Getting their/they're/there right: impossible."I live for moments when I tell people that I'm going to do something and they're reaction is, "that's impossible.""
- Monte Cook via Facebook today
LOL!
|
Getting their/they're/there right: impossible."I live for moments when I tell people that I'm going to do something and they're reaction is, "that's impossible.""
- Monte Cook via Facebook today
Just one of the many reasons that English is one of the most difficult for non native speakers to learn. Or so my friends from Shanghai and Baghdad tell me.
|
As to the AC/THAC0 comment, it irks me. They changed it from subtraction to addition. That's it. No earth-shattering change, no system-breaking departure. See that 10 AC? Add to it instead of subtracting. By the same token, I want to beat my head off a desk when people complain about "how complicated" THAC0 was. IT'S SUBTRACTION! SUUUBTRACTION! Lordamighty.
You find it straightforward; I find it straightforward. But you wouldn't believe how many people I've known had trouble with it.
The biggest problem I found, was people doubling their bonuses;
Player: "I've got THACO 14 for class, +2 to hit for Str, +2 for magic weapon, +1 because we're blessed, +1 for flank attack....so that's like having THACO 8, really, isn't it?
DM: "In a way, yes. You can either adjust your roll or reduce your THACO. Same difference."
Player: "Okay, so let's see...<roll>...a 2. Hmmm. Plus 2 for Str, 2 for magic, 1 for bless, 1 for flank....that's 8. Versus THACO 8...I hit AC 0!"
DM: "What?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My long running 1e campaign was fairly easy to convert to 3x. Spell casters more or less worked the same, rogues, rangers and druids just had to update their class features to skills and feats for the most part,...
I can attest to that; I've run some adventures, such as U1 (Saltmarsh) several times, in three editions of the game, and found it relatively easy to do so. Obviously, familiarity with the material helps, as does having more mature players than when I was 12, and more confidence in myself.
But the fact that each edition tended to build onto the frame of the last, meant I could spend my time adding to the adventure, filling in less explored chapters (like the town itself), weighing up the new options for NPCs (NWPs, skills, feats), rather than having to reinvent the wheel by rewriting them from scratch.
It's interesting to view the evolution of an NPC like Sanbalet, from Illusionist (1E base class), through Magic-User (illusion specialist, fixed opposition schools), to Wizard (illusionist, with free choice of opposition schools, and churning out poisons and potions to his minions like a lemonade stand).
I mean, seriously, and I've heard this a lot from some old schoolers, 3x just codified a bunch of stuff we were already doing anyway.
Again, I can attest to that.
I had copies of all the Sage Advice columns from Dragon Magazine which I kept in a box file. Some of the questions were rather pointless, being from people who couldn't understand how to use an index, or were just being wilfully obtuse (just like now, eh?), but a good number did actually cause the Sage to stop and ponder how certain effects interacted.We didn't convert to 3E immediately, being in the middle of a 2E campaign at the time, though that did convert early 2001. I still wasn't convinced I was going to make the permanent jump, especially as I hadn't appreciated how my PC had been castrated in the conversion ("You know that thing you've always been able to do? That everybody's always been able to do for 20 years? Now you need a feat for that..."), so I kept all my 2E articles, just in case.
We played some more 3E, and I enjoyed those games better, with PCs that had been intended for that system, rather than ported in. I decided to make the change and went through those old Sage Advice pages, in case there were some nuggets of wisdom that would still aid me.
What I found was that virtually every single one was no longer required. The adoption of specific bonus types, standardised conditions, clearly marking actions as full-round/standard/move/swift, the table of what triggered an AoO, etc, all made those reams of FAQs redundant.
That's not to say that 3E didn't introduce confusion of its own, but I believe the writers took on board what had been flagged in 2E.
So, if I like using a grid map for combat but my friend doesn't, we're going to be able to make that work?
So, if I like using a grid map for combat but my friend doesn't, we're going to be able to make that work?
'fraid not.
As to the AC/THAC0 comment, it irks me. They changed it from subtraction to addition. That's it. No earth-shattering change, no system-breaking departure. See that 10 AC? Add to it instead of subtracting. By the same token, I want to beat my head off a desk when people complain about "how complicated" THAC0 was. IT'S SUBTRACTION! SUUUBTRACTION! Lordamighty.You find it straightforward; I find it straightforward. But you wouldn't believe how many people I've known had trouble with it.
I almost feel like people got intimidated because there was a chart involved. THAC0 was a far cry from an intuitive system, I will readily admit, but the reputation it has is blown out of proportion.
|
|
So, if I like using a grid map for combat but my friend doesn't, we're going to be able to make that work?
Yes, it is called compromise. :)
That's not to say that 3E didn't introduce confusion of its own, but I believe the writers took on board what had been flagged in 2E.
Believe it or not, this is exactly what happened with 3E->4E.
|
If we do, I want to be Harold, and I'm showing up early to dig some stake-lined trenches. And I'm getting me some bowmen.
EDIT: And I'm wearing an iron eyepatch. ;)
Won't happen as long as there are people who refuse to realize that the transition from 2E to 3E was just as big as the transition from 3E to 4E.
Actually, just won't happen period, regardless of whether or not people accept that. After all, there's vitrol in the arguments between the pre-d20 edition folks, and all of those systems were a lot more similar to each other than 3E and 4E were.
|
|
Won't happen as long as there are people who refuse to realize that the transition from 2E to 3E was just as big as the transition from 3E to 4E.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion on this. I do not agree-- having been through Original D&D (+ supplements) to AD&D 1 (plus supplements) to AD&D 2 (plus supplements) to AD&D 2 w/ Skills and Powers (kind-of an edition change-- AD&D 2/S&P was close but did not mix properly with AD&D 2/no S&P) to D&D 3 to D&D 3.5 to 4E... IMO, 3.5 to 4E was the biggest transition on that list by far (and it's not just a matter of mechanics). 3.5 to PF is a much smaller transition, of course.
Not trying to revive edition wars, but-- I don't think I'm "refusing" to realize, so much as I've evaluated all the evidence, considered it along with my long experience of playing D&D through many different versions, even considered it in conjunction with all the opinions flying back and forth on the board; and have come to the conclusion that I firmly disagree with your opinion, for (I believe) good reason, and I find the "refuse to realize" quip a little bit insulting.
You are free to believe as you wish of course, but if you phrase it in such fashion, expect a reaction. I think this horse, about how big any of the transitions between editions were, is a corpse you should leave decently buried, instead of bringing it up where we can flog it some more.
|
|
That's not to say that 3E didn't introduce confusion of its own, but I believe the writers took on board what had been flagged in 2E.
Believe it or not, this is exactly what happened with 3E->4E.
I am totally willing to take your word on that, and I've argued as such on several threads.
I believe there are lots of players willing to accept that 4E is a decent game in its own right, that it may even be better balanced and smoother running. But they don't make the jump, since they don't see the line of continuity through the previous editions.
Using the example of U1 mentioned above, I can trace the evolution of an NPC like Sanbalet through my homebrew for three (and a half) editions.
He goes from being a member of an awful base class, with needless prerequisites and a craptastic spell list (but still a potential TPK encounter, even then); gets merged with the other arcane casters (still has a mad Dex requirement, but at least his spell list has opened up); later gets the option of picking his own opposition schools, writing scrolls, brewing potions (so he can actually use the lab that the writer gave him), picking metamagic feats like Silent Spell, so he can actually carry off illusion magic without giving himself away.
His statblock may grow longer each time, but I can point to each iteration, and say 'That's the same guy.' each time. It takes till 3.0/3.5 for him to actually come into his own, and match the flavor of the story with mechanics to back it up. To go from 'swingy encounter in a cave' to 'shapeshifting psycopathic leader of a gang of poisoners', a guy willing to change to female form, 'take one for the team', if it gives him the opportunity to murder his way through the town council, killing every friendly NPC the PCs know, and framing them for the deaths when the bodies start being discovered.
Can I recreate that guy in 4E? Do the same spells exist? (I get that some could be rituals) Do they do the same things? Do they have the same names? If I want to recreate his iconic Color Spray attack, does Color Spray exist as a low-level power? Or do I have to trawl through a list of hundreds of powers, looking for a substitute?
Colour spray is a third level encounter spell in 4e. Admittedly it has a different effect than the 3x spell. Doing damage (1d6+Int mod) and Dazing hit targets in a 5-5 square area until the end of your next turn.
Kinda nerfed really 'shrugs'
|
|
I think this horse, about how big any of the transitions between editions were, is a corpse you should leave decently buried, instead of bringing it up where we can flog it some more.
C'mon, it gets brought up every single time 4E is even vaguely mentioned by posters who are convinced that 4E kicked their puppy, then killed it, than ate it, than made THEM eat the poo made of their puppy.
To hear them talk, you would think that 3E consisted solely of running 2E through a spellchecker, and changing the art.
Won't happen as long as there are people who refuse to realize that the transition from 2E to 3E was just as big as the transition from 3E to 4E.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion on this. I do not agree-- having been through Original D&D (+ supplements) to AD&D 1 (plus supplements) to AD&D 2 (plus supplements) to AD&D 2 w/ Skills and Powers (kind-of an edition change-- AD&D 2/S&P was close but did not mix properly with AD&D 2/no S&P) to D&D 3 to D&D 3.5 to 4E... IMO, 3.5 to 4E was the biggest transition on that list by far (and it's not just a matter of mechanics). 3.5 to PF is a much smaller transition, of course.
Not trying to revive edition wars, but-- I don't think I'm "refusing" to realize, so much as I've evaluated all the evidence, considered it along with my long experience of playing D&D through many different versions, even considered it in conjunction with all the opinions flying back and forth on the board; and have come to the conclusion that I firmly disagree with your opinion, for (I believe) good reason, and I find the "refuse to realize" quip a little bit insulting.
You are free to believe as you wish of course, but if you phrase it in such fashion, expect a reaction. I think this horse, about how big any of the transitions between editions were, is a corpse you should leave decently buried, instead of bringing it up where we can flog it some more.
I would agree with you.
I would also say 2e to 3e was the second biggest change ( and was a big change at that) and 1e to 2e was the smallest change ( except for a couple of classes ( ranger & bard) i could use the 2e stuff in my 1 e game virtually unchanged.
Just chucking in my 2cp
|
|
The simple fact of the matter is that you can take any monster and/or character out of 0E, Holmes Basic, 1E, B/X, BECMI, 2E, or RC game; and drop them completely unchanged into another game using ANY of those rulesets, and he/she/it will work. Might be a bit different than other characters/monsters of a similar type, but all the mechanics are right there, and they are fully compatible.
You simply can NOT drop that character/monster into 3E without scrapping everythinig you have and attempting to rebuild him from scratch as a similar character.
The simple fact of the matter is that you can take any monster and/or character out of 0E, Holmes Basic, 1E, B/X, BECMI, 2E, or RC game; and drop them completely unchanged into another game using ANY of those rulesets, and he/she/it will work. Might be a bit different than other characters/monsters of a similar type, but all the mechanics are right there, and they are fully compatible.
You simply can NOT drop that character/monster into 3E without scrapping everythinig you have and attempting to rebuild him from scratch as a similar character.
I'm not sure who that's even directed at. I've not seen any one claim that you could do that to begin with. It's irrelevant in any case. If you want to discuss modular elements of 3E or 4E that could be transplanted (in spirit) to a new iteration of D&D, it would be far more productive.
I used to use 3e monsters with some serial numbers quickly filed off in my 2e game - it presented me no major problems (iirc I just ignored the big plus numbers on hps and damage - and then ran with it).
I certainly didn't need to scrap the whole stat block and start from scratch.
That aside I don't believe there was anything like as big a difference between 1e, 2e, and 3e, as there was between 3e (and all that went before) and 4e. Love it, or hate it, 4e was a radical change and was in no way back-compatible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Q: What is the definition of "edition warrior?"
A: "The other guy."
I've visited maternity wards that had less crying in them than this thread does. Let it go, people.
This thread is so off topic... But I can't look away!
I began playing with 3e, when I have had the chance to look at 2e or 1e etc It has always seemed a very different system. How skills worked and the limited number of them. How ability stat bonuses worked. How weapon proficiencies worked. How race class combinations worked. How multiclassing/Duelclassing worked
In 4e the classes are presented very differently. The real differences... You get to pick your class features from several options each level. Class features are neatly presented in 'powers'. Powers could only be used a varying amount of times per day. (I'm sorry if the fighter trying to pull of a tricky manoeuvre only once a day brakes your imagination) multiclassing worked a little different. Skills like profession baker had to be roleplayed again rather than rollplayed. Healing is somewhat easier allowing for longer adventuring and the 15 minute work day is no longer necessary.
Anyway I guess the point I'm trying to make is that looking at those 2e rules was almost as confusing for me as looking at the 4e rules. I believe a lot of the extra confusion with 4e comes from the vastly different way the books are set out.
If I wanted to play 2e I would have to learn all the different rules, calculating thaco, AC and ability score bonuses would not be second nature for a while etc etc.
On a different note... Shame on those evil Hasbro overlords for trying to increase market share and increase profits!! What kind of company are they!
|
|
The simple fact of the matter is that you can take any monster and/or character out of 0E, Holmes Basic, 1E, B/X, BECMI, 2E, or RC game; and drop them completely unchanged into another game using ANY of those rulesets, and he/she/it will work. Might be a bit different than other characters/monsters of a similar type, but all the mechanics are right there, and they are fully compatible.
You simply can NOT drop that character/monster into 3E without scrapping everythinig you have and attempting to rebuild him from scratch as a similar character.
Not true. Does require changes and conversions to drop a monster or character from previous editions into 3/3.5E, but does not require a total rebuild. Break out the 3E conversion manual, make the necessary changes, line it all up... done. Doesn't require changing the fluff, flavor text, etc-- doesn't require changing all the numbers, class & level, that stuff (does require changing some of it-- not denying that it's not as easy as moving a monster between original, AD&D 1 and AD&D 2).
Even with a character-- the biggest issue only comes up if the character was multi-classed in AD&D 1 or 2-- then it's a bit of a pain to do a straight line conversion. Second biggest issue (but not that tough)-- picking feats and spending skill points.I'm not denying that the change from AD&D 2 to D&D 3 was the biggest transition in the game up to that point. However, yes it felt like a smooth, natural transition because the feel of the game, game-play, etc, didn't really change IMO (although I'll give you the point that it wasn't a "mild" transition). The way characters are built and how their powers work (and, essentially, "magic" powers for every character class and every monster) feels so different in 4e IMO that it's a totally different game (even if many of the mechanical issues underneath the hood are still derived from previous editions). 4E may well be a very good game for those who enjoy its play-style, taken on its own merits-- but it is very different in play to me (YMMV-- room for all of our opinions around here).
I disagree very slightly with Werecorpse: I think the smallest/least transition between editions of the game was the one between Original D&D + supplements to AD&D 1. That's the one I felt was almost totally seamless-- and I did run original D&D modules in AD&D 1 without any need for modification, had them work out perfectly.
Still beating horse carcasses into paste fit for rendering as glue... :P
It's all opinion, in my view - there's no metric for 'closeness of editions'. Arguing which was the bigger change is like arguing whether living in New York is more like living in Paris or in London - everyone will have reasons for their views, but they arent actually arguments (in the sense of being persuasive to others), just reasons.
FWIW, I think 4E was radically different from what went before and that 3rd edition was as well.
I know it will probably get me kicked off the Internet but I will concede the point to Finn K.
I played a bit of 0e but really was an AD&D player. It came out about the time I started playing. I used some of the other parallel stuff from basic etc but ran it using 1e, whether it was 0e, 2e or anything in between I just dropped it into 1e.
The change to 3e was big at the time compared to the differences between every other edition IMO.
So...if I'm playing a 1E character my vorpal sword only costs 50,000 gp but my 3.5 buddy pays a minimum of 72,000 right? On the downside mine is Lawfully-aligned and sheds light like an LED.
I just can't get my head around this based on the existing products. I'll have to wait and see the done deal.
|
|
Original would be, in my opinion, the three lttle books, of which I only have the Monster and Treasure assortment still in my collection. It predates both first edition AD&D and Basic D&D by three to four years depending on how you count it.
I've still got my original 3-volume boxed set (white box, 5th printing), supplements I - IV, and "Swords & Spells". It's all in pretty good shape because for my early gaming I was mostly running in home-brew games, and by the time I ventured into running my own campaigns AD&D had come out. My AD&D 1e and 2e books are all pretty worn from years of heavy use.
I'll be interested to see if WotC can live up to the high expectations that they are engendering in the gaming community. While I'm not really interested in going back to the earliest days of interchangeable dungeon crawls, instant death adventures and the like, I could see a place for a simple system along the lines of 2e, a complex system like 3e, and a system with the mechanics of 4e. I play all three at different times. I prefer 3e (nowadays PF) when I want to build a character to fit a concept, and I know I'll be playing in a group without power gamers. 4e is excellent for creating low-level characters that don't need to be coddled through the first copule of levels of advancement, and 1e/2e is still fun for play at a convention or a one-shot session. If I could do all that using just one set of rules that would be great, although I'm not sure it would be sufficiently tempting to make me abandon PF for my own games. After all, I've already got a book-case full of TSR handbooks, modules, Dungeon & Dragon magazines, and other gaming stuff (GURPS, Outdoor Survival, Empire of the Petal Throne, Space 1899, Dr. Who, First Fantasy Campaign, ...) and an rapidly-growing section of Paizo material.
I'll be interested to see if WotC can live up to the high expectations that they are engendering in the gaming community. While I'm not really interested in going back to the earliest days of interchangeable dungeon crawls, instant death adventures and the like, I could see a place for a simple system along the lines of 2e, a complex system like 3e, and a system with the mechanics of 4e. I play all three at different times. I prefer 3e (nowadays PF) when I want to build a character to fit a concept, and I know I'll be playing in a group without power gamers. 4e is excellent for creating low-level characters that don't need to be coddled through the first copule of levels of advancement, and 1e/2e is still fun for play at a convention or a one-shot session. If I could do all that using just one set of rules that would be great, although I'm not sure it would be sufficiently tempting to make me abandon PF for my own games. After all, I've already got a book-case full of TSR handbooks, modules, Dungeon & Dragon magazines, and other gaming stuff (GURPS, Outdoor Survival, Empire of the Petal Throne, Space 1899, Dr. Who, First Fantasy Campaign, ...) and an rapidly-growing section of Paizo material.
I'm interested too - my skepticism around D&D:Next is not so much around whether they can build such a modular system as they are describing, but whether there's demand for it. The status quo suits me fine - I have a bunch of different games and can create pretty much any kind of game I'm interested in. I wonder how many people want the ability to create lots of different play styles but aren't interested in owning lots of different games.
|
I'm interested too - my skepticism around D&D:Next is not so much around whether they can build such a modular system as they are describing, but whether there's demand for it. The status quo suits me fine - I have a bunch of different games and can create pretty much any kind of game I'm interested in. I wonder how many people want the ability to create lots of different play styles but aren't interested in owning lots of different games.
Although I'm sure D&D Next will allow different styles of characters to play in the same game together, and that there will be some groups that will have that. But I think the majority of groups will take one style of play and go with it.
The net result, I think, will (and if it works) increase WotC revenue and, hopefully, decrease the edition wars on the internet.
I've played a 4E character (an Avenger) in a 3E game, and it worked out fine. I'm very curious to see what happens with 5E.
I've played a 4E character (an Avenger) in a 3E game, and it worked out fine. I'm very curious to see what happens with 5E.
I have always wondered if the editions 3.5, Pathfinder, & 4e are 'fairly close' in the combat basics. Meaning, could you do small modifications to HP, AC and attack bonus and use Monsters for example.
I know there are bigger issues; such as possibly moving in combat and spell caster equality, but could you just bring your 4e figther into 3.5 and just reduce AC by 2, increase HP by 5% and reduce your attack bonus by 1 per 5 levels. (numbers totally made up). I am not inviting a mathmatical debate, I just don't see them as that far apart.
Lovely friendly comments here :)
|
Correct the smart players were playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying (1e) by the time 2e AD&D had come out...The "smarter players" were still playing 1e AD&D. :)
I think it may be partly philosophical at this point.
1e AD&D = Life is hard, but if I work hard I'll become mighty!
1e Warhammer FRP = Life is hard, and hopefully I'll die before I get dismembered.
Hmmmmm, think this may be an insight the US vs UK view of existence?
S.