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.
My sentiments exactly GhostGamer.
"Vive la difference" and long live fantasy RPG's
I and my players happen to like the combat system of 3rd ed. with some house rules applied to initiative of course, however I am unsatisfied by the look I get when I tell my players that to create that magic item that they want they need to remove the XP they have justly earned. Faces get even more friendly when we play in the Rokugan campaign setting where every time you practice a kata you loose the treasured XP. I need a solution to this problem. A friend of mine and fellow DM said that he has a similar system to the Psi points he uses in his games to take care of this problem and having not talked to him in a while or viewing the psionics handbook(my players aren't into crazy psychics) I need advice. Please contact me at my e-mail address If you have any bright ideas.
Fur Gott und D&D.
Heres a solution, play Hackmaster :)
3rd Ed. Reich Commander : ....unsatisfied by the look I get when I tell my players that to create that magic item that they want they need to remove the XP they have justly earned.
Nephandus:
That's an easy one! If they get upset, then they should find magic items in the dungeon the hard way, instead of making them. You don't pop these things out of an Easy Bake oven. If you don't make them pay in some way that hurts, they will quickly arm themselves and the party to the teeth with magical gear. The XP payment is the only thing that keeps this in check. Fiddle with it at your own risk. (Same with initiative - which works wonderfully in the 3e unchanged).
I started playing around 1990 I have played D&D all the way up to AD&D 2nd edition, my favorite roleplaying game of all times. I have been out of the game since 97' and now Im looking to get back in...so I bought D&D 3.0 and then a few months later...boom edition3.5 comes out...AHGHRR!!! What do I do. Should I stick to AD&D 2nd edition or is it worth it to keep moving along with their upgrades. (I think Wizards of the Coast are just trying to make a buck..I dunno) Please let me know what you all think.
Carlos, read upward in this thread all arguments have been used ad-nauseam for all positions on the subject at hand.
150$ each... 5 years isn't that high a price to pay for a hobby all things considered. Still cheaper than console or PC gaming.
I think that Mr. Carlos is a fool not to buy 3.5. The entire combat system has been redefined, the rules have been balanced, the monsters have been adjusted. It's such an improvement over the old 3.0. However, there's no need to throw 3.0 out. There is some great material in those old sourcebooks, too, you know.
Olly wrote: 'There is some great material in those old sourcebooks, too, you know.'
Amen... such as the rules for clerics of non-human races. I still refer to the 3E rules when running my cleric (an Elf... he's a cleric of Corellon Larethian, and my favorite character to run) since 3.5 assumes all clerics will be human or *maybe* half-Elven.
That is annoying, Arin. I hate that assumption. In my campaign, I make sure that any race can be any class they like, except in some circumstances (gnome barbarians, anyone? Howsabout goblin wizards?)
Why not wait 2 more years and buy 4.0?
Or 4 years and buy 4.5?
or 6 years and buy 5.0?
When will this stop. WotC did the same thing with the D20 Star Wars System.
Why can't WotC just put out one book with the corrections for all of their manuals?
Because they want to make money!
I'm giving up on the D20 system! I already own these books and I'm not going to rebuy them a year after I've owned them.
Arin
Where do you get that? All clerics are human or 1/2 elven? WTF?
Sure a multiclassed elven cleric that isn't part wizard will be rarer than the human equivalent. But single classed clerics shouldn't be. Is this because of the suggested starting packages? They're like templates for lazy players or for one nighters, they don't mean anything.
Oh and Meat Wagon all the changes are available for FREE on the OGL section of their site. So much for money grabbing huh.
If they did it your way, other people would go: Why do I have to buy all the basic books then another book that says all different.
Hello.
I am looking for what would amount to an interactive online Hex battleboard that could be used in an online group chat environment. Ultamately, the DM (GM) could point and click little icons into hexes to represent the movement of characters and NPCs. The board would only need to be update accessable to the DM, while all players would be able to see it.
Has anyone seen anything like this?
I read Monte Cook's review of 3.5.
I'm wondering now if Hasbro has killed their golden goose by issuing a new core rules set with some substantial changes in it. I haven't purchased it, and I haven't written anything for it either now. The square facing rules seem - odd, rather than allowing for rectangular ones, and the weapon sizes now seem screwed up, going by Monte Cooke's review (you can see it on his website). I don't begrudge a company's desire to make money at all - but changing the game this much, and so soon - for no apparent benefit - perplexes me, since it jeopardizes their core following. Are the changes good? Do they make it better or easier to play?
I'm also a bit put off by Hasbro's replication of TSR's fatal flaw - endless source books (of dubious quality), with little in the way of actual game support. How much of that source book material actually makes it into play? I'd wager less than 1%!!! So they crank out all these books, while offering poor quality modules and campaigns. I realize they make more money out of an expensive book that everyone buys vs a cheap module that only one person buys, but perhaps they could have examined that pricing model (and what you get for your money) with a bit more imagination. I remember in the old days - Tomb of Horrors was a must-play for every party, and largely because it had some simple line drawings in it. Imagine what could be done today with photo-realistic rendering software. Imagine having a photograph of every room and character.
I dunno folks, I can see the posts dwindling here, and I'm wondering if they just did too much too soon.
Overall, I give 3.5 a big thumbs-up.
I've been fed up with class- and level-based systems for years, and especially with D&D.
When 3.0 came out, I was forced to reevaluate my hatred of all things D&D.
Over time, I began to notice "broken" aspects of 3.0. 3.5 has addressed most of these.
The jury in my group is still out on the new weapon sizing rules, and the facing rules *are* silly. But I think the incorporation of many useful feats from the secondary source books (such as Song & Silence, Sword & Fist, etc.), as well as most of the better prestige classes, into the core rules was a very good call.
Some of the CRs have been changed, also resulting in more accurate encounter planning. This, in addition to the expanded use of monster templates, has made the Monster Manual a much better book.
As far as Hasbro and its golden goose goes...call me selfish, but I really don't care. I've followed fringe and out-of-print games for decades. Give me a good ruleset or setting any day; dozens of pre-made modules are nice when you can get them, but it's the game itself that really matters.
I thought I'd go read the review myself.
Monte says that house rules will become increasingly popular, and that is my feeling as well. But I'd argue that this is because D&D is too specific: no matter what anyone says, the game does not exist independently from its own implicit setting. The rules focus less on *how to do things* and more on *how things are done*. So, for example, D&D doesn't tell you how to design a prestige class; it just gives you a number of prestige classes to choose from.
In campaign after campaign, I've found that many of the existing D&D mechanics either didn't work in or were inappropriate to particular aspects of the setting I wanted to use.
When I start working on a new D&D campaign, the first thing I find myself doing is reviewing the rules and hammering out some setting-specific house rules. I'm doing this right now as I gear up for my first 3.5 campaign as a DM.
I'm sorry if I sound like a cultist or a broken record, but I just don't have to do that with GURPS. When I set up a GURPS campaign, all I have to worry about is which of the available rules I want to use. Every modification to a GURPS rule I've ever used was suggested by somebody with extensive experience playing the game - usually a designer, playtester, or long-term GM.
---Cocytus said:---
When I start working on a new D&D campaign, the first thing I find myself doing is reviewing the rules and hammering out some setting-specific house rules.
---And---
When I set up a GURPS campaign, all I have to worry about is which of the available rules I want to use.
---- ----
Maybe it is just me, but qualitatively these two activities sound very similar. In each case you are deciding what parts of the ruleset you will use, and what parts you will not. You may also be ADDING incremental rules to D&D, which maybe you don't have to in GURPS if you have enough source books at your disposal. Though I imagine you buy enough d20 stuff you could wind up in a similar place with 3.5 (I'm not certain, since I own no 3.5 or d20 stuff personally).
Now it is really easy to do that sort of rules paring in GURPS, since it is designed to be generic, it's ability to be tailored to a specific GM setting is one of it's strengths.
One of D&D's strengths is that it comes with setting, so if you want that setting, you can play it with very little rules paring at all.
They are supposed to be different. And don't feel bad about sounding a bit cultish, I think we all understand that is because GURPS works better for the game YOU like to play. So you have a slight preference is all, it's not like you're a raging GURPS fanboy or a D&D hater or anything.
John
With respect, John, they're not too similar. With D&D I find that I must often invent or modify existing rules. With GURPS, I'm just poring through the books and taking what I need.
For example, say it is critical in a certain setting that Elves sleep instead of going into a trance as the Player's Handbook describes. This makes the elvish immunity to sleep magic nonsensical (and just why do some races seem so broken in D&D, anyway?), but in order to take the ability away from elves, I have to figure out something else to replace it - something preferably of similar power level.
When you get to modifying core classes, the situation grows even messier.
In GURPS, I simply assemble the advantages and disadvantages of the race in question, total the point cost to play the race, and boom, I'm done.
Cocytus,
I agree, the further you want to move from the core setting, the better off you are using another game. And GURPS can be used to run almost anything.
But don't worry, I am sure there will be an obscure PDF d20 product with a sleeping elves setting published any minute now, so you'll be able to just use that. After all, with the advent of the OGL, d20 will offer every gamer everything that they coul ever need.:)
Yeah, 'cause I'm gonna publish it!
;)
Nuts,
To get back on topic for awhile. Rabbitman wrote this as a lament on the Demise of D&D and I agree with him. 2E mostly ironed out all the problems of 1E (which was pretty good anyway) and all you had to do was add a few houserules.
As far as I am concerned 3E missed the point of a real upgrade. It should only have proposed rule changes which added to enjoyment and realism, not unnecessary changes like removing THAC0 and adding feats. All these changes do is replace one perfectly adequate system with another. They add nothing to the enjoyment, realism etc, and are no more than a money-spinning exercise.
And thats what its all about. After a few years, the market gets saturated with people who have all the books and you need a big gimmick to sell the same stuff over again.
Ah for crying out loud let it go you bunch of whiners.
2E is gone, finished, terminé, caput, muerté, terminada, dasvi dania, adieu.
Get on with your lives folks. Play hackmaster, keep your house rules or change game and move one.
All I know is that the system is way easier to grasp now which means a larger player pool to choose from and in the long run a greater financial viability for the hobby as a whole.
There's plenty of other games to play out there, take your pick.
It's funny, Mohammed, that you should pick as pointless changes two of my favorite things about 3d Ed: the addition of feats, which I really dig (hey....there's actually a good reason to play a fighter now!), and the removal of that #&%#^#@@*%@ THACO. =)
ok ok I guess its time to move on, and probably there have been some improvements.
Just Remember I didn't surrender. They took my horse from me and made him surrender. Have him pulling a wagon in a 3E campaign I bet.
But what I said about commercialism was correct also. Mark my words, you will be buying 4E in a few more years.
Mo (last of the Holdouts)
On that at least we can agree. In a few years 4E will probably come around. I might buy it, or not, I'll see then.
I don't have a problem with people making money from providing a service or product that I enjoy. Obviously, there is some level of exhange there that isn't entirely one-sided.
I DO suspect that they didn't wait long enough for the substantial changes they introduced into 3.5. Kind of like issuing a new version of a gaming console only 2 years after the initial release. The more someone invests in the core books and sundry products for 3.0, the more the shift hurts them. The cycle was too fast, and so has hurt their most loyal customers.
From a business standpoint, I think it was a mistep. I'll think twice about buying anything else in their library now. Big changes should have been reserved for 4th edition.
Still Neph
The rules for rangers and paladins didn't work well, which made people use supplements, optional or house rules. (Though they could have been incorporated in the complete warrior's handbook).
Challenge ratings were often wrong (which meant the GM had to tweak them)
Attacks of Opportunity needed some work (though they weren't problematic)
Some spells were broken (though that could have been changed in a supplement on magic)
I don't know if it's soo wrong. It's just we were used to TSR changing editions every decade or so, which to my taste was a bit too long (especially between first and second edition)
I think he's right that it was just plain bad as a business decision. Games Workshop did something similar with its Epic game by changing the miniature scale along with a major rules overhaul. Many people, such as myself, who had invested hundreds of dollars in Epic abruptly stopped playing, and the new, improved Epic never took off.
I have no pity for Hasbro/Wizards, just as I had none for GW. If you screw your following, intentionally or not, then you're taking your chances with your profits.
It doesn't matter to me whether Hasbro takes a hickey for this decision or not. They've got a good design team, but then they had one before, and its former members (such as Monte Cook) are still out there producing game material.
I could care less whether Hasbro sinks or swims on the basis of this or any other business misstep. D&D is healthier now than I can remember it ever being, even in the heyday of Gygax and co. It's reached a wide audience, and I think it's achieved a cultural critical mass. It's here to stay.
As for its future? I'll greet new editions the way I have greeted the others: by keeping what I like and discarding what I don't.
Looks like this discussion is dead, but, I wanted to say something on this matter.
The original creation of D+D was one of inspiration. Third edition is one of commercialization(sp?).
Enough said.
"Enough said" must be the most ironic (and often most arrogant) statement ever to be inflicted on a BBS.
3e DnD is a vast improvement over previous editions, for reasons stated previously.
Neph,
You said that like it was gods own truth. You could have added 'Enough said'.
=)
By the way, 'Enough said' can also be used in a non arrogant way, to say that all sides of a debate have been thouroughly aired, and further discusion is unlikely to be profitable.
Mo
amen to that
Nuff Said : D
Agreed.
'Nuff said.
Mo, everything I say will always sound like God's own truth. It's my opinion, and I expect others to challenge it. I'm not the type to string a train of disclaimers and asterisks behind my statements. People will take what they need and object to the rest. :^)
I'd give him this one - and that is that 3.5 appears to be motivated first by profit - or rather, since profit isn't such a bad thing ... Short term profit appears to have made the game less sustainable in the long run. That coming from people who were on the inside when 3e was developed - especially Monte Cooke.
Say what you want about 3e - whether you like it or not, it's hard to miss the level of care and effort that went into it - if you read the interviews. Those people really cared about what they were doing. Hell, they even playtested betas. It's a shame the same effort didn't go into the copyediting of the first print.
I don't really get the same sense from the 3.5 group. I still haven't bought it, and maybe I won't. Not sure. Might just wait for 4e.
From what I see, you simply haven't adapted.
Why change something that works? -Because it works for you, but I haven't played that much AD&D (but alot of D&D) and the THAC0 thing is confusing.
All the calculations you have to make concerning AC and tohit in 3e is written down, so you have and it rarely changes that much.
It's some time since you wrote this, so hopefully you've seen the cool thing about some of the changes (and mourn the complete lack of other things, like me). Called shot, where art thou!
I have found my mecca!!
How long I have searched the web for a small group of people that recognizes that 3E is practically worthless. Before anyone starts, I tried, bought the books, and worked hard to like the system. I just could not tolerate what WOTC had done to the game.
I am also a hopeful indie game publisher, attempting to design something that a least a few people may want to try. In this, I post a lot, and for some reason, 3E fans get very bitter and upset at the mere challenge of their system. I have several reasons I can not stomach the latest edition, but when I attempt to even have a modest conversation, 3E fans always seem to be angry at even the mention of anything other than 3E.
But for those of you who stand up and say 3E IS INSANE, I SAY, POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!
ANYTHING BUT 3E!!
WWW.bloodandstone.com
You know, I hate gamers like you! You practice your freedom of speech only to down others who do as well. I have played and run virtually every RPG on the market as well as published a few of my own. All games have something worth praising. Sad to say all 3D has is its outstanding artwork. I was open minded to the arrival of the new and "improved" Dungeons and Dragons as I have been a game master for inumerable years. Sadly 3D was a big-build-up with no go under the belt. I have since reverted back to 2nd edition where I have several tightly Knit and loyal guilds of players. The D20 system is a marked achievement and I will warrant that it is enjoyable. But, the theme remains. If it aint Broke DONT FIX IT!!!! I weep for the loss of TSR. You want money hungry? Do your research and get your facts straight before attempting to castrate the tried and true. It is WotC that is gloried green not our mighty fallen! Want to argue furthur then post another mouthful and I will respond in kind with a digital photo of my old writing contract with TSR emblazed across the top. I, for one, know of what I speak.
honestly do you belive that third editon is bad then well youre a true nut case. but then a gin youre devoted to the old rules that apply to ad&d and 1st edition. truely people were waiting for a reveloution for the game so that way every one can understand it. truely it dont make any since to get armor to mare youre armor class lower to get hit then have to roll under 0 that makes absolutly no since well that would just make a charecter invincible. with thirds ac class all you reall do is add the armor bonus and the dex mod then add then and in a basis thats yorue armor class then for makeing armor class to attack you roll d20 add strength and weapon mods and see if you hit the ac o above of you do sucscess full hit a lot simpler than the thaco which is what makes no since if wotc stayed with that then there wouldnt be this mass explosion of the game dungens and dragons. more peopl eare playing now since th erulls have been seriously simplyfied and made for the newer centry. the game is better more so now that it was no one can reallyl argue with that. any one that dose is wraped up in th eold and not willing to accept the new. then agin feats are the same as proficiencies their just called some thing diffrent. also there are more charecters to play int he thried edition that there is in the ad&d and 1st edition. the rulls for dungens and dragons now is so versatile that llitterally any thing can be done with the game now and done eaisly.
so bit a peice of this one off with flames chew on it and see where that goes. foe the wrath of fire has spoken.
I found this string while searching for some D&D stuff, and so I read through a bunch of it. I have seen a lot of viewpoints from both sides of this. I myself have tried 3E and I thought it was a sacrilage(however it's spelled). I can understand how after so long a system can become redundant, that changes need to be made. But the fact remains that the changes should have been much more subtle.
On the subject of how a player can make an uberpowerful character with eighteen different classes, I think that the notion of all the classes for a single character is completely asinine. I mean really, giving a player the ability to have so many different classes(and no level limits)is only an attempt to appease the players who want to have the uberpowerful character, which is not what D&D is about. It would upset the game balance, except for the fact that now everyone has an uberpowerful character, and in turn the DM has to make the monsters accordingly powerful to make sure the game isn't boring, hacking through hordes of monsters with their umpteenth level characters does in fact get boring when there is no real threat. so why not just keep everything the same?
There should be a limit to who can be what class, and what stats you have to have for certain classes. If there are no limits, it makes the class less special. And I remember that somewhere along the line, someone said something about why does a paladin have to be pretty? Evidently someone doesn't know what it means to be charismatic. And obviously the creators of 2nd edition saw their problems with categorizing physical appeal into charisma, and hence the optional rule int he DMG regarding the Comeliness attribute. A paladin needs a high charisma because they are supposed to be leaders. Leaders need to be charismatic, or else very few people will listen to them.
Also, a paladin has high ideals, they are upholders of good, which is probably why they wouldn't go well as multiclassed with a a thief. It stands to be pretty obvious that most paladins (unless they're evil paladins) probably dont value thievery as a great virtue.
However, I cant dispute that there probably are some good things that I have overlooked, as usually there are some. But it is a completely different system, and a bastardization of the game. However, the ship for 2nd edition has already sailed. Its reign has fallen like the Roman empire. 3E is like the age of kings. But one day soon, we will hit a renaisance period where just as they looked to the ancients and brought back new philosophies, we will go back to the high age of 2nd edition.
We just have to wait.
this is a pretty good thing, i agree with you that 2nd addition is the best version that gyagax invented... i dont think i spelled his name right. Im a good player and i play dungeons and dragons every other day, i havent made one of my characters live past 10 though do to my brothers "killer dungeons"
I read "There should be a limit to who can be what class" and the DM can set that limit, however keep an open mind that if you think about it there is always going to be the chance that a goblin will be a wizzard or a gnome will be a barbarian.
In the case of a paladin needing to have charisma, most of them do. Most players make them that way because charisma is what most of the paladins class abilities and skills are based off of. Though i could see a paladin that doesn't speak so well being a little silly, it could happen.
I know some people who play 3E or even 3.5E like to bend the rules to make powerful characters, but I know in the group I play with we put more enfluence on the role playing. Sure dungeon delving is fun, but a plot that moves the story along is a must have.
Last thing i have to type is rule one of the whole game, whether its 1E or 3.5E:
"what the DM says, goes"
No matter what the rule, what he says goes.
Last thing i have to type is rule one of the whole game, whether its 1E or 3.5E:
"what the DM says, goes"
No matter what the rule, what he says goes
very true i run 3E i have a friend that runs 2E and if you are a crap DM no matter what your set of rules people wont enjoy.
P.S as the books say these are only a base set of rules! run the game your way and be happy dont allow stupid amounts of multiclassing if you dont want them in your campaign its really that simple!
Dear Friends,
I am glad to see that this forum is still alive and well, and that the conversation is exactly the same a when I left.
I found this site many years ago when the switch from 2nd edition to 3rd edition was undergoing its metamorphosis.
I agree with some of you that this change was made out of basic greediness of the Wizards of the Coast Company and I fear for the games survival.
The main problem with the two version are the generations that created them.
When Gary Gygax created the original versions of the games, his models for the characters were from books such as lord of the rings and the chronicles of narnia. These were realistic characters with real life types of limits in regard to their powers.
When the 3rd edition was made the basis for the powers of the characters were superhuman type characters like those seen on Animi. Characters that can kill off whole armies with swords and spin in a circle killing all around them.
I guess if you wish to play such characters that is your own prerogative. I fail to see how the lack of challenge will keep the next generation of players at the table. I have played for 16 years and with the same 1st and 2nd edition rules still find the magic and love for the game as I had as the first game I played.
The new version plays like a video game, which is what the creators were probably looking for. More Powers, More Feat:Kill, Kill, Kill! That is what they want. Role Play is dead. I have played with 3 groups and they were all the same.
When the change between the two systems were underway, gamers would point out the sheer amount of books that 2E had. " Look at all those books, its ridicules! 3E is only going to come out with 3 books a month.". Look at it now. I literal SEA of 3E material is at your hands. Books on Elves, Dragons, Magic Item construction and more and more are put out every day.
How are you to keep track of all these feat and skills as a dungeon master? A player could choose skill and mix and match from all these books and make an unkillable character, I've seen it done.
Also, the second edition lasted for 13 years before this change. 3E lasted only 3 years before 3.5 was made. All their books for the last 3 years were rebought by the same suckers who bought them the first time.
BUT THERE IS HOPE!!!! For those of you content with buying and rebuying the same books over and over:..have at it, but for the rest of you I have two works HACK MASTER.
Hackmaster is made by Kenzerco, the creators of the Knights of the Dinner Table Comic Book and the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting.
Kenzerco has bought the rights to the 1st and 2nd edition rules and has made a improved system based upon those old rules. IT IS NOT A JOKE GAME! CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY SAY!
No more skill, feats, millions of dule classing, or billions upon billions of books.
The best part is ALL your old 2E books are interchangeable with this system. Nothing needs to be changed.
So give it a look at www.kenzerco.com
also check out my web site @
http://psychogamers.tripod.com/
I just think that 3rd ed. Pratically destroyed the gaming world of Dungeons and Dragons. To a cleric being able to use a crossbow to all the severe complexity of all the combat. They try to make it as real as possible, but what is the true fun out of that?
I have been playing dungeon and dragons since 1978, (yea I know, I am an old timer). I have played dungeon and dragons, advance dungeon and dragons, 2nd edition and 3rd edition.
There is good things in all of them, but also some cons, which comes with the territory.
3rd edition: Pros: cap is not 25 anymore and you get one stat point every three rounds.
Cons: Attack of opportunity: This has to be the lamest rule I have ever heard of, but since there is a few people that I play with, enjoys it. I just turn it back on them, because only fighters get to use it. (some monsters are classed fighters too, hehe.)
2nd edition: To me it has to be the best dungeon and dragons so far and yes, I will miss tsr.
Pros: You dont have to be that bright in math to have a good time, highest thaco is 20, and the lowest armor class is -20. 1 is a miss always and 20 is always a hit.
Cons: Vague on some spells abilities.
But here it is in a nut shell people: Dungeon and dragons rules are not cemeted in stone and those people who dare not create some colorful aspects of the game, needs to get a life. Dungeon and dragons as a whole was a game to stretch the imaginations and if you are a book player, you are not using the tool that d&d was meant to work.
After reading the post that all have gave, everyone has a good argument. It all boils down to the same ole thing (Different strokes for different folks).
Dungeon and dragons to me is a game that friends can play and have fun. Keep the drugs out and alcohol and you can have a very fantastic imagination game.
As for me and my group, we have taken some things from all and incorporated house rules. as a suggestion, I would recommend all do to do house rules so that everyone that you play with, will not be in the dark, but will have fun. My group, not just the DM has came up with the house rules and it works out just fine. I hope that everyone that plays Dungeon and Dragons (no matter the edition), keeps it fun and mind stretching. May you find your creative side and may you and your friends have a blast.
You'd be hard-pressed to make that argument looking at the sales figures.
DnD (and D20) didn't destroy the gaming world of Dungeons and Dragons... they saved it. And by doing so, saved the whole RPG industry.
If it weren't for all the soldiers sent to Iraq, we'd be in the middle of a huge RPG renaissance.
Just read through most of this, and it's all very interesting. I'm glad I've found quite a lot of people who don't like 1st Ed. WOTC (I can't call it DnD cause it's not).
Three people I used to game with are now playing it and it's like a new religion for them, trying to convert me to it constantly. I've been playing DnD from Basic through to 1st Ed. to 2nd Ed. for 16 years. I no longer have any Basic stuff, but still have all the 1st Ed. books, and virtually every 2nd Ed. book and supplement box sets, a lot of money there and a lot of money that would virtually go up in smoke if I 'converted' to the dark side because it isn't easily interchangable, and quite frankly, I shouldn't have to.
They say that the WOTC version is easier to use, gee I didn't think 2nd Ed. was hard, it's not rocket science and since it uses the same basic game mechanics as 1st and Basic, it's pretty easy to go back and forth, but for some reason WOTC thought 2nd Ed. was too hard. I rack my brain trying to understand why people were going over to this new version. Was it more realistic? I guess, I mean there's no logical reason (real world logic) why a mage couldn't pick up a sword, but then, it's a fantasy game and games need boundries, otherwise we get munchkin players, I guess that's what WOTC was aiming at, sure there's munchkin's in 2nd Ed. but they seem to be rampant in the new game.
I find the basic premise with the character creation, that everyone can virtualy learn anything that any other character can do just goes against the very basic premise of the game Gary Gygax wrote (again, yes it's more realistic, but if I want realism, I'll play BattleTech or Cyberpunk). You have a DM, he/she creates a problem or task that can't be completed by 1 person with 1 set of skills, you need to form a group that compliments each other, each one bringing something to the party to get the job done, WOTC has just done away with that. As one person posted previously, all you munchkins out there, dust off that elf mage/paladin/cleric/thief/ranger, cause here comes 3rd Ed. (cough)
Of course, yeah if you don't like it, you play what you wanna play, which is all well and good, just a shame there's no point in getting Dragon or Dungeon anymore, because WOTC forbids any content other than there product going in it, very different from when TSR were running the show, you could buy a Dungeon and it would have Basic, 1st and 2nd ed. mods in it. Yes I could just convert the mods over, but why should I? Why can't I see other edition mods in Dungeon? The only reason I can think of is because, this new thing isn't DnD.
I have incorporated a few of the rules out of this other system, like cleric healing spells being interchangable, memorise protection from lightning, but then need to cast a CSW, no problem, great idea. Also like the extra healing you get from higher level clerics, +1 per level up to +5 for CLW and stuff and then there's the Rangers thing of picking a new species enemy every 5 levels (I've brought this one down to every 4). No dramas bringing in good changes, but changing the basics for no real reason (bah that is was too hard, if the 2nd Ed. rules were too hard then tic tac toe should have been the game of choice).
As for the, but why can't we have halfling paladins?, well, no reason why you couldn't have that in 2nd Ed. if the DM gave it the okay, same with level limits (which actually was unlimited in 2nd Ed. with the idea that you pay double the xp cost) and if you were a single classed demi-human with good enough stats, you could go above the norm anyway.
Bottom line though it was all there for game balance, but as it's been stated before, beside from the basic game mechanics, all the rules were optional. I see no reason for the change and no reason to fork out the money.
Greetings!
I am amazed that this thread has gone on for more than a few years, but it demonstrates the fact that gamers are passionate and intelligent; very good points made from the supporters and detractors of 3(.5)E.
I started out playing the Basic box set in the early 80's, moved up to Expert and then to AD & D. I loved it; I missed 2nd E, as I went through a period of religious brainwashing, and started playing again 2 years ago (1rst E).
It has taken me over a year to even consider 3E; why mess with something if it isn't broken? If a rule was questionable, we simply devised a house rule to correct it. I love the nostalgia of the artwork and layout of 1E; it's what I (in a manner of speaking) grew up with.
With that said, after reading and reading the Players Handbook for 3.5E several times, I have to say I really love it above the other editions.
At first, I was insulted by the "D & D for Dummies" feel that seemed to portray, but then I realized WotC were not trying to reach an exclusive audience of current players, but they were (are_ trying to reach those that have never played before. I remember the 80's too well, and one of the bad memories that I have is of the Satanic Panic that swept the nation. D & D, the Smurfs, Metal music and a list of many others were said to be 'Satanically' inspired. Some people kept away from it when they were younger and now that they are older they may feel like it's a stupid kid's game that has ties with devil worship. The PHB presents the game (IMO) as just a game, and in such a way that it cannot be misconstrued as a textbook for summoning Cthulu or something.
True, combat has changed, but try playing a few combat rounds and you'll see that the grid and miniatures serve to enhance the game and make the players as well as the DM's life easier. Within the context of the game, it actually 'feels' like combat now.
Feats and skills will take a bit of time getting used to, but once you do, you'll wonder how you lived without them.
Character freedom is unprecendented; literally, your character is limited only by your imagination; and ins't that the point? To creatively express ourselves by exercising our collective imaginations?
Just a thought or two....
Tim
2nd edition is the finest example of a role playing game ever concieved of, I can only assume that the individual that posted this comment is a frustrated module submitter or a failed novelist. 3rd edition was created so that those individuals who could not comprehend the english language would have something to play, it is a hacked up watered down version of 2nd edition.
Characters who are limited only by your imagination... that sounds a bit lame. The best part of D&D is thinking (and acting) through the lense of a limited character, and solving problems within the context of those limits. When limits are torn down and characters become no more than an exercise in creative visualization, the game is downgraded from a "role-playing" game to simply a "fantasy" game. The literary elements are gone, and all that's left is a playable comic book.
One other thing I want to add: Where is the idea coming from that 3rd edition is "more realistic?" Second edition and Players Option had deep roots in history and world literatures; third edition is full of double-bladed weapons, flails with heads on both ends so that you beat yourself with them while you fight, people who can blow up or hack down small armies after a few months of practice (level 4 or 5... come one, that's like 15 real battles). It's inane, really. And the fact that characters are so "unlimited" makes it even worse. I'll stick with 2ED, thanks. And maybe Hackmaster.
Wow.
I played 3.5E and then 1rst edition, back to back; I am sticking with 1rst.
Not just because I am an old guy that remembers starting out with Basic boxed set, but because 1rst edition (IMO) is ...well, a lot more fun.
Combat was way too long and overly complicated, and 1rst level 3.5E characters were more powerful than some 2nd and 3rd level characters from 1rst. 'Balance' has reduced the game to 'Be whatever you want, you can pretty much do anything the next guy can'.
So, I withdraw my hasty and previous comment.
Also, at $30.00 (the cost of 3.5 PH) I bought the DM's guide, PH, Monster Manual I & II and Unearthed Arcana.
I was all excited about the third editions too, until I started reading the stuff.
By the way, I had the good fortune of "inheriting" all the 1st edition books (multiple copies even) from some friends who didn't use them any more. Somehow I lucked into an enormous collection of painted figurines the same way (I blame it on my 18 charisma). I find the 1ed books are a joy to have, and I can always fall back on them when I don't feel "2nd editiony." I don't see the same thing in the future for 3ed.
you do not need the books to play adnd really heck you do not even have need to have a character sheet (that is one of the rules). i have most of the tables memorised, i like some of the ideas from 1st 2nd and 3rd and i have most of the books (bought 2nd hand). and i dm from all the rules intertwind together. my last campain before i moved i had 11 regular players and we met about 3 times weekly some were dms as well. I played in their games as well all in 2nd ed rules. many finding my way of playing best interesting and fast paced. over the years i found that players need a character sheet and the rules it helps them feel that they are doing somthing tangable but what rules you use don't matter. conversion from 2nd to 3rd really is not needed play it how you think it needs to play it. The golden law of adnd if you do not like a rule change it, fix it, bend it. {lay the game how you wish it to be played use what you like and leave the rest.
i started playing when i was 7 and didn't even have the right dice till i was 13* (we used a deck of cards spades and clubs from 1-10 and use those for d10 d20 and d100 hearts 1-queen as a d12 dimons in the same manner for d8 and d4) i had no chose i lived in a town of 500ppl 4 hour trip to any other place that was not just a sign and gas station. the books were from the libary witch was just and old store front. you can play i know you can without much of anything rules cost convertion from 2nd to 3rd not needed. don't buy the books if you like the way you are playing. play the way you wish because by the time our kids are ready to play there will only be the 3.x ed way of playing.
Remeber if you want to have a orc pally in your campain great. think about it the injustice he would meet because everyone thinking he is evil having to prove himself all he way. Not all elfs are good and like nature. Not all dwarves sit in a mine all day banging on an anvil. and even some haflings like adventure. It is your game make it fun and make it yours
Just making a comment here.
Originally elves were elves(chaotic good), dwarves were dwarves(lawful good), and orcs were orcs(lawful evil), Demons(chaotic evil).
Human's are the only race that was unpredictable(any alignment). You would never know what you would get with a human. Some of the Best of Dragon magazines, issues 3 or 4 I think, had articles on this subject.
Demi-humans were stereo-typical.
Now whether or not the game has been made better by making all races more "human", I don't know.
Ultimate it comes down to are you having fun.
Gaming is still one thing that can make me laugh so hard I cry.
Thanks for the column (sniff, sniff)... it brought tears to my eyes. I, too, miss my ol' 2Ed AD&D... it's so hard to find players now.
Oldtimer-
I feel your pain.
We are a small group (5-6 players) and we are starting to teach everyine in the group to DM; currently, there are only 2 of us that do it (I'm one of them).
As far as finding anyone in my area to play with, I'm going to go to the comic book stores in town and talk to the owners and see if there are any 1rst E groups.
But I almost hesitate to do that since we use a lot of house rules!
Hang in there; I wish I could get a copy of the Basic and Expert box set again!
Very restrictive but very fun!
Tim
Interesting comment made here. I wonder if there is some underground backlash to what WotC/Hasbro has done to the game? Sure, the new rules help to "modernize" the game and bring in new players/customers (seems it's always about the money, doesn't it?), but at what cost to the integrity of the game? I have mused more than once about how 3/3.5 has made every PC pretty much the same. Maybe it's just my jaded perspective, but it seems that more than one reader on this site shares my opinion.
Is change always a good thing, I wonder?
"The best part of D&D is thinking (and acting) through the lense of a limited character, and solving problems within the context of those limits."
To me, this was the best part about being a Dragonlance campaign wizard... you were constrained to what spells you had available. Not everyone could do it, though; however, it was a great exercise in creative thinking to work with a limited arsenal.
With no evocation spells, my black robe mage resorted to intimidation and threats of powers no one was sure he had. Thank goodness he never really had to make good on those threats... the advantage to really good role-playing (and a charm spell here and there)!
The problem with the variety is the availability of players that enjoy playing one particular variety, not to mention conventions which, logistically, cannot support every facet/version of the game.
"I have over 200 books, and to be told that EVERYTHING up to this point will be useless really agrivated me."
heh... sounds like WotC/Hasbro is taking cues from Microsoft!
Oh, man, don't get my hopes up like that!
I happened upon this forum by accident and read through most of it. I was an avid AD&D player back in the early 80's, started with the red box d&d, and the expert D&D, then the advanced D&D, i still have the original intellivision games (and they work!) and have played many of the computer games.
I got out of gaming after the second edition came out, i saw the movie and thought it kind of stunk.
Recently i saw a copy of the third edition for sale and thumbed through it. I thought it was horrible.
It is kind of sad to see what happened to Dungeons and Dragons. Then it occured to me that it wasn't the change in AD&D, it was the loss of that era of my childhood. My generation had cool stuff like "night of the creeps" and rainbow punch kool-aid. Phil Collins and Cyndi Lauper were hot, and AD&D was at the height of its popularity.
Should WOTC have changed it? Yes. Everything needs to change or it dies. It stagnates and withers.
Our generation has passed. Long live the third generation, and hopefully the generations after it.
Night of the Creeps! Whoo!
only read a few notes here as i have other things to do. but the point on initiative in 3e about weapon speeds is simple, if you have ever tried using a real sword, dagger or two handed axe you would see that the speed of the weapon doesn't make a lot of difference: most slower weapons have reach so a guy with a dagger will be quicker than a guy with a two handed sword, but will need to be so much closer, risking his life before he is even able to hit! not to mention if a two handed sword hits you and you don't die you are a lucky man! its a huge sword and even hitting a non lethal location is likely to put you out of a fight in pain. i prefer 3e as it is simpler to explain to new gamers. a higher number is always better than a lower number is much easier to explain than the old low roll on initiative high attack roll and low ac. it made little sense and i'm glad these problems have finally been resolved.
I think most of the discussion about the d20 D&D system can be resolved by observing that it is a more-or-less abstract system. It doesn't track the action on a second-to-second, blow-by-blow basis. Parries, blocks, and so forth are just assumed to be part of AC, and worked in "behind the scenes."
Whenever a player wants to get into something with me about the system being unrealistic, I just tell them I know that. "Yes, it's unrealistic in some ways, but it's a balanced rule system and it makes our games playable. Sometimes we have to sacrifice a little realism for playability."
That answer has seemed sufficient for most players.
As a player of Dungeons & Dragons in all it's many incarnations since 1975, my comment to you is if you think that 2nd edition AD&D is "the worst role playing game ever made", you should probably go play GURPS, and leave D&D to those who love it.
Having had time to look at the 3rd edition for several years now, I totally agree with all your points. Right on! I also think that 3rd edition does appeal to some people, but these are generally young gamers raised on a steady diet of computer and video games. I think what is truly lamentable is the difficulty with which long-established gaming groups can lure new blood to the table.
I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I have said it almost in so many words, to everyone who I have spoken to since the first day I read the 3rd edition ph. Thank you for so eloquently stating the case.
I have been Playing D&D for about 19 years starting with 1st edition and working my way up to 3.5. All in all I have to say that 1st and 2nd edition are more enjoyable for me and my players. When I first started playing 3 and 3.5 I got excited, but after playing several games with several different groups I have found that even though there are many feats and skills in 3.5, only a hand full are ever really used. This leads to most characters having the same feats and skills. How many players create a character and not have ranks in search, spot and listen. These skills used to just be an ability check. Players would take skills that defined the character's training and childhood not those that would have the most impact on the game or were required to be successful.
The other thing is that DMs that I have dealt with in 2nd edition games relied less on the books and more on common sense when it came to rules. DMs of 3rd Edition games spend more time trying to find a rule or interperate a rule to fit the current situation. Some of the rules that were introduced in 3rd edition make little sense to me but most 3rd edition DMs are strick rules lawyers, which are also the same people that most of us older players hated to have in our groups.
Anyway, these are just some observations that I have made in the passed few years. My group and I have decided to blow the dust off of our old books and let the 3.5 books sit on the shelf for a while.