that there had been management problems in the Co. for years.
Oh, and Sigil, saying that WotC 'reshaped D&D somewhat' is like saying Hitler was 'ever so slightly' nasty. WotC did more than reshape D&D - the mongrels butchered it - pure and simple.
Sigil -
"Answer me honestly, other than more hit points and an improved THAC0, what separates a 3rd level fighter from a 1st level fighter in 2e."
Humm... well how about Cleve, Power Attack...
"The characters know too much at the beginning."
You misunderstand me. I am refering to the CHARACTERS knowing too much in the beginning, not the players. And yes, I believe that the characters who start out with the possibility of cleve and other feats come into the game as super heros and don't build up to that status. Of course a new player to 3E is going to think it is so new because it is a different game.
Combat is one of the essential parts of the game. I enjoy good combat and so do most of my players. I spend a great deal of time perfecting every detail of a combat so that it is challenging and innovative. I believe that the best sessions are those that combine an equal portion of combat, role-playing and plot based actions (ie. riddles, puzzles, myster etc.)
Anyway, it really doesn't matter though. I've pretty much said all that I can say about the subject. It really only boils down to opinion at this point and there's no since in argueing that.
We could just have an endless flame war for fun though.
I will sum this using the words of one of my players, "3E is a fun place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there."
I'll work through the comments in the order they were posted...
"Healing in 3e is unrealistic..."
This was a subject of much debate on the WotC boards and here is the rationale (which I happen to agree with).
Compare a 1st level fighter (with, say 7 hp) to a 10th level fighter (70 hp). Both are wounded down to 1 hp. This is NOT the equivalent of being in a body cast with a punctured lung (by any core edition of D&D, you can still fight at 1 hp with no penalties), but it is very wounded. So these two fighters, at the brink of death, are pulled from combat and allowed to rest and heal.
Under bD&D, 1e, 2e:
The first level fighter is fully healed and back on his feet in a week. The tenth level fighter requires over two months to recover, despite the fact that they were both equally close to death.
Under 3e:
The first level fighter takes about a week to recover (1 hp/day, takes 6 days to go from 1 hp to 7 hp). The tenth level fighter takes... about a week to recover (10 hp/day, takes 7 days to go from 1 hp to 70 hp).
Honestly, which is more realistic? I think two people equally wounded should heal in about the same amount of time. We all know hit points have always been described not as sheer physical fortitude, but a combination of stamina, luck, knowledge, and so forth (read the 1e DMG treatment of hit points and why 5 hit points to a 4th level fighter is not the same as 5 hit points to a 1st level fighter in terms of actual wounds suffered).
Perhaps you might want to argue that things get out of whack at higher levels (30 hp/day for a 30th level character), but would you propose an alternate solution where a high level character doesn't take months to heal from injuries that take a low level character days to heal?
I agree it's not a perfect solution - but it's better than the old system IMO.
I claim 2e is crap. And no, I DIDN'T play it for 10 years - I gave it a try, didn't like it, and stuck to oD&D the whole time. The 10 years of 2e, for me, were a time to ignore all rules published by TSR and steal their story ideas to use for what I felt was a better system (oD&D) - the same thing all of you folks can do now with 3e - steal all the good story ideas and incorporate them into your 2e campaigns.
As for your munchkin joke, yes players can have that class combination in 3e. But read the rules for multiclassing (which I like much better than the 2e rules) - such a character would have to be at least 5th level - so unless you're in a campaign like Dark Sun where you start at higher levels, you're not going to start as one. While such combinations are possible, anyone who actually sits down and makes such a character will discover quickly that multiclassing so many times actually makes you much weaker in 3e.
Multiclassing to me was one of 2e's weak points in terms of balance. Why on earth would I want to play an elven fighter when I could play an elven fighter/mage? By about 1 million XP, my options are:
11th level fighter
or 10th/11th level fighter mage.
So basically I sacrificed a level of fighter and about 10 hit points for 11 levels of mage. Sounds good to munchkin me!
Compare to 3e where if I tried the same thing at 11th level I could be:
11th level fighter
5th/6th level fighter/mage.
When you complain about the loss of level limits for the demihuman races, take a look at the other adjustment that was made - multiclassed demihumans are not overpowered now. This is why I don't think removing level limits was munchkin - the old level limits were there mostly to prevent abuse of multiclassing - which didn't matter for most campaigns anyway because you seldom hit the level cap. It also didn't make sense - how come an elven wizard who lives 1000 years can't be as good as the human wizard who lives 100? The elf has 10 times as long to study! There are inconsistencies in both, but I would point out that every change you seem to dislike came with another change to keep game balance intact within the game itself (meaning that 3e characters remain equivalent to each other, not that 3e characters remain equivalent to 2e characters).
"Answer me honestly, other than more hit points and an improved THAC0, what separates a 3rd level fighter from a 1st level fighter in 2e."
Humm... well how about Cleve, Power Attack...
Read again - I asked for the difference between a 2nd edition fighter at level 1 and level 3. 2e doesn't have Cleave, Power Attack, and so on. The answer is - there is only a THAC0 and a hit point difference. The fighter at 1st level is proficient in his 4 weapons and his 4 NWPs - and these don't improve at all two levels later. Let me take a more extreme example - a 1st level fighter and a 15th level fighter in 2e. The difference is (IIRC):
An improved THAC0
1.) More hit points
2.) Four extra weapon proficiencies
3.) One more attack per round
4.) Four more non-weapon proficiencies
And if the NWPs are applied to proficiencies he already has, the fighter gets a total of +4 to proficiency rolls. This is, IMO, not a big difference at all. You've accumulated a few million experience points and all you got was a lousy +4 to your Blacksmithing proficiency? It's amazing that 0-level blacksmiths with average ability scors are ever able to even create pots and pans!
Again, I would contend that compared to their high-level counterparts (excluding for a moment spellcasters who obviously gain in spell power), most 2e characters start knowing too much - simply because their knowledge/skill set does not improve appreciably with level. I fail to see how this is a good thing. For me, "knows too much at first level" means his skill set does not improve appreciably over time - he already knows everything he's going to know. This is my complaint with Palladium's games, and my complaint with 2e. In 3e, at least a character doubles his skill knowledge from 1st level to 5th level.
Feats are another thing entirely. You seem so focused on Feats, Feats, Feats. Keep in mind that most characters (read: not Fighters) get 7 Feats over their entire CAREER. And start with 1 at first level. Is the choice of a single special ability at first level a bad thing? I don't think so. Keep in mind that at first level, only a fighter (or a human because of their bonus feat) can have Cleave. And it's only good in certain *VERY* limited circumstances (if I hit and knock the baddie below 1 hp, I get one free attack at the guy standing next to him). Compared to the 1e "sweeping" rule (fighter gets 1 attack/level each round against monsters under 1 HD, hit or miss), this is hardly abusive.
I am interested in seeing exactly what your complaints are with the new system. Please don't say just "this is overpowered." Please say "this is overpowered because of ."
I have given you an example of how the multiclass system in 2e was, IMO, broken. Because at 1.1 million XP your multiclassing options are:
11th level fighter
10th level fighter / 11th level mage
Please explain why this is not unbalancing to the game. Then explain to me why Feats are unbalancing. There are two or three (Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave come to mind) that could be considered "excessive" but these come late in a "chain" of prerequisites - meaning that characters have to spend some feats on "worthless" skills to get these. Most Feats, IMO, seem okay - Toughness (+3 hp - NOT +3/level) is a nice touch for a low-CON wizard. Ambidexterity and Blind-fighting work better (to me) as Feats than as a Proficiency. Keep in mind that a Feat is supposed to be a "super-specialized skill" - i.e., something heroic.
Finally, as has been stated, it all boils down to opinion. I have tried to be as polite as possible and keep flames OUT of this post, so that we can have a rational discussion about the merits (and flaws) of both games - I don't claim 3e is perfect, and I'm guessing nobody claims 2e is perfect either. But let's examine our objections to 3e (or 2e) and see if we can't figure out why we like one system or the other. Trust me, I was one of the most vocal anti-munchkin voices on the WotC boards in the months leading up to 3e's release. So I have already gone through lots and lots of these "this is broken and this is why" discussions.
Looking forward to a discussion (not a flame war) on this subject...
:)
"Basically, the reason I like 3e is NOT the combat. I like it because Charisma actually MEANS something now. There is a codified skill set for trying to do non-combat tasks (Bluff, Gather Information, Diplomacy, etc.) - of course as a DM I can fudge stuff, but it's nice to have a system already in place."
That's funny - I've never needed these sorts skills. Charisma means something in my campaign - just like the other stats. A dwarven fighter with an intelligence of 6 isn't going to be devising any grand strategies - not if the player ever wants to earn experience - just like a half-orc with a charisma of 7 isn't going to be "diplomatic". No dice involved - just imagination, dialogue, and a logical continuation of the story-line by the DM. Want to "gather information"? Go to the freaking tavern and talk to the bartender. Role-playing took care of what now is just another roll of the dice.
Exactly. Bluff is the stupidest skill that 3E has come out with. If you read the description of how it works it is completely rediculous. Especially if you couple Bluff with a rogue's Sneak Attack. In the middle of combat the rogue can actually point behind a character and say, "Hey! Look at that!" The character then rolls a Sense Motive vs. the rogue's Bluff. If the character fails the rogue can then use Hide and then a Sneak Attack. I don't know how many times I have seen this happen over and over again. Charisma is a trait that should be role-played not roll played. I can see making a roll if you want to speed things up but please.
And speeding things up seems to be the entire back bone of 3E.
Just to let you guys know. I was at a convention last month looking for some deals on RPG Books. Every booth I went to I asked them for a book and they said that the guy from the "DarkSide Games" booth had bought them all up. I went there and he was selling all the books he had gotten from the other booths at full price or more! This guy sucks. his web sight is www.darkshade.com. I ask that you guys never buy form him. He ruined countless cons for lots of people. Thanks, A Fellow Gamer
3E D&D: PH 274 pages (of reconstituted garbage), $20; DMG 253 page (also reconstituted garbage), $20; Swords and Fists 94 pages (of useless info), $20; Psionics Handbook, 158 pages (more useless stuff), $20; who is WOTC kidding, their interest is ONLY bottom line, not product quality. Unfortunately WOTC does not care what it sells as long it sells something; this will be their demise.
Hi
Well if the 2nd edition become scarse with the advent of the 3rd Edition D&D, then nobody should be afraid of losing money...1st edition owners already know that...
In about 10 years crazy collectors looking for old rpg stuff will pay the price for any useless 2nd OOP Handbook!
The rpgs completists and gatherers are collecting a lot of stuff too...they represent a big % of the market...
Anything with AD&D or D&D printed on it will keep its value...!
The more editions there will be the higher the value of your old stuff will get...simple as that.
By the way all you need is A good setting lots of imagination some good friends a cool set of rules and thats it...
Forget that capitalist consumming propaganda.
ITS A GAME just have fun.
Just check EBAY
Outpost has it right on target! Amen brother Outpost! WoTC will burn the the land of sulfur and brimstone!!!
My answer to the 3rd edition D&D is :
I am going back to the my Cyclopedia (original D&D) using World Of Greyhawk Boxset as my setting
after 10 years away from the rpgs...
You know the time when all you need was a little set of rules, a good setting, 4 or 6 friends and lots of imagination... not money...and money...and supplements...and money..and supplements and other shit.
The DM was able to create HIS world even from a published setting, without being overwhelmed by tons of useless sourcebooks that were only serving one purpose: keeping a dying industry alive.
Of course that industry was weakened by the advent of the Card Games like Magic The CashFlowing...
Collectors, Completists and Gatherers were the people aimed by those money rippers not the roleplayers...peoplet using their imagination don't need such weak and boring stuff.
The Macdonald of the gaming industry.
If you cant beat them buy them...
Do you remember that quote:
TSR inc, products of your Imagination...
...it was a long time ago.
Stop whining. Please. D@D may have changed, but it is not as hard nor simple as you all put it. D@D was vey hard for me to understand under old rules. Such as the lower ac the better. It dosent even make any real sense. Plus, the bonus's and shit you get to hit them are simple. There ac is 20, you want to hit em. So, roll the d20, add your your strength bonus (if your strength was 18, you get plus 4 bonus or modafier as an example)and your level to the number rolled on the dice, and thats it. If the number total is 20 or higher, you hit. God, that was hard. Wow, i think i hurt myself. And did hear someone complain about the bonus's some items might add? Thats simple as well, a 1d10 basterd sword has enchantment +5, it simply means you get +5 to your attaxck roll to hit there ac. Then you whine about the reductions to will, reflex and fortatude saves. Why is it so bad to make things easyer?? I have played 2nd and 1st, and only on 3thrd have I had so many new players. They need it easy like this. Its still fun, and easy for people to comprehend. I own a game loft, and deal with 8-12 players a day with new ones comming in, this is good for them and okay for us. So relaxe!
Enough is enough. Yes the rules have changed. So? If you don't like the rules, don't use them. Is that so difficult to understand? I have played 2nd and 3rd edition, I find that 3rd is simply more fun. Who cares is a thief is a Rogue? Its a stupid name!!! Some of the articles make sense, but some are just plain stupid. You don't have to be offensive to state your opinion. I find the 3rd edtion system more refined and easier to pick up than the 2nd edtion. And yes, I agree that WotC should burn in hell. Besides, I need some company..........
And if you really wanna play a horrid (But fun) game, try out BattleCattle!!! MOOOOOOOO!!!!!! All power to the cows!!! And I would just like to say that Sigil is by far the most educated in this "rant". I wouldn't want to cross him in a debate on D and D.
Well I'd been looking for a 3E campaign for awhile and of all people, my wife found one! She met someone through work who had a game going with her husband and a friend and needed a couple more players. My wife games now and then but hasn't been an addict like me. Well we've been having fun and thats the most important thing. Partly because of the people we're playing with but also partly because I'm enjoying the new rules and she is finding them fun and easy... usually the thing that keeps her from gaming is the feeling that she has to study a 200+ page book or be lost. So all in all we're enjoying 3E. Is it better than other editions? I don't know. All I know is it is better for us.
Annoyed - That's why DND3 is perfect for little dummies like you.
DnD3, like every incarnation of DnD before it, is what you make of it. IMO, the system in and of itself is sleeker and more streamlined. But the particulars of which set of mechanics you prefer to play with are a matter of taste.
Starkus, I understand that you enjoy 2e, and I wish you the best in your games. However, saying that 3e is "DnD for dummies" is not only juvenile, it is also incorrect. The system runs a little more smoothly because there are fewer nuances and rules to remember.
But keep in mind that DnD (in any edition) is the vehicle by which you exercise your imagination. The set of rules that you use to do that is really trivial in the grand scheme of things. The ability to remember more minutia (such as how to calculate THAC0, memorizing all the thief ability tables, or knowing which weapons cause the most damage per round to a size L creature with a -3 AC) is NOT an indicator of intelligence. Otherwise, computers would be considered the most intelligent things on the planet.
Like any RPG, DnD is what you make it - I prefer a set of rules where I'm not constantly scrambling to remember what chart thus and such is on (and I **STILL** haven't heard anybody tell me what the odds are that a creature that normally surprises on a 1-7 on a d8 can surprise another creature that is only surprised on a 1 on a d12 - I honestly don't think you people even know).
The answer to the surprise question is, IIRC, 27%. But who wants to remember that the formula is: Square Root of (Supriser chance times suprisee chance), much less calculate it?
This is why I prefer 3e. Instead of a large number of mutually inconsistent systems (i.e., systems in which the world model changes depending upon what is being attempted), we are presented with one cohesive system that is the model for all facets of the fantasy world. Of COURSE it's not realistic. But then, neither is 2e! The point is, this is a FANTASY game - the system you use to model the world is going to have to oversimplify things (otherwise it would BE the real world) so you may as well make the system use the same model throughout.
And as for the title of "most educated ranter", that's a distinction that is kind of funny - it kind of means (to me) that "you're the guy who really should be writing something intelligent instead of ranting..."
I'm not worried about which system is a better model of the real world, because this is FANTASY. I'll take a somewhat oversimplified system that makes my job as DM a lot easier and allows me to focus on role-playing and story and leave those who want a brutally realistic game to quit playing D&D and go find a copy of the CHOP rules. Now THAT's realism...
Back onto the surprise question... I went back again and it's not Square Root but instead:
(Surpriser chance * Suprisee chance) * 3
So the 1 in 12 vs the 7 in 8 has a 21.875% chance (let's round to 22%).
But again, who really wants to remember this stuff?
SURPRISE ROLLS
It's really not the formula I gave above either - the one that *makes sense* as a strictly statistical model is the first one (with the square root) but of course it doesn't work for a creature surprised on a 1 on a d6. Why? Because even the surprise system itself is inconsistent.
Hmm... glaring statistical inconsistencies in 2nd edition rules.
This has NOTHING to do with the "flavor" of the rules (i.e., I'm not saying "I hate d20") and EVERYTHING to do with math...
Now, anyone want to try to set me straight here? What the heck **IS** that surprise chance? What is the formula to determine it? And why does the model keep changing? And if it keeps changing, does that not indicate a statistical flaw within the system itself?
Or is the formula just WAY too complex for me?
THIS is why I don't like 2e. Nobody can give me a quick answer to "what is the statistical model for determining surprise?" (Among other things).
And for those of you wondering, YES this series of three quick posts was deliberate - it shows how tough it is to use 2e because you can look the thing three times and get three answers.
At least in 3e I have a consistent statistical model - flat probability curves, 20 integers wide, which are shifted relative to a fixed point (a Saving Throw DC, for example) or each other (opposed Hide vs. Spot rolls for surprise) in some fashion. As you get better, your curve shifts upward on the absolute plane.
Hey, look kids, a consistent statistical model! And more importantly, one that is easily used.
Quantum mechanics is a great statistical model for computing the motion of the planets. But in general we use Newton's Laws.
Newton's Laws, like 3e, are rather oversimplified. But the beauty of it all is that they work pretty darn well to explain the universe and they're MUCH easier than quantum mechanics. That's why we still teach Newton's Laws. They are accurate enough to be useful and simple enough to make the effort of using them worth it.
And that's why I'm still playing 3e. Its rules are accurate enough to be useful while not requiring ungodly amounts of effort. In other words, unlike 2e, its statistical model is worth the pain of learning it.
Hmmm... Statistics, nice... That sounds fun to me. THAC0 is there for a coming of age??? What the ****??. It seems that someone has missed the plot. The essential part of RPG is roleplaying. If you want to do abstract equations buy a maths book! I have GM'd games for years and the biggest issue with a new player was THAC0. The next biggest was trying to remember whether they rolled under or over a number for a saving throw.
The new system has turned all the various equations for working out whether you have done something or not, into one. Roll a d20 and add some numbers to it. Those numbers tend to remain fairly constant allowing a player to quickly get used to the fact that to hit something they add 6 to their hit roll and 2 to their damage. Roll higher than x and you do your stuff.
As a GM it makes it easy to make an off the cuff desision on something unexpected the players want to do. The game has been simplified without restricting the choices players can make about their characters.
Rule 0 still works though. If you are so worried about having 9999999999999999999th level elves don't allow it! The rules only go up to 20th level anyway. Call your rogues that have a pickpocket rank of 20 and can climb any wall there is, thieves if you want to. Why should everyone stay in fixed roles, a ranger once and forever more. If that's what you want your character to be then fairplay, but if during play your character meets up with a rogue and they spend time together, things might rub off on each other and your ranger picks up a level of rogue.
If you have a GM worth their salt they wont let you just abitrarily add a level of monk to your rogue just because you want the unarmed strike. You'll need to justify where you got the knowledge from.
It's a roleplaying game people, you use the rules to let you adjudicate on decisions that need answers. They are there to steer you in the right direction, but no more. Play the character not the numbers, this isn't meant to be a maths lesson, but a chance to have a laugh with your mates, drink a few beers, take the p*** out of the stupid things people say and scoff pizza.
I apologise if I cause offence to anybody, but I just happened to stumble across this site and discovered a lot of people making a mountain out of something most people I have ever met try to shove into the background (ie the rules).
PS if the new game doesn't have the oojamaflip montser or magic item you love to death in the rules, convert it from the old system. You shouldn't need to leave anything out.
Hey, starkus, you fucking jerk, wake up. So what if mjg likes 3e, leave him alone. Just because he and his wife likes it, you gotta be an ass. Perhaps your just being a whine ass, because he can cope with the change and you can't. I like 3e as well, but i am no dummy. It has brought more people to my game loft than 1st or 2nd edition. New blood and old. So shut up.
Actually I think he was insulting someone else. Unless he was including us as part of the "dummies". Anyway, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I've played all the AD&D editions and was bored of it but 3E has made it new for me and since it has made it easier for my wife to play it is that much better. :)
I've been running a 3e campaign for about three months now, on a weekly basis, with players of various experience. Some of us have been playing since redbook D&D days.
There are a huge number of differences between 3e and 2e, which I can easily understand would confuse and frighten die-hard fans of 2e. At the same time, no system has revitalized our gaming group like 3e. It is advanced enough to accomplish ANYTHING that 2e can do, without feeling bloated, slow, or confusing. 99% of all player rolls (aside from damage) are a simple 1d20+mods against a target number. The multiclass system works, allowing players to flexibly customize their characters without becoming unbalanced. Whoever suggested that the new multiclass system is for munchkins obviously hasn't read the rules. You can't start as a fighter/mage/rogue/bard/cleric, you'd have to earn each level in each class, first.
The initiative system is customizable, but I find it works just fine as-is. Combat is fast and furious, yet flexible and more interesting than just hack&slash. Everyone, even fighters, has many more options in combat. In our last session, we played out nearly 20 rounds of combat with 4 players, 2 npcs, and 16 enemies in under a half hour. Let's see 2e do that.
There are a huge number of differences between 3e and 2e, which I can easily understand would confuse and frighten die-hard fans of 2e
Instead of confuse and frighten I would more say annoy and sicken..
As far confusing goes... 3D (Dummies) is anything but confusing...
Just my nickle's worth here. (Hey, I'm not cheap =))
In my opinion, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was remarkable. I started playing when I was 8, and haven't stopped (though it's difficult to find good DMs and players anymore). In fact, I once played in a world where the rules of the original Dungeons and Dragons, first edition, and second edition of AD&D were 'merged'. That was fun, let me tell you. (rolls eyes)
Anyway, after reading some of the improvements of the 3rd edition, I was much like some of the die hards out there...outraged. Armor class goes up, not down?! THAC0 works how? The name may as well have been called 'Dasies and Daffodiles'. But, with every disadvantage, there is also an advantage. (If you haven't learned that by now from playing AD&D, wake up!) First off, much like sequels to long forgotten movies and TV series, it will draw attention to the older versions (including D&D, first edition, and second edition AD&D). No one can say that's a bad thing. Also, I like the idea of not limiting races to specific classes (although I think limiting levels on demi-human characters should stay in effect, at least in multi-class characters). Until now, I always played human because you never had to worry about what classes you could be.
I've already bored most of you by now, but my personal belief is this: "If you don't like it, don't use it. If you think you can do better, do it!" And a lot of the times, I modify the 2nd edition core rules to make a unique world for DMs (and myself, when I choose to DM).
I won't be using the 3rd edition rules anytime soon. They seem too unintelligent to make an effective game. I don't have a hardbound copy of any 2nd edition books anymore (dead-beat friends), but I have a digitized copy, so I'm okay for now. I suggest the rest of you who are avid lovers of 2nd edition either stick with it, voice your opinions to people who can actually -change- the course of the game, create your own game worlds (publishling them online would be nice, too), or accept the 3rd edition rules as they stand. I don't see any other options that don't waste people's time and grate on other's nerves.
Just my nickel's worth of course. =)
I run a 3E game and my players love it. Most of the 9 players in my group have been playing for a minimum of 15-20 years. All of us had pretty much quit playing AD&D with the 2ed, and went off to discover GURPS, Cyberpunk, TOON (there's an obscure one for the crusties like me), and other games. The new rules have all of us enjoying Dungeons and Dragons again. None of us love WOTC, but we have a game that is both new and reminds us of our first games in the 70's and 80's.
After months of flames, my original, simple questions remain unanswered:
What's the chance of a 7 in 8 surpriser surpising a 1 in 12 surprisee?
More importantly, if "change is bad and evil and we shoul leave things alone," why the h*** are you playing 2e instead of using the original early-70s Chainmail rules?
All of you, "we shouldn't change 2e" believers, listen to your argument! By your own argument, that we shouldn't change what worked, we should still be stuck on Chainmail. No 2e. No 1e. Not even oD&D! You folks are nothing if not hypocritical...
If you like playing 2e better than 3e, that's fine. But you didn't call for TSR to keep producing 1e material when it switched to 2e. You didn't call for TSR to keep producing D&D material for the "Known World" when it switched the D&D world into 2e for AD&D's Mystara (one of the worst things, IMO, ever to happen to that world). You didn't call for more "Chainmail" supplements. You didn't ask for more Star Frontiers or Boot Hill or Gamma World books. In other words, you don't want TSR/WotC to support all of its "dead systems" that have fans and that are good systems. You want it to support ONLY the particular system that you happen to like. In other words, you are *not* idealistic and committed to preserving excellence in gaming. You are simply selfish. And your flinging of labels like "dummy" at supporters of the new system makes you come across not only as selfish, but spoiled as well.
And those of you that are hurling swear words at those who like 2e need to grow up as well. Just because someone likes a different system than you do does not mean you have to try to villify them.
Thus far, the only truly *useful* suggestion I have seen has been to create and publish stuff for whatever system you like - 2e, 3e, GURPS, or whatever. The best way to get new material is to create it yourself, and none of us, I think, is going to change WotC's mind one way or the other.
Starkus, on a personal note, I wish you the best in your 2e campaigns. I will enjoy my 3e campaigns. And I will continue to publish 3e material because that is a system I like (I have already gone through my reasoning for preferring a consistent statistical system so I won't repeat it here), and look to see some of your 2e plot ideas so I can "steal" them and adapt them to 3e for my campaign (I hope you will do the same to my stuff for 3e).
With that, I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion thread altogether. I think all the points have been made, all the flaming and ranting is done, and it's time to stop wasting our time here and get out and create for whatever system we prefer to use.
Ok you guys whene I was just starting out in AD&D I played 2ED and it was confusing and I dedent quite get it but sence I changed to 3ED I do fine and I know what to do insted of asking my team mates all the time. I persnaly think it is better.
Umm i don't mean to interupt any fights going on or anything but why exactly is everyone so against the complete books. I think there interesting. I play 2 ed but we graft rules from other editions in. We have fighters in second edition who are fun to play even at (gasp) high levels because we put thought into our chaacters we roleplay them. I dm and play and personally i just like 2nd edition more because i'm used to it. oh and sigil a 1 is the only way a 1 in 12 is ever surprised so it is a .o83 repeating three. or an 8 and 1/3 %
oh and that percentage is rolled on a 12 sided sorry for the possible confusion. Because since a 1 in 12 surprises it doesn't really matter what dye you use
To be frank, I still think that nothing compares to the old AD&D. The second Edition was truly a waste of money. With so many add-ons to the basic rules one would surely lose himself.
Though I like the 3rd Ed. I do think that there are major problems with the system.
This system is related only to Power Gaming. How does someone go into real (and I do mean REAL) roleplaying when all of his feats are based solely to make him/her a better combattant.
This is no RPG, this is a basic hack-and-slash game. Yes, the dice system is good and easy to use. Yes, they have kept some of the flavor of the D&D game, but the fact of the matter is.... this is no roleplaying game.
End of rant.
Whatever Phil. 2ndEd was a clarification of the 1st edition rules. They were necessary to really get things organized. 3E is a new game entirely. The fact of the matter is this.
3E sucks and so do people who play it.
3 ed BITS THE DUST second ed is so sweet it isnt fuuny percentiles for theiveing skills makes MUCH more sense than roll a d20 and there is a DC to the chance. my friend and i bought the 3ed converted a FEW of the feats into profiencys a few monk skills into our own monk class and burned the book. 3ed is horrid and evil, in second ed everything is fun and there are so many more books for 2ed anyways. besides in 3ed everything is a lot easier to do anyways like damage is a LOT higher in 3ed than 2ed, the standardizing d20 roll is horried percentiles and d10s are much more fun to play around with than DCs and other crap
I agree that many people enjoy the new 3ed rules.. I personally don't. That's not the focus of this post. What irks me is that the monumental changes to the system makes it such a different game calling it D&D is simply wrong. Yes, you can roleplay with 3e, but the mechanics and focus on feats make it far more apt to fall into the evil grips of power-gaming. Not to say thats what an experienced gamer such as Sigil would do... it's his campaign. Obviously he's RPG savvy enough to know that D&D is primarily Role-Playing. However people whose first exposure to D&D is 3E will not be that savvy. They will see this system (the only published line of D&D or AD&D) and use this set of rules as their base-line for their role-playing experience for many years to come.
That is what pisses me off about WOTC. True they are a money making buisness. However gaming(and RPG'ing in particular) is an industry unto itself, unlike any other. They plucked up Dungeons & Dragons and molded it how they saw fit. No questions asked. They know that their system will sell to whatever pre-teen/teen age demographic they aimed for... thats how this system was designed. Their lack of respect for the very customers they cater to truly sickens me.
I love to play Paper and Desc top RPG's D&D is the all time clasic, no matter how much they have changed on the 3rd ED its still D&D no other game will ever be able to match its gameing, true there are a lot more out there that are good such as BUG HUNTERS, VAMPIER THE APOCILIPS, exe. but this is still dungens and dragons, the problem I have being a DM is keeping my table, thats what I call my groop of players, keeping my table happy and still burning to play each weekend, the start of summer and the end of this school year I'm going to through a feest with my players, this will be a midevil dinner with all the trimmings, and we shall all dress up in CHR and eat after that we play the first game of the summer, but I need to keep fresh ideas like that, if you could write me back and help me with any ideas you may have I would be mose gteat full. Thank you for the time you took to write and make this page and I bid you a good day. "Hail to the king baby" (Bruce Camble)
Zok...
You are insane, Zok. Seek help.
Look Mommy, the geeks are fighting!
Stay away from the cage, honey!
It's just a game! Would you criticize a car company for coming out with a new model just to make money? If you don't like the 3E, don't play it. It's not like 2e wasn't stagnant in a pool of stupid ass PHB supplements. And that was before Wizards decided to pick it up, brush off the crap, polish it, and give it a new coat of paint. So quit bitching about the new game. Brainwash yourself into believing it doesn't exist. Just don't come to me when THACO....
You know people its quite simple. Do what you want to do. I didn't like, so I stopped playing 3E. I went back to 2E. A friend of mine like some of it, so he uses it & incorporates 2E rules in place of the parts he doesn't like (inititive for example) and yet another friend loves it & has gone completely to it. It's that simple. Do what you want to do.
3rd adition sucks they took 2nd and slotterd it to the point i have my hole party lobbying bookstores for having it! What realy sucks though is i have to bend over backward to find 2nd!!
Third ediition clarifies and makes for an easier system.
3E sucks and so do people who play it.
the point is that your all offering your own point of views, everyone is entiteled to there own points and thats what makes this addition (3e) to the dnd series a plus. it gives people the choice of what they like best, you play what you want to. Im sure not everyone will agree on what the best rpg is for playstaion etc.. so why should we all agree or disagree that 3e is the best or worst. some ppl will like it some wont. who cares you play what you want cause its what you like and thats that.. why bother trying to point out why you like one system over anouther when its just your opinion...
a theif in d2 after so many level = a ninja if practiced enough correct? THEN HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY THEY THEY CANT FIGHT?? PPL GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS D3 SUX D2 RULES.....its so sad that you ppl need things simplafied for you.......the makers of d3 need to stick to card games..........one
A phrase comes to mind I heard several years back:
AD&D is like MS-DOS, It sucks but everybody uses it.
Still: a lot of people now pine for MS-DOS.