Ignoring the "Grognard" comment, I'll respond for myself.
I'm sure that some people have enough room in their brains to memorize six dozen feats, a range of skills, class powers, AOO's, grapple modifiers, terrain modifiers, etc.
<snip>
I find 500 pages of rules hinder my enjoyment of the game.
While I respect your opinion, and you certainly tell it very clearly, I feel the need to quibble about one small point:
I don't memorize the rules either. Nobody has the 500-page rulebook memorized. We look the rules up as we need them. Heck, I didn't memorize Basic D&D either. I don't remember the duration of every spell. I look that information up as I need it.
Other than that one small quibble, though, I liked your post. You made it clear that 3.X doesn't fit your style of playing, and that's cool. And you state your opinion in a most entertaining way...
I find that players want to min/max their characters to the point that I'm creating a house rule that says "the first time you say 'I'd do this but I have more skill points in that' your character gets a house dropped on his head."
LOL. Gives the term "house rule" a whole new meaning. Maybe you should play Toon.
Semi true story:
Player: "I have 5 skill ranks in Sense Motive. Is this guy lying to me? I rolled a 15."
Me: "Do you think he's lying to you?"
Player: "I don't know, I'm asking you. I rolled a 15. That makes 20. Is he lying?"
Okay, you made me curious. Which part(s) of that story is/are true?
Props and much love for 1e and 2e, I'd still play them any day.
I'm sure that some people have enough room in their brains to memorize six dozen feats, a range of skills, class powers, AOO's, grapple modifiers, terrain modifiers, etc.
Argument doesn't make sense. You have room in your brain to memorize initiative rules, weapon speeds and damage dice, class hit dice, attacks/round, hit-charts, attack modifier rules, movement speeds... I really don't see the difference.
I want to PLAY, not sit down with a book 500 pages thick and try to create a BBEG with seven feats, a half dozen class powers, magical items out the wazoo
What gaming system has fewer than 500 pages of rules? Certainly not 1/2e.
I find 500 pages of rules hinder my enjoyment of the game.
So either you're saying you don't play RPGs, or you just don't use the rules.
I find that fewer pages of rules means players actually have to play a role, instead of quote a skill modifier.
Semi true story:
Player: "I have 5 skill ranks in Sense Motive. Is this guy lying to me? I rolled a 15."
Me: "Do you think he's lying to you?"
Player: "I don't know, I'm asking you. I rolled a 15. That makes 20. Is he lying?"
Ah, so what you're saying is you don't KNOW the rules of the game you're DM'ing. If you're playnig 3.x, that's a legitimate question. If you, as the DM, are not going to honor the skill points that a character spent, you should let him put the points elsewhere in a skill you will follow the rules for.
Say a player is playing a character from a tribe of horsemen, so he has tons of points in the ride skill. You as a DM are an excellent horseman but the player has never even seen a horse in the flesh. Do you make him describe in detail how he gets on the horse and penalize him for doing it incorrectly?
Player: I turn the horse around and follow him.
You: How do you turn it around?
Player: I don't know, I tug on the reins.
You: Ha! Horses hate that! He rears up and throws you!
Player: But my character would know that, so I don't do that.
You: Ah! You said you do it! Take [rolls a d6] 3 points of falling damage. And the horse's hoof comes down on you! Another 7 points!
Player: Wow, you're the crappiest DM I've ever played with. [picks up his dice and leaves]
I have played all editions of D&D, and everyone will explain what system they prefer by stating differences (what they don't like) with the others. That is to be expected as we explain why a certain edition became our favorite.
There are also dramatic differences in mechanics between versions like 1E, 3E and 4E. Luckily for anyone that loves the game you can choose from the best of all 3 systems and reject what you do not like, or you can choose a system exclusive of the others.
With the right DM and set of players, I would enjoy playing in all three systems.
I am not going to argue what is considered true D&D, because that is in the eye of the beholder. Just make sure you come properly equipped ;)
I have played all editions of D&D, and everyone will explain what system they prefer by stating differences (what they don't like) with the others.
Exactly. And everything else is 'not D&D'. It is just a way to legitimize one's own preferences.
... I find 500 pages of rules hinder my enjoyment of the game....Word. I recall wanting more and more modules, and maybe a ten to twenty page (or less) set of rules "clarifications" for 1st ed. More modules, more settings, more adventures, but no need for more rules.
Now that I am an adult and can no longer spend 20 hours a week obsessing over my favorite hobby, I don't need to have orders of magnitude more rules to obsess over. Especially when the game is now supposed to be about balance, but has competing rule sets that sway that balance radically.
I miss the books that have no rules in them, just the flavor and world descriptions. My friend has a book that is an in game, mundane catalogue for a merchant empire. They will ship you anything you want. Its an old 2nd ed Forgotten Realms book, and its awesome. Complete with in world descriptions of mundane items.
I miss the books that have no rules in them, just the flavor and world descriptions.
I remember when the World of Greyhawk boxed set came out, and how I carefully aligned the maps on my bedroom floor, obsessively hunting for when the Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun was (and all the other modules) and obsessively reading the entirely too-thin (for my tastes) three booklets that came.
Somewhere after that I think I achieved the confidence to make my own world, because whe Forgotten Realms came out, I thought it was too well-detailed. There didn't seem that many place to set my own made-up adventures, whereas WoG seemed "filled" with empty space.
Still, those descriptions of locales and unpopulated areas and the influences of the rulers of the land riveted me. And there seemed enough rules to make a game so fun I enjoyed hours of it weekly.
Somewhere after that I think I achieved the confidence to make my own world, because whe Forgotten Realms came out, I thought it was too well-detailed. There didn't seem that many place to set my own made-up adventures, whereas WoG seemed "filled" with empty space.
I never much cared for FR; I always much preferred homebrews. Though figured FR was an OK world for a generic D&D if the DM didn't have the time to build his own. But I decided I outright hated it when a player in a FR game convinced a major BBEG (a dragon) that his goals would actually be better served going to a different part of the world where his goals would be easily attained and he could rule in peace. When the players know more about the campaign world than the DM, it's time to use a different campaign world.
I read one time that if you said something over and over, squeezed your eyes shut really tight, and tapped your ruby slippers together three times, then it would become the truth!
"4E is not D&D."
"4E is not D&D."
"4E is not D&D..."
Though figured FR was an OK world for a generic D&D if the DM didn't have the time to build his own.
Amazing! I thought I was the only one who felt that way.
When the players know more about the campaign world than the DM, it's time to use a different campaign world.
Or it's time to use the old DM fiat. "That land may exist in THE Forgotten Realms, but not in MY Forgotten Realms!"
I read one time that if you said something over and over, squeezed your eyes shut really tight, and tapped your ruby slippers together three times, then it would become the truth!
"4E is not D&D."
"4E is not D&D."
"4E is not D&D..."
I stated my view earlier in the thread, and I'll state it again. If you feel that ANY given edition is not D&D, then it isn't. For your purposes, anyway.
|
A bit harsh. My point in the OP was 1,2,3+ are all essentially the same game.I think this is very subjective. For me 1e/2e were "basically the same game". 3e was a departure from previous ideas ...I agree with that statement, Stefan. I remember after my first experience playing 3e, I was describing the system to some other friends. I distinctly remembering describing it as "a different game". I also said, it is Dungeons and Dragons, but you have to think of it as a different game. Whereas 1e to 2e wasn't terribly earth-shaking in rules changes, 3e required a different mindset.
I described 3E as the Gurpsification of D&D. :)
i don't know...who ever heard a dwarf having class levels. What does that even mean? You either are a dwarf or you aren't.
I described 3E as the Gurpsification of D&D. :)
+1
I agree with that statement, Stefan. I remember after my first experience playing 3e, I was describing the system to some other friends. I distinctly remembering describing it as "a different game".I described 3E as the Gurpsification of D&D. :)
Really? How so?
Personally, I felt that 3E was almost, but not quite, a different game from 2E. I distinctly remember saying "It's not a COMPLETELY different game, like GURPS."
When I tried converting some D&D monsters to GURPS, I was so horribly disgusted with the results on playtest that I gave up. (Granted, this was partly because I hated some of the mechanics of GURPS, but still...)
But when I converted monsters from 2E to 3E - which I did many dozens of times - it usually worked fine.
Obviously, other people would have had different experiences. Still, your remark, David, makes me curious. Why do you feel 3E is like GURPS?
EDIT: CourtFool, since you agree, maybe you could answer the question too. (As could ANYONE who agrees, for that matter.)
SECOND EDIT: Come to think of it, I guess you might sort of say that the 3E skill system is more like GURPS skills than 2E proficiencies. And that feats are like GURPS advantages. Is that the idea?
I played GURPS after 1E/2E/3E and came back when 3.5 was released. So
I believe the comparison is in regards to the amount of choices and complexity.
So you are correct that feats are akin to advantages/disadvantages, point buys for attributes, placing points into skills, etc.
As Uchawi mentioned, finally adding skills instead of dancing around with non-weapon proficiencies (What the hell were those anyway?). In my opinion, they still managed to fumble the ball with class skills and level restrictions. Here's some flexibility, but let's malign it with restrictions and complications that are really unnecessary.
Feats look very much like Advantages. They had to be restricted and balanced (attempted) against one another since they did not go full blown point buy.
They also tried to give more flexibility with multi-classing, but again, in my opinion, fell well short of the mark. G.U.R.P.S., and for that matter, any self-respecting point buy system, allows you to 'multi-class' seamlessly. See also Gish.
Yay for some semblance of internal consistency. X in any Ability Score gives you Y bonus instead of yet another needless chart to look up. Of course magic vomits all over any semblance of internal consistency as each spell is its own self contained rule which interacts with other rules based on how the GM feels that day. Granted, G.U.R.P.S. spells are somewhat similar.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The discussions around my gaming circle when 3rd Edition came out were not "Hey! This looks like GURPS" but rather "Hey! This looks like current game design theory applied to AD&D!" Lots of games have skills and (Talents / Knacks / Feats). Lots of games had standard mechanics.
With some perspective, I also recognize that 3rd Edition incorporates certain attitudes and philosophies from Magic: The Gathering, moved over to tabletop gaming.
The discussions around my gaming circle when 3rd Edition came out were not "Hey! This looks like GURPS" but rather "Hey! This looks like current game design theory applied to AD&D!" Lots of games have skills and (Talents / Knacks / Feats). Lots of games had standard mechanics.
With some perspective, I also recognize that 3rd Edition incorporates certain attitudes and philosophies from Magic: The Gathering, moved over to tabletop gaming.
I also disagree with the GURPS comparison, although if it had been made completely classless and point-based (buy your BAB progression, buy your class abilities) it wouldn't be far off. The 3-class system in UA comes close.
When I first saw it, I thought it looked like an object orinted programming language. Everything was modular, and worked the same no matter which character was using it, or which target it was being used on. Every ability, feat, and level was simple drag and drop.
The discussions around my gaming circle when 3rd Edition came out were not "Hey! This looks like GURPS" but rather "Hey! This looks like current game design theory applied to AD&D!" Lots of games have skills and (Talents / Knacks / Feats). Lots of games had standard mechanics.
Yes, that's just what I was thinking.
With some perspective, I also recognize that 3rd Edition incorporates certain attitudes and philosophies from Magic: The Gathering, moved over to tabletop gaming.
Huh? Once again, I feel compelled to ask "How so?"
I also disagree with the GURPS comparison, although if it had been made completely classless and point-based (buy your BAB progression, buy your class abilities) it wouldn't be far off.
Exactly. Your ability scores - even if you use point-buy rather than rolling for them - are one pool of points. Skill points are another. Feats are another. If you had the option to lower ability scores in order to get more skill points or feats, or to alter BAB, etc., then it would be more like a true point-buy system like GURPS.
3e is a great game following on 1e's and 2e's legacy, but it does have differences in certain aspects that, arguably, 1e or 2e handled better. One very common complaint is that casters were turned up to 11 in 3e because 1) it was easier to make magic items like wands and scrolls making prepping for rogue-ish utilities cost virtually nothing, 2) cyclical initiative and standard action casting times for the majority of spells significantly reduces the likelihood of getting a spell disrupted, 3) open-ended save DCs make resisting spells a lot harder at higher levels than 1e/2e's saves which were constrained to a spread under 20 points.
While I still prefer 3e, these arguments have a certain strength to them that helps carve out a separation between how 1e/2e and 3e play. I wouldn't mind seeing a hybrid of 3e classes, skills, and feats with 2e initiative and spellcasting.
If I had to give up 3e/PF now, 1e/2e-amalgamated a bit would be my edition of choice, hands down.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Not so much in any mechanic, other than the term "stacking". But from a design philosophy, a vision about how games are put together, how different systems inter-relate, and what players expect to get out of the gaming experience.
The second half of AD&D (Raveloft, DragonLance, Athas, Jakandor, etc.) is about fictional characters and stories. You keep your PC for years and years, and he doesn't much rise in experience level after a while, but that's okay, 'cause there are these great stories to tell.
In 3rd Edition, you don't roll up a character, you build a character, the same way you build a M:tG deck. And the "Power Play" blurbs in Dragon magazine were all along the lines of: "If you have this high attribute, and that feat, and these skills maxed out, at first level your Dwarf Barbarian can have a sky-high save versus poison!" That is, there was a shift in perspective from PC-as-fictional protagonist to PC-as-playing piece.
In AD&D, people bragged about how long they'd been playing their characters. (And if you didn't walk away fast enough, you got to hear all about it.) In 3rd Edition, PC's have a life-cycle of (13.3 encounters per level x 20 levels =) 267 encounters or so. At an average of 5 encounters per weekly session, that'd be a year. After that, a player should design a new PC, the same way a Magic player designs a new deck.
Too, the design and development cycle that Wizards applied to D&D comes from the success of Magic R&D. (TSR used writers, and editors, and sometimes volunteer playtesters; design decisions were made according to what seemed reasonable and maybe a half-hour of number-crunching.)
That's what I meant, Aaron.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
stuff about how WotC D&D was influenced by M:tG design
To that excellent list I'd add 3.0+ action economy and the systematic clarification of interactions of effects, of which bonus typing is one element. Spell and monster types and subtypes are another, as are subschools of magic (figment/glamer/pattern, charm/compulsion, polymorph, etc.).
|
|
I played GURPS after 1E/2E/3E and came back when 3.5 was released. So
I believe the comparison is in regards to the amount of choices and complexity.So you are correct that feats are akin to advantages/disadvantages, point buys for attributes, placing points into skills, etc.
This pretty much sums up why I made the comparison.
Lots of stuff, replying to me.
No, I don't allow other books in my games. The Pathfinder rule book, in all its goodness, is huge. If you look at the 1ed Player's handbook, minus the spells, the number of rules is really quite small. Sure, there are a few more for the DM's guide, but I'll put the page count against the 3rd Ed PH and DMs guide any day. The core rules that one needs are quite few in 1st edition. My Castles & Crusades rulebook has 142 pages total, which break down into the following:
31 pages for races and classes.
63 pages for descriptions of spells.
25 pages of how to play the game (turning undead, combat, skills, etc.)
I never needed feats to make the game special. Skills are neat, but the skill system removes a lot of roleplaying, IMO. Sure, I like having a unified mechanic for searching for secret doors, but players no longer focus on the setting, instead relying on die rolls. The "semi true" story is how a player responded to an NPC giving a quest. I cut down the story for sake of brevity. A die roll is no substitute for roleplaying, but that's how far too many players, um, roll.
Now, one might suggest that my players are partly to blame for my retreat away from 3.x/Pathfinder. But I've seen the same behavior since 3.x came out. I've lived in several states, and I've seen the behavior at conventions. At some point, it stops being "my players" when people who aren't my players exhibit the suspect traits.
As for hating 3.x, I don't. I play it, and I enjoy it. I love the OGL that has allowed a game like True20 to come out, and the Iron Kingdoms setting is a favorite. But, there's something to be said for simplicity.
I don't go all-out with OSRIC systems. There are systems and people who go overboard and make that game not-fun. But I'm comfortable with making rulings on the fly. Why do I need an official ruling on whether or not a wizard can make a 10 foot jump? (That was another thread on these forums.) Why is there even debate on the subject? Is it fun for the players to move on with the game, or does the DM need to insist that the player roll a die to leap over a chasm that has no point other than providing a momentary terrain feature if a monster wants to push a character into oblivion? If you want to tell a player "your character fell into the chasm, and now the entire adventure has to stop to center on how the other characters get your character out," I think you need a refresher course on what constitutes this thing called "fun." Players and DMs seem intent on letting the rules straight-jacket their games. I prefer the storytelling.
Now, I know not everyone plays like that. At least one Paizoan of name-recognition status chimed in and said "make the ruling that lets people have the most fun." But it shouldn't take a game designer to say "use common sense."
Ultimately, you are free to play whichever game and whatever style you wish. There is no perfect game. Not 3.x, not Pathfinder, not 4e, not OSRIC. You don't have to "get" why someone chooses a game different from you. I don't understand why people played Rolemaster, but they did and that's cool. If it's not your thing, shrug your shoulders and walk away. But don't start name-calling. Perhaps a better opening question would have been "I've seen a resurgence of OSRIC, and am curious as to why people are attracted to it. Anyone want to help me understand?" instead of "grognard"-this and "grognard"-that.
Other than that one small quibble, though, I liked your post. You made it clear that 3.X doesn't fit your style of playing, and that's cool. And you state your opinion in a most entertaining way...
Thanks.
And I might have exaggerated the number of rules for sake of effect. I hate looking up obscure rules, since (in my mind) that takes the focus off the story. Blame it on grapple rules.
Red Box Basic Set is a great game and I can do everything I did in Red Box with 3.x (plus more if I want). This is my point regarding the 1E renaissance: there is nothing stopping me from playing a 1E type game with 3.x if I want so why bother with the 1E renaissance? Is there something 3.x stops a 1E player from doing? I know it adds TONS MORE things you CAN do (if you want) but does it take anything away?
I've found that getting rid of stuff to make a 3.x game run faster affects game balance in unfortunate ways. Feats are a bookkeeping nightmare, but taking them out affects all the monsters, changing the level of the challenge to the point where it becomes difficult to properly challenge a group.
Or, let's say I don't let wizards take item creation feats, since I think magical items should be rare and special instead of purchased via Ye Olde WalMarte. Wizards now have severe issues in the game.
Finally, let's both create a BBEG for a game. 10th level wizard. I'll use 1st ed rules, you use 3.x, and we'll see who gets done first. All the more time for me to be playing (or teaching my 3 month old son not to chew on the plushie Cthulhu. Whichever.)
I distinctly remembering describing it as "a different game".Really? How so?
For me 3e was a "different game" than 2e purely due to the mechanics. It "played" differently, one leveled differently, level caps were different, etc.
However, that said, after playing a while and getting used to the mechanics, the feel of the game definitely remained DnD (to me, at least). So everything had more hit points, or spellcasting happened differently, it felt like DnD.
You don't have to "get" why someone chooses a game different from you.
But some of us DO. When I GM, I want to make the game as fun as possible for the players, so I want people to explain to me what's fun to them. As you have done.
But don't start name-calling. Perhaps a better opening question would have been "I've seen a resurgence of OSRIC, and am curious as to why people are attracted to it. Anyone want to help me understand?" instead of "grognard"-this and "grognard"-that.
I'm sure no insult was intended. I quote the wikipedia entry for Grognard:
It is not necessarily pejorative and is sometimes used as a compliment.
Many people describe themselves as grognards with pride (although usually to mean "wargamer.")
Finally, let's both create a BBEG for a game. 10th level wizard. I'll use 1st ed rules, you use 3.x, and we'll see who gets done first. All the more time for me to be playing (or teaching my 3 month old son not to chew on the plushie Cthulhu. Whichever.)
Now in all fairness the 3.5 guy can win this hands down... the DMG has a sample 10th level wizard all done.... just change spells :P
But all kidding aside,I have read your points and as I chime in I have to say I do agree, I look fondly back at my earlier gaming days and loved the simplicity and game style. But I have to say oddly enough I enjoy today's game aswell.... the complexity of a high level npc is half the fun for me. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Or, let's say I don't let wizards take item creation feats, since I think magical items should be rare and special instead of purchased via Ye Olde WalMarte. Wizards now have severe issues in the game.
Could you explain this further? I ask because (a) Pathfinder Society play doesn't allow item-creation feats, and (b) it's been my experience that characters rarely take them, anyways. What "severe issues" do you see?
Could you explain this further? I ask because (a) Pathfinder Society play doesn't allow item-creation feats, and (b) it's been my experience that characters rarely take them, anyways. What "severe issues" do you see?
Or, let's say I don't let wizards take item creation feats, since I think magical items should be rare and special instead of purchased via Ye Olde WalMarte. Wizards now have severe issues in the game.
I think there are two parts to his comments. Not allowing item creation feats and no "Ye Olde WalMarte" magic shops. Which means the only scrolls and wands that are available are those that are found, for example. Wands and scrolls are ways that the wizard can always have the right spell for the right situation. Thus both of those restrictions harm wizards' flexibility.
Having said that, I think with those restrictions in place, it probably ends up hurting the fighter types more than the spellcasters in the long run.
Many people describe themselves as grognards with pride (although usually to mean "wargamer.")
Anything that remotely implies that I might be tainted with French blood is fightin' words! I'm proudly Scottish. And Welsh. And Dutch. :)
Could you explain this further? I ask because (a) Pathfinder Society play doesn't allow item-creation feats, and (b) it's been my experience that characters rarely take them, anyways. What "severe issues" do you see?
Or, let's say I don't let wizards take item creation feats, since I think magical items should be rare and special instead of purchased via Ye Olde WalMarte. Wizards now have severe issues in the game.
As pres man said, there are two issues.
The power base of wizards is their ability to not only cast spells, but also use items that allow a wide variety of spells to be cast. Wands, for instance, are relatively cheap to create, and can augment a wizard's offensive capabilities in a large manner.
Throw in the "I go and purchase a magical wand or three" and a wizard becomes quite the utilitarian.
Take that away, and the power level of the wizard starts dropping quickly in 3rd ed. But, this was more common in 1st ed, where magical items were rare and special, and not every wizard could whip up a new wand of (insert spell here). Or create a bag of holding. Or brew a few dozen potions on some down time.
As for players not taking those feats, my experience is the opposite of yours. The last wizard I played was research oriented, but I (the player) was chastised for not creating specific wands to help the party. It was expected by all, including the DM, that the wizard would create items to expand his spell-casting power, whether that be a wand of detect magic to I could save my spell slots for another useful spell.
I'll fully admit that my experiences color my opinion. But, as I mentioned before, I've seen these things happen in other groups, so at some point that stops being just me.
Having said all that, I GM a 3.x game, and generally have fun doing so. Right now, though, we're not playing a high-level game. I don't have to worry about the dozen feats that a dragon may have. I can focus tactics on the three or so that the 5th level opponent has. And, I've played 3.x and had lots of fun. I fondly ran my research-based wizard, with feats that allowed him to pretty much be the go-to guy for any questions about historical events, arcane arcana, or forgotten languages.
PS, Stewart: Point taken.
Personally, I enjoy all different permutations of the D&D game (except 4th edition), and all for their own reasons.
I enjoy original D&D for its absolute simplicity compared to any version of D&D since. All attributes using the same table for bonuses, all magic items having only one ability, ONLY choosing your class, since races were treated as classes. For a one off, almost beer and pretzels kind of sword and sorcery game, original Basic D&D can't really be beat in my opinion. (Yeah, I know there's plenty of other even more simple and even more beer and pretzel RPG's out there, but they honestly get TOO silly)
I love 1st edition AD&D for a few reasons as well. All those idiosyncratic optional rules from Basic D&D became the norm, psionics were COMPLETELY random (which makes for some interesting characters), and I find it really fun to play those classes with all those percentage charts, like the assassin, thief, and monk. Also, monks were just awesome in that system. The rules, though inconsistent, are a lot of fun.
2nd edition introduced the psionics handbook, and with it an alternate "magic" system that didn't feel at all like magic (which is where, as much as I love them, the 3.x psionic rules failed). Because of kits you were what your character concept was supposed to be from 1st level (instead of having to qualify for a prestige class, and sometimes not being able to fill your niche or concept until you do).
Also, both 1st and 2nd edition have my personal favorite form of martial arts rules (1st edition in the Oriental Adventures book, and 2nd edition re-doing those rules in the Complete Ninja's Handbook).
These are only a few of the reasons that I enjoy playing earlier editions just as much as 3.x. To me, every edition has its time and place.
PS, Stewart point taken
Now in all fairness you win if theres even 1 or more level discrepancy (ie a 9th or 11th 1st edition wiz vs. a 3.x one :P) I was just pointing out there are samples to work from for the headache inclined.
Now to your point of wizards expected to make wands and what not, I haven't personally seen it with the groups I play, but there are those 1 or 2 people that do make it more widespread than your table so I think you've really nailed down the change in playstyle that has occured over the years, as I see more experienced 3.x players have a toolkit, dare I say utility belt of potions and scrolls and wands on almost any character, as opposed to 1e/2e where the fighter had some healing potions and a big sword and went to it....
PS, Stewart point takenNow in all fairness you win if theres even 1 or more level discrepancy (ie a 9th or 11th 1st edition wiz vs. a 3.x one :P) I was just pointing out there are samples to work from for the headache inclined.
Now to your point of wizards expected to make wands and what not, I haven't personally seen it with the groups I play, but there are those 1 or 2 people that do make it more widespread than your table so I think you've really nailed down the change in playstyle that has occured over the years, as I see more experienced 3.x players have a toolkit, dare I say utility belt of potions and scrolls and wands on almost any character, as opposed to 1e/2e where the fighter had some healing potions and a big sword and went to it....
In 2nd, I always carried arround a list of magic items to pull out. I just didn't get to chose the list, it was all random items found adventuring. I saved some of those potions for 8 levels, not knowing when they would truely bre valuable.