|
My gaming group has been together since 1980 & i've been running the campaign since '82 (based in Greyhawk). The core group has remained constant, though 60 some odd other players have participated. My questions:
What are the basic differences in 2E & 3E (it seems like power gaming)?
How easy is it for old time player to grasp the new system?
Is the 3rd Edition clearly superior to the 2nd?
thanks for any input.
My gaming group has been together since 1980 & i've been running the campaign since '82 (based in Greyhawk). The core group has remained constant, though 60 some odd other players have participated. My questions:
What are the basic differences in 2E & 3E (it seems like power gaming)?How easy is it for old time player to grasp the new system?
Is the 3rd Edition clearly superior to the 2nd?
thanks for any input.
I am personally happy that I made the transition to 3.5e. One of my favorite things is that the system has more inherit versatility with characters. The system can lend itself to power gaming, but then powergamers will find a way, regardless of the system. With the feats system and prestige classes, characters can be much more varied. Some key differences, any race can play any class. You can have Dwarven Paladins and Halfling Barbarians if you wish. Race is only a factor class wise when it comes to multi-classing.
I have mixed feelings on the heavy emphasis on miniatures/mapped combat. Some like it, others don't. It works for me, but it takes a bit more work to not let the mechanics interfere with the playing.
As to how easy it is to learn for an old time player, I had a relatively easy time. Played a couple test games with friends and got the hang of it pretty quickly. I have played several other game systems over the years though, so that may have been a factor.
I now prefer 3rd/3.5e to 2nd edition AD&D, but I won't say which is 'better'. That's not a call I feel qualified to make, I just like the new systems better.
I was in the same boat as you--gaming since 1980 with veteran gamers in my group. Switching to 3rd edition has totally revitalized and rejuvenated our game, our enthusiasm for it.
The game concepts in 3rd edition are cleaner, more coherent and much easier to learn than old AD&D. Everything focuses on the main game concept of a "target" roll with a d20 and rolling higher is always better than lower.
Yes, you can get some weird character combinations in 3rd edition, like dwarven wizard/rogue/Disciples of Moradin's Beard, but if you don't like that stuff, you can always just keep it more traditional.
The game moves faster, combat is much clearer (re-read the combat section multiple times) and using feats and skills in combat gives PC's interesting combat options to make fights memorable and more cinematic.
I wish D&D had been like this 25 years ago---many more people would have been attracted to the hobby.
|
Yes to all of the above. The only thing I miss about my 2E game was how my combat sequence worked using segmented movement. It was a more fluid combat situation where the 3.xE rules are very "chess"-like. Each round is six seconds and all the PC actions in that time are supposed to be simultaneous but it sure doesn't come across that way.
Which brings up the point of the best thing 3.xE has done: everyone is playing the same (relative) game now. Going from one D&D table to another in the 2E days you'd get lost in all the table rules each DM used to make up for the mechanic lapses of the rules. Sure, there are still some Table Rules that survive to 3.x, but they are minor compared to the scope of mechanics the game already provides.
If nothing else look at Skills and Feats. Why would you want to keep weapon/non-weapon proficiencies and generic ability checks when Skill/Feat rules provide the mechanics for what your 2E Table Rules tried to do with Proficiencies? That's what sold me on 3E as most of my Table Rules were now THE Rules.
My questions:
What are the basic differences in 2E & 3E (it seems like power gaming)?How easy is it for old time player to grasp the new system?
Is the 3rd Edition clearly superior to the 2nd?
thanks for any input.
Our group hasn't had any desire to convert, but I think that's becuase we already were doing a lot of what 3rd ed. does. We already let players pick any race they wanted (with DM approval) and didn't have any class restrictions so long as the player could come up with a reasonable explanation. We already has a streamlined, smooth combat system. We already had lots of diversity in the PCs through the role playing development of their chars rather than needing prestige classes. And, we already learned on our own that too many jack-of-all-trades PCs didn't make for as nearly satisfying play as when each PC fills a niche, so we'd done the massive multi-classing thing and had already backed off from it.
The changes we made also resulted in chars being stronger in lower levels from the get go, which is perfect when I'm running 3rd ed. modules as it balances everything out. A 2nd ed skeleton is no challenge for them. A 3rd ed T-Rex skeleton... now that's a different story.
One thing I really like about what 3rd ed has brought is the templates for monsters that allow for wide variety and progression, which was sorely missing. I also think the game supplements are of a better quality and appeal to a wider age range.
While we're on the subject of 2nd ed vs. 3rd however.... Could somebody PLEASE explain the AC conversion to me? As I don't have the 3rd ed PHB, I've been comparing creatures from the 2 versions of monster manuals, trying to figure out a formula to use for conversion. Everytime I think I've got it, a creature will pop up in one of the 3rd ed adventures with an AC rating that throws it. I make do as I go along, but it's been bugging me that I can't come up with a formula that works on a standard basis.
The one thing that will stick out in 3.X, is the rapid level advancement due to the higher XP awards. You can always change that to suit your gaming tastes by reducing the XP or each encounter... lots of people do.
For example:
AD&D: Goblin is worth 15 XP, and a fighter needs 1,500 XP to advance to 2nd level.
3rd Ed: Goblin is worth 75 XP (1/4 CR), and all classes advance at the same speed at all levels.
I didn't DM 3rd Ed. for until about 2 years after it came out, but even as a player for that time, it felt really awkward to level up so quickly.
It took me a long time to realize that the rule books are not sacred scripture; they're the professional opinions of game designers, formed by a lot of personal experience and feedback from other gamers. If you wanted dwarves wielding arcane magic in 2E, bang, it happened. For whatever reason, that just wasn't officially supported at that time. There are definitely a lot more options and complexities now, but the game has always been limited only by your imagination and what you feel comfortable with. That's what makes it special and better than any video game ever could be: it's completely malleable and extensible.
One thing I don't like about feats and skills is that it does start to feel like a video game. If you're not careful, your character just becomes a collection of modifiers, whatever gives you the best chance of "winning."
I also appreciate that the game designers wanted to make charisma, the forgotten ability, more important in actual game play, and that they streamlined play a lot by resolving everything with the d20. However, you can go overboard with rolling dice. For example, I don't like Bluff and Intimidate. You should have to role-play interpersonal interactions. If you do a bad job, you fail. I don't like that you just generate a random number and the NPC is freaked out. To me, that isn't RPGing. But, as I said, you can do what you want. In my campaign, you would have to talk your way through.
Been playing since 1980 too (is there a trend here?). I am a die-hard 2nd Edition fan. VERY reluctantly bought 3rd edition and very reluctantly tried it out. I agree that it is "relatively easy" to switch over and probably easier for newbies to understand and emerse themselves in much quicker than 2nd ed. I also agree that it solves the problem of moving from one game table to another since many house rules have now become "official" and there is less variety from one table to the next. Personally, this was never a big issue - I don't need some $40 hardcover to tell me what to do. I like to do my own thing and give everything my own flavor. But I've also never had a problem with rules lawyering,etc (which apparently many others have/do). That said, I don't like the newer editions. After just a few months my group (the faithful contingent of '82) agreed enthusiastically to revert to 2nd ed.
I disagree that feats/skills are better or more comprehensive than weapon/non-weapon proficiencies. I prefer the proficiencies I hundred times better (of course, we use a house rule of percentage improvement so that makes a big difference). The versatility of any race playing any class; and therefore a bewildering array of complex characters; that others find so appealing in the newer editions is one of the least appealing elements, IMO. It motivates players to create a "jack-of-all-trades" and power-game if for no other reason than so your character isn't so vanilla next to everyone else's. In an effort to make multi-classing easier and more appealing, WOTC has made single classing seem boring and unimaginative (removing any motivation to actually role-play or use your own creativity to make your basic class character interesting and unique). The combat rules others praise, I despise. I believe the segmented rounds are easier for a DM to manage and serve game play much better than the simultaneous theory of 3.x. My group had been using miniatures/mapping since the '90s so the recent focus on such didn't/doesn't apply to my group. I agree that the 2nd ed and 3.x can't really be compared since they are more like two completely different games. But if you want a hard answer on which is better, clearly it is dependent on one's perspective. I vote 2nd edition (bet you didn't see that one coming, huh.)
I've played through 1E, 2E and into 3E/3.5E and I'd say I like most of the changes were easy to adjust to and I like most of them.
The only thing I don't like all the time is the battle format. It seems the higher level you get the more battles slow down, sometimes to the point where all the fun & excitment gets boiled down to x's and O's.
I remember a conversation I had with a friend when he had bought the 3rd edition D&D...I pretty much listed rules which I considered sucked in AD&D (from limited class selections for different races to making magic items to crossbow damage) and he went "It's been changed", "It's been changed", "It's been changed"...
So yes, it was nice to get a new edition which did get closer to many of our house rules while streamlining several others (like having to remember when a high roll on d20 was a good thing and when a bad thing) or making some other rules even better than we could think of.
Yes, the characters are tougher than they used to be but so is everything else so I'd say that evens out and actually gives more variety.
Yes, experience is gained faster, at least in smaller levels (we haven't yet got to higher levels to compare) but that is not necessarily a bad thing (remembering how "fun" it was to play level 1 mage..."one goblin down, 133 to go").
All in all, while 2nd edition wasn't really my system of choice (GURPS, Ars Magica, White Wolf games all had more enjoyable systems) I am really enjoying 3,5.
The major complaint I have is that the game has become much more miniature-centered, at least for me who never really used them...oh, and that so much nice campaign world information has so far been done only in 2nd edition :(
I've been playing since 2e came out and was lured away by 3rd edition when it was released. The simple rule mechanic, AC that goes up and not down, the loss of THAC0, and the other changes that were made to the system really make for a better game. Overall I am happy with the switch and won't go back to 2e. But, there are a couple of things inherent in the ruleset that need to be considered, as they *can* make for a bad experience if you don't look out for them.
First, as a DM, the new rules can add a lot of time to NPC creation and adventure design overall. Because there are so many choices when making a character, the time factor definately increases if you want a truly balanced and playable NPC. Doing this multiple times for NPCs and Monsters (especially if you decide to advance the creature or add class levels) during adventure prep can really eat away at your time. With 2e everything was cut and dry. Getting the relevant stats for an NPC was quick and easy because of the lack of choices involved. Because of this, you had more of your prep time spent on the story. If I had to guess, I would say that with 3e I spend about 2/3's of my time dealing with NPC/Monster creation and 1/3 dealing with the plot. In 2e it was about 3/4 plot and 1/4 NPC's and Monsters. Take it for what you will.
Next, as was stated in the previous posts, advancing through the levels feels forced because of the experience progression table. If you follow the rules for level advancement completely (for a four person party, 13-14 balanced encounters will result in gaining the next level)you will be leveling up almost every adventure. Actually, by looking at the Shackled City and Age of Worms adventure paths in Dungeon Magazine you will see how leveling is expected to occur. 12 adventures will take an average group of characters from level 1 to level 20. That's simply not something that equates with the 2nd edition AD&D experience, where you had lots of time at each level to get used to your character's new abilities/spells. Now a PC gains levels so quickly that the player never has time to 'settle in' with his abilities, let them fade into the background, and get used to actually roleplaying his character. It's all about the new Feats/Spells/Prestige Classes now (as can be seen in almost every book that WotC releases these days, including the 'fluffy' setting books for the Forgotten Realms and Eberron). In this regard, 3e does feel more like a video game and in my experience is less than fulfilling.
Lastly, by putting such an emphasis on using minatures during combat, 3.0/3.5 edition combats can easily slip out of roleplaying mode and into the wargame attitude. I know that this happened easily in 2e as well, but because of all of the tactical options for combat in the PHB (Attacks of Opportunity, Grappling, etc...)the players can easily get caught up thinking only about the tactics and dice-rolling and forget that that there could be more story based things going on. It's a mixed bag really. Some groups like that kind of combat, others don't. On the good side, I've found that, for the most part, the options are sound and can make for some cool situations. You just have to watch your group to see how they take to it. Due to a lack of space, my group no longer uses mini's, and we have found that it free's up the mind for more imaginative descriptions of character actions. We may go back to the battlemap, but who knows.
Other than these facts, 3rd edition opens up many more opportunites for both the player and the DM. If well managed, the ruleset allows for more varied characters, NPCs, and monsters, which allows for better, more creative stories to be told. Also, the game just plays so much more smoothly with everything being much more intuitive. Once you get a feel for the system, judgement calls as a DM are much more simple because you can fall back on the ground rules of the game when you need to.
Again, I definately recommend switching from 2e to 3.0/3.5...just keep a close watch on your game to make sure some of the options aren't abused.
My problem with 3ED statered with the few thousand dollars in 2Ed books that I already owned that were suddenly unsuported by the system, with the entire game and all the core books and suplements being reprinted at $40 a pop. It made me want to scream! When I calmed down, I went to the local book store and sat down with a Players Handbook, and compared 3ED. Boy was I unimpressed. As Tiger Lily said, most of what they changed we had been doing for years any way. The feats and skill, while it has some cool stuff, most of it is lame. At higher levels they are less like skills and more like super powers. THe multi-Class Jack-of-all-trades characters are boring and weak when you have eight characters in a group and the only difference between characters is their name. The Perstige Classes are pointless. This is what Roleplaying is for. This is what character development is for.
The few up sides to 3ED are the open licence (which I think that if they had done that with 2Ed that there never would have been this push to convert to a vampires like play system). The open licence has allowed for a more adult content, and the stories and moduals are writen for the adults (who have the jobs ans money) as opposed to the 11yr olds playing a dumbed down version of the game.
At this point I've gotten to the point that I can do the conversions from 3Ed back to 2Ed in my head, and my gamers like the fact that we can find moduals that are more adult oriented. I've only had one player who came in to our group that had already been playing 3Ed. Imediatly he wanted to begin making changes to make the game more like 3Ed. He was quickly shouted down by the other players, and had the house rules explained to him. Once he go into the game, he fell in love with the way that we played, and became a regular for over a year.
The versatility of any race playing any class; and therefore a bewildering array of complex characters; that others find so appealing in the newer editions is one of the least appealing elements, IMO. It motivates players to create a "jack-of-all-trades" and power-game if for no other reason than so your character isn't so vanilla next to everyone else's. In an effort to make multi-classing easier and more appealing, WOTC has made single classing seem boring and unimaginative (removing any motivation to actually role-play or use your own creativity to make your basic class character interesting and unique).
I would have to agree with this statement. Single classing doesn't seem to be 'in fashion' in the new editions because your character won't be as 'cool' as your buddy's 1/2 Dragon/Dwarf Fighter/Bard/Sorcerer...
I would have to agree with this statement. Single classing doesn't seem to be 'in fashion' in the new editions because your character won't be as 'cool' as your buddy's 1/2 Dragon/Dwarf Fighter/Bard/Sorcerer...
And unfortuantely this is what turns people off about 3E (3E being 3.0/3.5). As people said before, there are benefits and drawbacks of converting. Me personally, I love 3E. But I believe it's because the rules are now more uniform. You don't have to play that 1/2 Dragon/Dwarf Fighter/Bard/Sorceror. My group (not as old time as you guys but have all started in 2ed or earlier) generally sticks to the traditional roles. The option is there to do different stuff race/class-wise, and I don't even have to make up the rules!
As far as NPCs and monsters, I don't spend as much time on them as I do the story. I know the rules well enough to fudge adding class levels while I'm playing. I've also been playing 3E since it's release, to be fair. I also spent the time to make up index cards of common monsters with advanced levels/hit dice/templates, pulling some of that from the internet and making some myself. That time up front (and it's not as much as you might think) has saved me time overall. Of course, you may not like doing that kind of stuff.
In the end, go with what works for you and your group. I say "Don't knock it until you try it." Not that you're knocking it. Here's my suggestion. WotC has free adventures on the site. You and your players can use the SRD if you don't feel like spending the money to try it out. Play some one shots. Come into it with an open mind. Then make your decision about converting your regular game. Either way you go, it's all D&D in my eyes.
While we're on the subject of 2nd ed vs. 3rd however.... Could somebody PLEASE explain the AC conversion to me? As I don't have the 3rd ed PHB, I've been comparing creatures from the 2 versions of monster manuals, trying to figure out a formula to use for conversion. Everytime I think I've got it, a creature will pop up in one of the 3rd ed adventures with an AC rating that throws it. I make do as I go along, but it's been bugging me that I can't come up with a formula that works on a standard basis.
2nd edition AC = 20 - 3rd edition AC
3rd edition creatures get larger bonuses for high DEX than in 2nd edition, so more precisely:
2nd edition AC = 20 - 3rd edition flat-footed AC - 2nd edition dodge bonus.
IMHO, 3rd edition is just a better game.
Pros:
1. Much more cleanly and consistently designed. (d20 system; attribute scores are meaningful even *between* 7 and 14; etc.)
2. More and better options for the players instead of restrictions. (If you want to be a dwarven paladin with a low charisma, knock yourself out.)
3. Skills and feats beat the pants off proficiencies.
Cons:
1. More mechanical
-- requires less creativity in the DM, so sometimes, that's what you get.
-- it's easy to miscalculate bonuses and such.
A veteran group should love it. Except that most humans in the real world don't like change. : ]
I'm not so sure that TSR had the best gaming system in 2ed at its prime. There were plenty of other gaming systems out there that had arguably superior mechanics, not only from a combat standpoint, but also for story-telling purposes. There were others, but my favorites were Rune Quest and Powers & Perils. Some aspects of these older games I feel are still superior to 3.5.
When 3.0 came out, our gaming group rushed to find out what it was all about. Needless to say, we've been playing 3.x ever since. It has its flaws, no doubt, but it is a good product with plenty of support.
To be totally honest, I don't understand how anyone can play 3.x without a battlemap. Grid based combat is integral to the game; without it you're playing 2ed.
I too had been playing D&D since 1st edition. 3.5 is by far the superior product in just about every aspect, even when considering 3.0. I disagree with anyone who says there is pressure on players to multiclass in 3.5. The strongest players are always single class. What I find in 3.5 is a clearer text for both players and DM's and more depth in just about every aspect. There are flaws in 3.5 just far fewer than in previous edition.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My problem with 3ED statered with the few thousand dollars in 2Ed books that I already owned that were suddenly unsuported by the system, with the entire game and all the core books and suplements being reprinted at $40 a pop.
*Rant Warning*
I bought a computer in 1995. It was a 486 w/4 MB of Ram. It had a 4x CD Rom. I spent $1600 on that computer. If I still had it, I would have to pay someone to take it. No one makes software that runs on that computer anymore.
I bought a Playstation in 1996. I spent $150 buying it and around $300 in games. The system itself is now worthless. The games and controllers are possibly salvagable for the PS2, but I'd say they're maybe worth $10. Worse, no one releases PS1 games anymore, so my old system is just rotting away.
I bought a car in 2000. It was $20,000. It's got 60k miles on it, and I haven't checked the bluebook, but I'd guess that it's worth less than $10,000, maybe even less than $5,000.
Guess what. Most things you buy, and in particular, consumable products, lose value over time. The exceptions are the occassional rare collectable (the Power 9 from Magic for example). Why one earth do you expect your old roleplaying books to retain any of their value?!?!?!
So, as long as we're demanding eternal value from our gaming purchases, maybe we should go curse Sony for daring to release the PS2 (and soon, the PS3) with better graphics, online play support, and new games thus obsoleting the old PS1 and destroying the $350 I invested in the system.
*Rant Over and Apologies*
Sebastian
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sorry, now that I've got that rant out of my system...
3e is generally more flexible and runs cleaner out of the box. On the other hand, most 2e games have a phonebook of house rules to fix the problems w/the system, and if your group has invested heavily in learning your basic 2e+ homebrew system, learning a new ruleset may be a greater cost than you're willing to bear.
The powergaming worry is something that concerns a lot of 2e loyalists. Partly, it's an increase in scale that doesn't translate into effect. It looks like the characters are more powerful than in 2e, but so are the monsters and traps. On net, these things generally balance out. However, there is also a bit of envelope pushing that occurs in supplements, and with the shear number of supplements, creating a broken character is relatively easy. I don't think this is a problem that is unique to 3e (kits in 2e and things like the elves handbook had powergaming elements in them as well).
Sebastian
So, as long as we're demanding eternal value from our gaming purchases, maybe we should go curse Sony for daring to release the PS2 (and soon, the PS3) with better graphics, online play support, and new games thus obsoleting the old PS1 and destroying the $350 I invested in the system.Sebastian
That was a great rant, well said! That really puts things in perspective.
*Rant Warning*I bought a computer in 1995. It was a 486 w/4 MB of Ram. It had a 4x CD Rom. I spent $1600 on that computer. If I still had it, I would have to pay someone to take it. No one makes software that runs on that computer anymore.
I bought a Playstation in 1996. I spent $150 buying it and around $300 in games. The system itself is now worthless. The games and controllers are possibly salvagable for the PS2, but I'd say they're maybe worth $10. Worse, no one releases PS1 games anymore, so my old system is just rotting away.
I bought a car in 2000. It was $20,000. It's got 60k miles on it, and I haven't checked the bluebook, but I'd guess that it's worth less than $10,000, maybe even less than $5,000.
Guess what. Most things you buy, and in particular, consumable products, lose value over time. The exceptions are the occassional rare collectable (the Power 9 from Magic for example). Why one earth do you expect your old roleplaying books to retain any of their value?!?!?!
So, as long as we're demanding eternal value from our gaming purchases, maybe we should go curse Sony for daring to release the PS2 (and soon, the PS3) with better graphics, online play support, and new games thus obsoleting the old PS1 and destroying the $350 I invested in the system.
*Rant Over and Apologies*
Sebastian
Certainly, Sebastian, you've got a point about the decaying usefulness of computers and PS2s and Cars. . .
Books, however, are a little different. Those items you mentioned all rely on technology to keep them "relevant." Technology has improved, making those items obsolete.
Until humankind (and I hope it doesn't happen) does something to change our eyes or ways of assimilating optical input, a book can always be relevant. I can read the same copy of a novel written 300 years ago and enjoy those same words. While my understanding and values may differ from a 300 year-old reading of that same book, there is nothing interfering with my ability to read it (and understand it, if I’m smart enough) There is no reason that book cannot have the same "use-value" in another 300 years as it does now, as it did 300 years ago because, unlike a computer whose “brain” cannot comprehend new computer languages or reach required speeds, etc., a book only requires the technology that evolution or God (depending on your philosophical /scientific /religious beliefs) gave us.
In many ways, the technological advances make the "old" technology unwanted. Aside from the crazy few (or those nostalgic for the “old days”) there’s no reason to look back to old technology as more desirable. As much as I might like my old Chrysler/Plymouth Valiant, I would much rather have the Saturn SL that gets four times the gas mileage, doesn’t leak air, and won’t skid out on those wet/snowy roads.
Game owners, specifically those who cry foul when discussing the change from 2e to 3e/3.5e, are annoyed because the system, which changed somewhat from 1e to 2e (though it remained easily transferable), became completely obsolete with regards to the rules/support for the new edition. There is too much work involved converting something like Night Below to 3e rules. The books still work. . .the ink is still legible, the technology of the book isn’t any different, the rules changes have made buying anything new difficult and/or prohibitive. For instance, even if I really liked one of the Adventure Paths, there are too many things that cannot be converted to allow my group to play it. Spells are different, characters can’t multi-class as easily, losing energy levels is more painful. . .
I think I’ve gotten far off topic, so I’ll just shut up now.
For my part, I like the “stories” in the old material and I like the “stories” in the new material. That stuff is interchangeable. It’s the mechanics that make such alterations difficult. Perhaps, just like those who bought the latest PC only to find that they have an obsolete machine six months later, it hurts to feel as though you’ve been abandoned.
Books, however, are a little different. Those items you mentioned all rely on technology to keep them "relevant." Technology has improved, making those items obsolete.
Let's just call 3E the "Designated Hitter Edition". Like major league baseball rules...some people think th DH helps make the game fun, some people think it hurts the original integrity of the game.
I had only been playing 2E (along with the Skills & Powers supplements) for about 2 years at most when my gaming group decided to give 3.0 a try when it first came out. I have been playing 3.0/3.5 ever since.
That being said, I find that with the incredible number of supplements (from both WoTC and other d20 companies), it has become disturbingly easy to "powergame," and the length of battle scenarios have begun to extend too long. Case in point, I recently ran a battle for my players (who all had 1-2 pcs who were at least 16th level) that lasted about a minute or so in game time; in real time, it lasted 6 hours! Which, ironically enough, is about how long I generally end up spending on crafting classed npcs at the higher end of the level spectrum (Fie! Fie, I say, on those tempting PrCs!)
It was not a matter of lack of knowledge of the game rules but rather the increased number of options and abilities that sparked arguments and controversies. It becomes more possible that the pcs have abilities/feats that let them perform a given action no matter what but it comes in question when they are pitted against a monster whose abilities are explicitly expressed as it enablingly the monster to prevent pcs from performing that action.
At higher levels, the feats/abilities/spells all clash and it becomes a tangled web that even rules lawyers have a hard time deciphering. It becomes a case of adhering to the letter of the rules against adhering to the spirit of the rules. It also begins to place a harder task for DMs/GMs to determine what is the most fun way of playing the game, especially when your gaming group has all kinds of players in it, from the powergamer to the rules lawyer to the "role" player.
So basically, I have a love/hate relationship with 3.0/3.5. It's great in the beginning but it begins to stall and become increasingly long-winded towards the "end." I try to keep the game interesting with plots and stories but at the same time, I have to give the players opportunities for them to use their pcs' abilities, even though it becomes harder and harder to find suitable (and appropriate) challenges for the pcs.
In the end, I think that if you are willingly to convert to 3rd Edition, take your time with it and let a reasonable amount of game time occur between each level as to let players become comfortable with their pcs (and familiar with how the abilities/feats actually work), and have everyone be familiar with the rules (especially the combat rules); otherwise, it just drags out (pretty much like my rant here).
CB Out.
To quote myself from back in May:
"I too have a love/hate relationship with 3.5, but I feel a revision was needed.
I started playing in the late 70s running the classic Gygax modules. I purchased the 3rd Edition PH but barely read the book, thinking they had changed too much. Flash foward -- I'm now involved in both 1st edition and 3.5 edition games, and both are great fun.
The Good: The new rules added consistency across the board, and made some things simpler (chucking the Thac0 for the new AC system is a boon for any DM, figuring out "to hit" rolls couldn't be easier). Many of the rules systems work well together and are logical, eliminating the patchwork feel of the older game. The new rules also added some flexibility and helped define combat actions (I've had one too many poor DMs have my character take 3 melee rounds to drink a potion or draw a sword while "their" monsters take action after action). Having one experience table for all characters is great, and pro-rating xp is also fair.
The Bad: The new system can be exploited by power gamers. Renaming most of the spells (some needlesly I feel) drove most older players crazy.
The Ugly: The DM's work has tripled. Figuring out ELs and CRs and XP is a major nightmare, and judging by the many posts at the WotC boards asking for help I'm not alone. Upgrading monsters is another item; there's nothing like doing all the math to upgrade an otyugh (per the MM example), changing numbers to account for its new size, altering skill values, adding new feats, changing the skills again because of feats added, figuring out the new xp ... and then in play a wizard fries the thing with one fireball and the DM contemplates hurling himself out the nearest window. In the old days you bumped up the hit dice, increased the damage & possibly AC and bam, you were done. I'll admit, a creature having feats is cool, but overall consistency aside they never should have assigned standard abilities to monsters. (How does it feel knowing the average carrion crawler has a greater wisdom than most of the characters you've played?)"
I still feel largely the same. I love some systems, like feats and skills, while also recognizing that they help kill roleplaying somewhat and can also be exploited. Many minor systems, such as an official weapon criticals system, or heavy armor limiting maximum Dex bonuses, are happily received. I love the way so many systems flow together and work together.
PC flexibility is great -- you can have three human fighters that are all very different.
On the other side, I still hate the monster stats. Creating brand new monsters is a pain, and creating stats for groups of monsters (say 6 orcs, a shaman, and a leader) from scratch for a wandering monster encounter is pretty much impossible unless the players read War & Peace while the DM builds the badguys. Monsters (or at least non-humanoid monsters) should use a different, simpler system for skill assignment, etc. IMHO.
As mentioned, the PC advancement is also too fast (which is turn has created a hunger for high-level adventures) and the system seems to encourage both players and adventure authors to create many ridiculous class/template combinations. The huge stat blocks for high level villains reminds me uncomfortably of the old Mythus game. Class distinctions have blurred a bit too much, as most PCs come off as jack-of-all-trades types, and many formerly special class abilities now simply duplicate feats that any character can acquire.
It's a love/hate affair for me!
How does it feel knowing the average carrion crawler has a greater wisdom than most of the characters you've played?
This has bugged me from the start of 3rd edition. Apparently, humans dominate the world, but almost *every* species is superior in attributes. I'd wager you can count on one hand the number of creatures that have a CON, WIS, or DEX lower than that of a human (10). By not giving creatures any flaws, the creature designs promote a status quo of power gaming, result in a wash of homogeniety, and eliminate some of the strategic aspects of the game.
If you've never played D&D before, 3E/3.5 is great.
If you have...well, it's iffy. Mechanically, I like it. It's more streamlined, I don't have to think about THAC0 (...gods!!!...), I can pretty much adjudicate without having to turn to the rulebooks every session. High Good, Low Bad. Pretty easy to remember.
WotC has provided means for "Crunch" conversion from 2E to 3E, and 3E to 3.5 E.
As far as the wealth of "Fluff" that's available in 2E and before...(and a side not, I hate the word "Fluff" when using it to describe the world and its intricacies)...you can still use that.
What it really comes down to is - do you want to do the homework and time (lots of time) of converting your homebrew campaign to 3E? If yes, then I'd imagine you will enjoy yourself, plus it would really give you a chance to familiarize yourself with the system. If not, I would stay with your current system and enjoy your game as is.
How easy is it for old time player to grasp the new system?
Is the 3rd Edition clearly superior to the 2nd?
thanks for any input.
My input is this :
I do believe that the 3/3.5 edition IS superior to the 2nd.
As already stated, the skill/feat system really allows players to shape his character as he wishes. You could have like five 9th level fighters in your group with totally different styles. No more does a player have to be stuck with a single 'take it or leave it' class. Want your fighter to learn a few spells? Take a cleric level next time you advance. Need to know how to disarm traps? Put a few skill points in the Disable Device skill in case you're stuck alone in the next dungeon.
And if you're wondering what the difference is between 3rd and 3.5 edition... A few tweaks and upgrades that were necessary for the game to be more enjoyable. If possible, start with the 3.5 right away.
Old time players (and DMs) can learn this pretty quickly, as most of the rules were simplified. Hey, man, if I can do it you can too! Maybe you can do what I did when I started 3rd edition... Do a trial run. Just roll up some 1st level characters and play a module. I got hooked on the first night.
Let's see... More tactical combat, more character possibilities, less in-game calculating, less tables... Yup, it's pretty fun!
Ultradan
If you are a player, you might find the change to be acceptable.
If you are a GM, though, WATCH OUT. Looking at some character statistic from TSR's D&D and WotC's D&D side-by-side will drive home the point very quickly that this game is extremely complex. Almost ridiculously so, for a supposedly simple concept like S&S heroes raiding monsters for treasure. The work load can be massive with the juggling of feats (which are really a sort of "system within the system"), the intricate bean-counting skill system and the more complex combat. I can't honestly recommend volunteering to GM a WotC D&D game unless you happen to have a LOT of time on your hands to do many hours of prep work. If you're a high-school kid, a slacker college student or are unemployed, you probably have enough free time to do it right. If you have a job, a family or a seriously relationship, think twice. If you have two or more of the above (like me), just forget about it and stick with the simpler game that TSR produced.
So in summary, WotC did streamline some mechanics, but only players really benefit from the change (and even then, not tremendously). For GMs, it's definitely a case of "one step forward, two steps back" with the ramped-up complexity taxing you of much more time that a few streamlined dice mechanics can ever save you.
No matter what, though, do what you think is fun, whether that's classic "basic" D&D, some flavor of AD&D, WotC's D&D or another game entirely with a similar vibe (Castles & Crusades, a Fudge homebrew, whatever). It's all the same in the end, anyway. S&S adventurers battle fearsome monsters for glory and loot.
My gaming group has been together since 1980 & i've been running the campaign since '82 (based in Greyhawk). The core group has remained constant, though 60 some odd other players have participated. My questions:
What are the basic differences in 2E & 3E (it seems like power gaming)?How easy is it for old time player to grasp the new system?
Is the 3rd Edition clearly superior to the 2nd?
thanks for any input.
2nd edition AC = 20 - 3rd edition AC
3rd edition creatures get larger bonuses for high DEX than in 2nd edition, so more precisely:
2nd edition AC = 20 - 3rd edition flat-footed AC - 2nd edition dodge bonus.
Thank you! :)
One of the major differences I noticed from converting was the lethality of 3rd edition. I don't recall TPK being a common term in 1st or 2nd edition but know everyone knows what a TPK is. When things went south in 2nd edition most of the time you just said 'I run away' and that was it. Unless the monster was actually faster then you and wanted to chase or could fly or your retreat was cut off or something you where just gone. In 3rd edition its not so easy at all to break from combat. Anyone that is down is prone - not only do they need healing but they have to stand up and they provoke attacks of opportunity doing so. Plus with the miniature based system once things are going bad your often on the verge of being surrounded. Basically getting away is way friggen harder.
I agree that the DMs job has also gotten somewhat harder. In fact I consider PCGen pretty much mandatory. I don't know what I would do without it. With it I can make a good NPC in 10 or 15 minutes without it ... lets just not contemplate that nightmare.
I've not yet had a party make high level but certainly I like the system a lot more at low levels. Its true however that dice rolls seem to determine a lot more in terms of role playing - but then at least officially they had nearly the same effect in 2nd edition - you had this charisma modifier that was supposed to make people like you more and such .. .the fact that no one really used that made for more role playing but I would think one could just do the same with 3rd edition. However in 3rd edition most of us use the system because here it at least mostly works as advertised.
Personally I'm getting around the rapid advancement system by letting the new editions lethality work my players over. But of course just giving out less experience would slow things down (though you'd have to find a solution to the lethality issue).
Personally I think that the total rationalization of the monsters with feats and abilities etc. was one of the best parts of the new edition. My dragon is know stronger then your barbarian even with his belt of Giant strength. The abilities put everything on the same plain and made adjudicating results that much easier and more logical. I'd not go back on this aspect even if its easier to drop monsters into the game.
On the other hand this aspect makes wandering monsters something the DM has to work out ahead of time. Something like a list of 10 interesting random encounters for outside the dungeon might solve some part of this and then some thought on random encounters in the dungeon would be a good idea.
Finally the battle system is in many ways the best and worst aspect of the system. Its a really good combat system but it needs miniatures and it takes a long time. On the upside combat seems a lot less stereotyped. It used to be that my players had two combat strategies more or less. Either everyone attacks Monster A until it dies and then they do the same with monster B and then on to monster C etc. or they came upon an enemy spell caster with monsters of one sort another in front of the spell caster - then one player 'held off the monsters' and everyone else shot at the enemy spell caster until it died. In 3.X thats not possible - your on a grid and can only fight what you can get at and defending your cleric and mage as well as getting at the enemies spell casters is a big deal. It can make for some really awesome battles but its complex. I find I'm often so busy following the mechanics that I'm falling down on the descriptive text. I'm speaking in game speak way to much and forgetting to describe the combat in heroic prose. I'm hoping that I can improve in this aspect with practice - other DMs manage it so I figure I should be able to as well but its hard with so much going on.
One thing I did find that I have not seen mentioned on these boards is offloading parts of combat onto the players. One thing I found that saved me a lot of work and kept the players more focused was offloading tracking initiative onto them. I just roll for my monsters and one of the players is responsible for putting it all in order and telling the players who's turn it is. I've found that this can often really speed up the game. Player A tells player B its his turn so he rolls but misses then player A tells player C its his turn and he does the same ... meanwhile I'm frantically searching through my notes to find out what the Improved TPK spell does. Now unless they hit or something I don't have to look up and see what the hell they are doing and they will call my attention away from reading up on the Improved TPK spell if I have to make a rule call or if one of them is provoking an attack of opportunity or something or if its the hobgoblins turn. This totally depends on having honest players - however I figure it could still be done if you are so unfortunate as to have players that might bend the rules. You just can't get as engrossed in your notes. This will also allow to test your players honesty and lamblast them if they are playing to far in the gray area. Your going to notice if they skip the hobgoblins turn once to often. It seems pretty minor but it can really buy the DM some extra time - time that is not instead wasted with players fidgeting while the DM looks something up.
Along the same vein I usually make a rule call for an obscure rule during game play so we can get on with it and then get a player thats not doing much else look the rule up. Basically I find offloading as much of the combat mechanics as possible is a good idea - keeps them busy and involved and allows me more time to deal with my already complex task.
Something I'm considering doing actually is buying a bunch more d20s and making the players track how much damage they have done to the monsters with them. I think it will help them fight better - make my task easier and involve all of them a little more. Its tough with creatures with damage resistance however. In those cases I might have to keep a side track of the relivent hps.
I bought a Playstation in 1996. I spent $150 buying it and around $300 in games. The system itself is now worthless. The games and controllers are possibly salvagable for the PS2, but I'd say they're maybe worth $10. Worse, no one releases PS1 games anymore, so my old system is just rotting away.
I bought a car in 2000. It was $20,000. It's got 60k miles on it, and I haven't checked the bluebook, but I'd guess that it's worth less than $10,000, maybe even less than $5,000.
Guess what. Most things you buy, and in particular, consumable products, lose value over time. The exceptions are the occassional rare collectable (the Power 9 from Magic for example). Why one earth do you expect your old roleplaying books to retain any of their value?!?!?!
So, as long as we're demanding eternal value from our gaming purchases, maybe we should go curse Sony for daring to release the PS2 (and soon, the PS3) with better graphics, online play support, and new games thus obsoleting the old PS1 and destroying the $350 I invested in the system.
*Rant Over and Apologies*
Sebastian
Sony Playstation is probably the best example you can make for me to make my point. when Sony released the PS2 they decided a simple idea: Make the console play both the new games and the OLD games! Brilliant! And from what I've read, PS3 will play PS1 and Ps2 games. Hummmmm? Sounds like Sony figured out that consumers get tired of having to have two systems.
As far as the value of your car... I will call it safe to assume that you aren't driving a Shelby Mustang or a 67 Chevel. Your somewhat narrow view of things has failed to take into consideration one simple fact: D&D has had three major up grades Pre 3ED, ALL THREE were compatible for 30 years! 3ED wasn't even TRYING to be Compatible with AD&D, it was trying to be compatible with WHITEWOLF and Only Whitewolf.
As far as comparing D&D to you old computer...this is almost to childish to respond to, but here goes. The idea is that when you buy a computer, it's obsolete the instant you take it out of the box...Huh? So you buy a bunch of really expensive stuff only to find that it's been upgraded to something new and better and more expensive. Like 3ED to 3.5? Or is it going to be 4th ED? I've heard talk about that too. ANd even someone who started with Windows 95 could find their way around XP with little problem.
Your somewhat narrow view of things has failed to take into consideration one simple fact: D&D has had three major up grades Pre 3ED, ALL THREE were compatible for 30 years! 3ED wasn't even TRYING to be Compatible with AD&D, it was trying to be compatible with WHITEWOLF and Only Whitewolf.
Well we should keep in mind that there where actually one or two editions before 1st edition. The basic rules where not identical to 'Advanced' Dungeons and Dragons.
In anycase it was getting to be a pretty old system. It still works of course but a lot of good ideas had been generated in the interm. It would have been impossible to create a streamlined system and have tried to keep everything from the old editions compatable.
In fact my biggest issue with the current system is we are again heading toward a system thats got to many sub-systems.
Come to think of it I'd like it to be more like a video game in some respects.
Basically I don't like skills of feats that add a lot of extranous die rolling or tracking to combat but I still want people to be able to do cool stuff.
So I really dislike something like Bluff or I think its Fient. Every round the player and the DM make an opposed roll which may or may not modify the subsiquent attacks.
I am peeved by things like the Power attack and the dodge feat. Both mean tracking changing numbers and power attack can slow things down while the players try and decide if its worth it or not. I'd rather have something like Dodge provides a +1 dodge bonus to the players AC - always - instead of +2 versus some creature designated every round. Power Attack gives one a +1 strength bonus to damage. Things that would add to the players (or monnsters) abilities without having to work out every round.
On the other hand I don't mind something like cleave or combat reflexes which just allow players do more things under certian circumstances.
I guess I don't like slowing down combat if its not due to spotlike attracting manuevers. A power that allows you and the monster to make an opposed roll or the monster losses its next combat round (kind of a super bluff) round is fine if it can only be used X times a day. Something that gives you a +2 to your attack roll if you win an opposed check every round is just so much clutter that slows the game down.
Well, it seems that the original poster's questions have been abundantly answered so I'm just going to add my 2 cents, take 'em or leave 'em.
Fact: 3rd Edition in both of its incarnations is incredibly more easier to learn than 1st and 2nd edition (not counting the Basic Rules). Love it or hate it, just about anyone that has taken the time to actually read the PHB with the intention of learning the system will tell you that it's a VERY easy system to learn. Now put an AD&D rules book (any) in that same person's hands and watch the confusion on their face.
Easy system. The easiest that has ever been devised for D&D aside from the original Basic Set.
The surprise in that is that despite the simplicity of 3.0/3.5 it is also very complex. And I mean that in a good way. Never has so much detail existed in the game. That's what I love about it so much. 2nd edition was so f-ing filled with house rules and grey areas I wanted to pull my hair out at times. Every time I sat down with a new group to play in their game I had to learn all of their BS house rules and watch more heaped on top of the stinking pile because the rules were so damned vague. I can't even begin to count all of the letters and e-mails I wrote that started out "Dear Sage, my gaming group needs clarification about..."
Yes, there is still a need for clarification about the rules (just check out the regularly updated FAQ on the WoTC site), but so minor compared to the way it was before.
Some have said, "Well, I'm a genius because I already was using the kind of rules they came out with for 3rd edition and don't need them." Well, la te da and good for you! Guess what. Now you can simply throw all of those huge 3-ring binders and stupid notebooks you have piled up with all of your house rules away. It's all contained in a streamlined series of 3 core books.
Whew! How's that for a rant?
Anyway, it's a better system with very little guess work involved and nearly no need for house rules.
As far as how it plays in your home game... well, that's entirely up to you, my friend. It's your game and you control it. If it goes the way of power gaming and you hate it. Guess who's fault that is? If using minis on a battlemat has sucked the mental imagery from your game. Again, who's fault?
The point is, it's an excellent system with immeasurable potential to do nearly anything. The only limit is what you want to impose.
|
|
I've found a group here who are starting a 3.5 Shackled City campaign in the Eberron setting who are willing to let me & 2 of my players sit in with group. I figure it'll be better to play a bit before deciding to do the all work necessary for a conversion and discover 2 months after that we don't like it. Thanks for all the advice & observations....any suggestions on a single classed character that would give me a feel for the 3.5 systems?
I've found a group here who are starting a 3.5 Shackled City campaign in the Eberron setting who are willing to let me & 2 of my players sit in with group. I figure it'll be better to play a bit before deciding to do the all work necessary for a conversion and discover 2 months after that we don't like it. Thanks for all the advice & observations....any suggestions on a single classed character that would give me a feel for the 3.5 systems?
That is definately a good idea. Always best to test out the system before jumping in. (I have a tendency to just jump in blindfolded, but I'm a moron)
Expect to see mostly D20s rolled and lots of fiddling with miniatures.
Just remember that not every gaming group is necessarily a good "example" of how 3rd edition will be for "your" group.
If your players are all mature individuals who enjoy role playing, the "power-gaming" aspects of 3rd edition won't be as big a deal after the initial novelty of the new game system wears off.
My gaming group was initially fascinated with the rapid level advancement and "what power do I get next?" thing, but they've settled down in the last couple of months and I'm seeing the return of more focus on character development and role-playing---only now in a more consistent and better designed game system, IMO.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sony Playstation is probably the best example you can make for me to make my point. when Sony released the PS2 they decided a simple idea: Make the console play both the new games and the OLD games! Brilliant! And from what I've read, PS3 will play PS1 and Ps2 games. Hummmmm? Sounds like Sony figured out that consumers get tired of having to have two systems.
As far as the value of your car... I will call it safe to assume that you aren't driving a Shelby Mustang or a 67 Chevel. Your somewhat narrow view of things has failed to take into consideration one simple fact: D&D has had three major up grades Pre 3ED, ALL THREE were compatible for 30 years! 3ED wasn't even TRYING to be Compatible with AD&D, it was trying to be compatible with WHITEWOLF and Only Whitewolf.
As far as comparing D&D to you old computer...this is almost to childish to respond to, but here goes. The...
Allow me to clarify the argument I am addressing, because I can't for the life of me figure out what you're talking about.
You complained that you've spent all this money on D&D books, and then a new edition comes out and those books are worthless.
My counter-argument: everything you buy falls in value. Everything.* Clothes, books (seriously, used books are worth less than new books), furniture, scissors, pool covers, noseplugs, MC Hammer CDs, walkmans, mp3 players...
Your PS1 is worth less because the PS2 is out. Your PS1 games are worth less because the PS2 games are better looking, faster, and more "in style". You still may be able to use those games (just like, you can still play 2e, listen to New Kids on the Block with your cassette player, and watch the old episodes of 90210 on video tape), but their value in the market has fallen tremendously due to the release of the PS2. And, your PS1 is no longer supported. The new PS2 games won't run on it. If you want any new games, you have to upgrade.
As for computers, I guess my original point wasn't childish enough since you clearly didn't understand it. Unlike a console gaming system, where the majority of the purchase price is in the games, the majority of the purchase price of a PC is the machine itself. A new machine may run the old software, but you've still "lost" the amount you spent on the old machine because the new one is released. See if you can identify the similarities between this situation and the "lost" money you spent on 1e/2e books.
My point, and I'm not going to bother responding again, so pay attention: It's cool if you still like to play NES games. It's alright if you think they're better than SNES games. It's cool if you like to play 2e. But quit whining about how you spent all this money on things that lost their value over time. All consumer goods lose value over time.
Sebastian
PS
3ED wasn't even TRYING to be Compatible with AD&D, it was trying to be compatible with WHITEWOLF and Only Whitewolf.
Is this a typo or a level of sarcasm beyond my comprehension? Have you even played whitewolf games? Go post on some of their boards that 3e is compatible w/whitewolf systems and see what they think about that.
*But see those unusual collectibles that go up in value. They are the exception.
The new PS2 games won't run on it. If you want any new games, you have to upgrade.
To be fair, though, RPGs are better described as art than technology, and such a comparision, even if partly valid will always be mostly spurious. The capabilities of technology are objectively-measurable, so there is no doubt that a computer chip that can complete ten million operations in a second is simply better than one that can complete only one million. RPGs are different, though, and it can't be similarly argued that (to use the original D&D and AD&D as examples) treating elves as a class is objectively better or worse than treating elves as a race. RPG design simply can't be qualified that way.
So when what constitutes an upgrade or a downgrade is not an objective matter, your argument loses a lot of its "punch."
To Blackdragon I would say: Check out Castles & Crusades from Troll Lord Games. It's what WotC's D&D could have been like if its designers had decided to stick closer to the AD&D model.
Even most supporters of 3.x admit that the monster/NPC new options are tedious and complicated. Not to sound simple-minded, but monsters and NPCs (evil ones anyway) largely exist in my campaign world to be killed/overcome. While six different orcs comprising the patrol might be interesting and more "realistic", I don't really care if orc #2's father never took him to the circus. Ya know? I just care if my last roll was enough to detach his head from his body. ;-) While some background/level adjustment/creative attributes & abilities are arguably worthwhile for my archvillian, I just can't swallow the theory that taking every single NPC/Monster through its entire life and development is helpful or desirable. I can appreciate that apparently there are/were a large percentage of DMs who prefer everything spelled out in blistering detail and some $40 book to provide precise breakdowns on how to customize any creature, but the whole thing just leaves me cold. Personally, it always irked me - all those letters to Sage Advice and whatnot, pleading for some exact clarification. I don't see pre-3.x rules' vagueness as a fault but a boon. DMs needed to grow a pair and use that lump 3 feet above their a*s as something other than a hat rest. The game used to rely heavily on imagination and creativity but the newer versions reduce it to a video game with canoned material to remove any personal decision-making from the process. Hey, I don't blame WOTC. They are a company in the business of making money. They must constantly take the "pulse" of what's new and hip, and strive to be "cutting edge". I say WOTC succeeded with their exact plan with 3.x - they appealed to whole new audiences and many younger players by breaking down the game to its simplest, least thought-provoking, fastest paced, video game-esque style. I just wish they hadn't done so with such total disregard for those who had been their bread-and-butter for decades.
I'm a relative newcomer to D&D. I was initiated into it after I started college with 3rd Edition. So, I don't suppose it's difficult to imagine my take on this issu. Ask virtually anyone who BEGAN with 3.x and then ever tried an earlier version (I've attempted about half a dozen times), and I'd lay odds that the answer will be the same 90% of the time: 3.X is hands-down better, and the only people who like older versions better are those who have some sentimental attachment to those older versions... or just don't want to spend the time and/or money to convert. The rules in 3.X are more logical, more in-depth, and generally more concise. This is only natural, because anything that wants to continue to have a viable place in a sales market over a great length of time has to do one thing above all else: IMPROVE. AD&D did not improve for years... it simply became stagnant, and rather than slowly evolving and getting better over time, its place in the market declined. Enter WoTC. In order to make this hobby, which many people in that company obviously loved, a viable entity on the market again, they had to change it... drastically. It was refashioned into something far easier to learn, far less intimidating for a newcomer to set foot into, and far more widely available to anyone interested in trying it. No matter what reasons, rationales, diatribes or rants are thrown about, I think it's safe to say that pretty much everyone who rails against the fact that the present form of D&D left its previous devotees behind in order to cater to new markets needs to just stop b&+$~ing and realize that they're the ones who have chosen not to be included in the new direction of this hobby. No one has left them out... they've decided to stay out, for whatever reason. It's an RPG... it has as much or as little imagination and creativity as you choose to bring to it. Want it to be as simple and uninspired as a hack-em-up video game? Great. Want an epic tale of heroism and high fantasy drama? Whatever floats your boat. Just don't sit there and whine about how stupid and uncreative and lazy everyone who likes the new version of D&D is just because you don't like it. I don't need to know the relationship between an orc raider and his daddy in order to run a fun adventure... but I like knowing that if I WANTED that orc who never got to go to the circus to be different from his buddies, I could easily make it so. Come up with a rational reason why having more and clearer choices and the option for more depth and story is a BAD thing, and I'll give you a cookie.
3.X is hands-down better, and the only people who like older versions better are those who have some sentimental attachment to those older versions... or just don't want to spend the time and/or money to convert.
I would venture to say that it's a little arrogant to paint the motivations of other with such a broad brush, and to invent "statistics" ("90% of gamers think so-and-so", etc) to bolster your opinion when your opinion has a perfect right to exist on its own.
Gamers have a lot of reasons that they enjoy the games they do. Sentimentalism can sure play a part, and so can being lazy or cheap, but concern over excessive GM prep time can be another. So can desire for more freeform rules, stronger race and class archetypes through more difficult multiclassing and demihuman restrictions, slower level advancement, etc. Different games have different strengths and weaknesses and different gamers have different play preferences. There's no one game that fits all. It's folly to not acknowledge that much.
AD&D did not improve for years... it simply became stagnant, and rather than slowly evolving and getting better over time, its place in the market declined.
Oh, and one more pedantic point: AD&D evolved a ton. You had the original books, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, 2nd Edition, the addition of kits in the "Complete..." series, Tome of Magic, Skills & Powers, etc. AD&D in 1995 was light-years away from AD&D in 1985 or 1981.
TSR died because TSR was brutally mismanaged by clueless asshats for years and years, not because of AD&D. :)
I would venture to say that it's a little arrogant to paint the motivations of other with such a broad brush, and to invent "statistics" ("90% of gamers think so-and-so", etc) to bolster your opinion when your opinion has a perfect right to exist on its own.Gamers have a lot of reasons that they enjoy the games they do. Sentimentalism can sure play a part, and so can being lazy or cheap, but concern over excessive GM prep time can be another. So can desire for more freeform rules, stronger race and class archetypes through more difficult multiclassing and demihuman restrictions, slower level advancement, etc. Different games have different strengths and weaknesses and different gamers have different play preferences. There's no one game that fits all. It's folly to not acknowledge that much.
AD&D did not improve for years... it simply became stagnant, and rather than slowly evolving and getting better over time, its place in the market declined.Oh, and one more pedantic point: AD&D evolved a ton. You had the original books, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, 2nd Edition, the addition of kits in the "Complete..." series, Tome of Magic, Skills & Powers, etc. AD&D in 1995 was light-years away from AD&D in 1985 or 1981.
TSR died because TSR was brutally mismanaged by clueless asshats for years and years, not because of AD&D. :)
All extremely good points. Particularly the "90%" BS. Unless I've gone out and taken a poll or something, an aribtrary number shouldn't have been used like that. I tend to pull crap like that when I go off on a rant. To ammend it, I'll simply say that, of all the many gamers I know, I've never met anyone who started with 3.X who doesn't prefer it to earlier versions.
Now, I tend to think of adding supplements, settings, kits, etc. more as "growing" or "expanding." That's not really the same thing in my mind as "evolving." So, I'll disagree with you on that point, though it's basically just semantics.
The fact that someone like me, who was basically SEARCHING for something like D&D for years in highschool, never even knew it existed until I was a senior and about to graduate attests to your point about the horrible mismanagement at TSR.
As for being arrogant... yeah, I tend to come off that way. Mostly I'm just spewing my opinions as if they were facts without considering how that comes off. Fortunately, I've always been lucky enough to hang around with people who'll call me on that crap. So, thanks for contributing to me not becoming too much of an a@$#*~!.
Single classed character to give the feel of 3.5? Probably cleric. They have enough fighting and spellcasting and skill uses to give someone a good feel about the whole mechanical system, I think.
Ahem: Let me begin by saying I HAVE NEVER PLAYED 2E. Also, I am not picking a bone with anyone's views. These are just mine. I started with 3.0, upgraded to 3.5 (yes, it was expensive, but worth it), and am very much in favor of the system. Whether you read the PHB or not, you can easliy pick up the game within a few minutes of play if you have someone there to guide you, and even if you don't, it all flows and makes sense.
Yes, the super-detailed mechanical nature of the game can lend itself towards power-gaming. I'm a senior in high school- my players are far more interested in maxing out the damage with their greatsword than they are with their chracter's background. That's fine. Once you let them do their little power trip, it's generally not too hard to reign them back into role playing. My power-gaming players, for all their faults, have pulled off some really good story bits, even sacrificing their characters for role playing purposes. While power gaming is easier in 3.X, it's really up to the people.
Yes, PrCs often seem excessive and blur a lot of lines, granting things generally awarded simply through role playing. If you don't like the PrCs so much, don't use them. PrCs I like in the DMG: Archmage, blackguard, hierophant, eldritch knight, mystic theurge. The duelist isn't bad, but seems somewhat restrictive considering the otherwise freeform rules. Everything else- page fillers. Not saying those PrCs are bad, they just aren't nearly as useful. Don't want all the stuff from the Complete books? Don't use it. The players can buy whatever sources they want- a DM isn't obligated to use it. Both DMGs state that PrCs should be limited to the ones in the DMG and very few others. The same goes for Bluff and Diplomacy. Want to role play the encounter? Go for it. Want to gloss over it and get on with something else? Use the role. Different tactics for different situations. You can even do a mix. Have a plyaer who really tries to roleplay, but just can't seem to get things right? Roleplay it out, and assign modifiers to the dice based on his enthusiasm and effort.
I agree that there are many feats and such things that just duplicate class features or abilities or something. Don't use them. Keep things simple and as close to the core rulebooks if you don't like those extra rules. This also saves a bunch of money!
I don't use miniatures. I and my players don't think they are necessary. We use a laminated battlemat and markers, representing our characters with their first initial, generally, and the same for monsters. By reducing the visual imput from the physical mat, it forces more mental imagery, which no one in my group has a problem with.
Story line? My players are in an evil campaign now. They are seeking to bring a succubus queen into the world, and to take revenge against the Hieronean nation of Paolis. To do so, they are working with the evil wizards of the Khaermani Empire, who venerate Vecna above all others. The PCs' patron is archmage Rasthalak, who was killed by the Hieroneans once, and raised for unknown reasons by a rakshasa cleric of Vecna. The party will help the mage create a massive iron golem and lead it against the Paolins in a psychotic rampage. After that's done, Rasthalak wil be visited by Grand Archmage Detharkon, who will disintegrate his unsuspecting inferior for hurting the Empire's trade agreements with Paolis. Detharkon will then promise to fulfill Rasthalak's debts to the party, sending them back into Paolis to do so. There, the rakshasa cleric will warn them that Detharkon has sold them out to help smooth things over between the two nations. They will escape and work with the Vecnans (who have actually orchestrated the whole thing) to overthrow Detharkon and place a more Vecna-friendly archmage in his position.
Sorry for the info overload, but it just goes to show that story line isn't compromised in 3.X. My party will not find out much about the backstory of the various characters, or care about things that don't directly affect them. But, the story exists, nonetheless. Also, just because I know the detailed backgrounds of the main villains, doesn't mean that I tell the life story of every Paolin soldier the PCs crush. I make one stat, one time: Paolin Soldier. This will be used for every soldier the party encoutners, except for those I feel like giving a story and more depth to.
Also, I'm not worried about PrCs for Rasthalak and Detharkon. Rasthalak: Wiz12. Detharkon: Wiz13/Archmage 2. Simple. Feats? Those in the PHB. If I remember one from Complete Arcane or something, I'll throw that in there, but I won't eat up too much time over these stats, or those of many other characters. And, almost all of the monsters in the campaign are going to be plugged in right from the MM. No adjustments needed. Customizing out the wazoo is fine for players, but theoretically, any level 13 character is as strong as any other (given approx. same base stats), so I don't worry about it too much. Besides, the party is suposed to win. If the enemy is slightly weaker than they would be at the same level because he didn't multiclass the right way, so be it. It's not worth the hassle.
There are many flaws with 3.x. Battles take forever. The complex system sometimes confounds and confuses, especially when distracted by the other people around the table. Sometimes rules have to be fudged for the game to go on. My players often forget simple math, or why their attack modifier is exactly the way it is, and spend ten minutes trying to figure it out. Their ineptness isn't the game's fault, but the complex system of modifiers and bonuses can be cumbersome sometimes. However, that isn't such a big deal to my mind.
I'm sure that many people have valid reasons for liking 2e over 3.x. I can completely understand, but I still think that 3.x is extremely enjoyable if just given an open mind. The fact hasn't changed over all the editions: the core rules are just professional suggestions. Make your game, your game. 3.X supports this just fine.
Even most supporters of 3.x admit that the monster/NPC new options are tedious and complicated. Not to sound simple-minded, but monsters and NPCs (evil ones anyway) largely exist in my campaign world to be killed/overcome. While six different orcs comprising the patrol might be interesting and more "realistic", I don't really care if orc #2's father never took him to the circus. Ya know? I just care if my last roll was enough to detach his head from his body. ;-) While some background/level adjustment/creative attributes & abilities are arguably worthwhile for my archvillian, I just can't swallow the theory that taking every single NPC/Monster through its entire life and development is helpful or desirable.
This just seems like a gross exageration. There is no reason at all to have 6 different orcs unless the DM desires it. The basic orc in the MM works perfectly well for all the orcs if their purpose in life is to die a bloody death at the hands of your players.
That said even in 2nd edition there where strong overtones for adding character levels to many of the humanoids. I remember using a slew of Scro in a campaign and they where certianly leveled, had proficiencies etc. and came with multi-classed Cleric/Mages of 5th/5th level or some such as fire support. So leveling monsters is not a new thing in 3.X its just a rationalized thing so that leveling goblins is the same as leveling Orcs instead of having arbitrary rules being made up for each creature entry or more annoying yet rules being made up that only apply during a single module - especially when one started getting multiple versions of the same rules cropping up.
Many good points have been made, but I still maintain that the monster system is a pain. My problem is not the leveled monsters part, per se, but the time/work it takes.
A quick test: Create a gnoll commander.
1st / 2nd Edition: Give him 3 extra hit dice (and 15 more HP, assuming 5 HP per HD), give him chainmail (raising his AC) and perhaps a +1 two-handed sword. Done.
(Or easier yet, simply look in the book, since the 1st Edition Monster Manual and 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual tell you the stats for various gnoll leaders.)
Now let's try this with 3rd Edition, giving him 3 levels as a Fighter. Go!...
(Now time yourself, being sure to assign feats, give out skill points, assign the skill points, etc.) You get my point.
Flipping through the 3e Monster Manual is a scream. Darkmantles with a 10 Charisma? A cockatrice with a Wisdom of 13? (A common halfling is listed with a Wisdom of 9, so obviously the cocktrice got the better of the deal! And yes, I realize Wisdom can be defined in various ways, but seriously ...) Strangely high wisdom scores, many creatures with weapon finesse, etc., ... there are places where I could sense the designers assigning bizarre values just so their rules would work, which is never a good sign. Instead of assigning high wisdom to dumb creatures, they should simply list the REF/WILL/FORT numbers alone for each non-humanoid critter and leave the ability scores out of it. Having monsters work off the same system as PCs is a noble goal, but in practice it groans rather than glides.
There are many things I really, really like about 3rd Edition, but a few parts stink worse than my cat's litter box on a July afternoon.
(Rant written at 1 am now over, sorry.) Bottom line, Saern's right, "Make your game, your game."
Reading these mails make me wonder if it is something our players are doing wrong or...
Important thing: there are no real powergamers, minmaxers or munchkins in our group(s). That means that even if there are all hyperpowerful options available somewhere they don't necessarily get used (a good player makes a WIS check, DC 15, to realize that if there is something too powerful in her character she should use restraint in using that or otherwise the GM will take it away...+1 modifier for every time this has happened before). Having couple of levels of another class is common, it brings flavor to the character, but rarely anyone bothers with more than two classes.
We still don't use figures so several combat rules are simply ignored (there has been a proposition that figures could be used in some of the more important battles where position actually has a role). No flanking rules unless the players specifically say that they want to do that, attacks of opportunity when it seems reasonable.
Yes, that means some of the skills and feats become less useful (like tumble). Well, that just means that less characters take those skills. Power attacks are nice but usually most people just run with "power attack on/off".
We have actually had battles where if the player has trouble choosing which of the numerous options should she use and spends too long time pondering that, her character does the same and misses a turn. Tough luck, better plan ahead next time.
Battles are nice and have their time and place but they are not really the most enjoyable part of rpgs.
Oh, and for heaven's sake, there's no reason to create Goblin #2 from scratch. Again, just because the option is there doesn't mean it should be used. At least all the time.
There has so far been no characters in high levels but indeed it seems that the exp table will need a tweaking up...keep the high rate of exp on first two or three levels and then getting less and less exp. That ~13 same-level meetings for next level rule is too low on higher levels.
So, in general we are not playing exactly by the book and at least I am enjoying having the options.