3e vs 1e and 2e again...sorta
Gilok
going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
without any house rules or fixes? Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
broken mess?
Personally, I love 3e. I love it. I want to marry it and have its
babies. But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
sticking with 2e, and I want to know if there is a group of people to
watch for out there who just *hate* the new rules, or if its more a
matter of "if I already fixed it, it ain't broken, and I don't need to
fix it again"
Jeremy Belton
Jimmy Kerl
>
> Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
> going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
> heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
> want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> without any house rules or fixes?
If i had to rank the editions in personal peference 3e would not be on the
top. and actually this is really subjective cause ti varryies by what
kind of game id want to run 3e seems to be well suited for a few essoteric
ideas such as running a game of humanoid PCs.
Id rank em:
BD&D -- always the best IMOO, but its really missing seperate race/class
AD&D1 -- as i play more i see that most of adnd2 was actually a step back not forward.
D&D3
AD&D2
but thats just my opinion. OD&D is not listed cause i havent seen it
but id imagine it be 2nd place from what i have seen of it.
> Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly broken mess?
In some ways YES. Primarly the combat is just too complex, and
the rulesset too large. The only way to fix that would be a total
rewrite. On the other hand it does have some very good design within
it on a sub-system by sub-system basis (as a whole its too complex IMOO)
there's lots of other things i dont like in 3e but none of them are
really deal-breakers.
> Personally, I love 3e. I love it. I want to marry it and have its
> babies. But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
> sticking with 2e, and I want to know if there is a group of people to
> watch for out there who just *hate* the new rules, or if its more a
> matter of "if I already fixed it, it ain't broken, and I don't need to
> fix it again"
If im a player ill play whatever edition presented to me by the dm but i
like to have a complete set of rules before me before i create a character.
If someone comes to play in my game they'll playby the edition i give em
though.
Yeah i imagine theres quite a few people who just hate the new rules. and
some of em for good reason. I think a lot of 3e players are either new,
transitioning from 2e s&p, or used to other games. Theres 2 main things
bout 3e: (1)size of its rules. (2) more skill-baised sytem instead of
class-baised.
both of these are really really a step WAY back. But some people like em
so i hope they have fun. Even i am thinking of running a 3e game for a
group of 4 humanoids; cause i think the rules support that better than
pervious editions.
Jimmy
LARE
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
As one who still DMs a 2nd edition/Player's Option campaign, but is
working towards eventually converting to a modified version of 3e, let me
take a stab at this.
> Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
> going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e,
Well, in my groups case, we wish to continue a long term campaign. That
means converting *a lot* of stuff to 3e. It also means converting a lot of
house rules to 3e, which takes time. We've agreed to keep playing with our
incarnation of 2e/PO until we are satisfied with all the 3e changes we
wish to make. It probably will take many more months till we get there.
>and I've
> heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e.
IMO, there are many changes that while not necessarily "broken" are indeed
very different in feel. (read on for concrete examples)
>What I
> want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> without any house rules or fixes?
I do. IMO, it's slightly easier to run a low or moderately low magic
campaign using earlier edition rules. There are lots of subtle rules
changes that make "as is" 3e games seem to be geared towards more powerful
characters, once again, IMO.
>Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
> broken mess?
Not I. The core of the system is genius in its elegance. I just need to
alter many specifics to fit my campaign.
> Personally, I love 3e. I love it. I want to marry it and have its
> babies.
Errrrr, OK. Whatever you want. Just put the sword down and no one will get hurt.
>But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
> sticking with 2e,
Really?! <blink, blink> Other than an odd dissenter in some threads and
the lack of some old timers I remember, it seems that the overwhelming #
of threads & posts have to do with 3e rules - just discussing them - not
debating them.
>and I want to know if there is a group of people to
> watch for out there who just *hate* the new rules, or if its more a
> matter of "if I already fixed it, it ain't broken, and I don't need to
> fix it again"
There is some of that in my group, but as the pro 3e forces slowly keep
enlightening the anti 3e forces within my group, they are beginning to see
the light.
OK, I promised some concrete examples of terms in 3e which I find
disturbing. Mind you all of the following assume: 1) no 3e house rules; 2)
3e core books only and compare them to my groups use of 2e/PO/house rules.
(not fair you say - but isn't this comparison your entire premise?!)
Also the following are in no particular order of priority of my caring
about, but an attempt to offer a scattershot of some things which I don't
like. Nor do I make any attempt to be comprehensive in regards to topics
covered. Most of these beefs are easily corrected with house rules, though
it takes a lot of time to do so. Hence our still using 2e for the time
being.
Some of my personal beefs with 3e:
1) Lack of subabilities. One of the best things to come out of the entire
Player's Option series.
2) Ditching of cantrips for 0 level spells & greatly increasing the power
level of 0 level spells compared to cantrips. The only thing I use out of
UA is the cantrip system.
3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
get one) seems to increase the classes power.
4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
to new spells.
5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
7) Weapon proficiency rules are very different. Almost too different.
Every character of the same class knows exactly the same weapons (before
adding feats) of every other individual?!
8) Feats seem very, very disparate in their power levels. For example,
taking Alertness gives you a +2 in two seperate skills where as Skill
Focus only gives you a +2 in one skill. Another example is that a fighter
specialized in light crossbow, would have to use what could have been a
valuable dazzling combat feat just to avoid a non-proficiency penalty in a
magical hand crossbow he finds. The 'groups' of weapons in PO:C&T (and the
associated rules) make far more sense than the over-simplified weapon
categories of 3e.
9) Magic items just seem way too easy to make by even lower level
characters. I understand the need to put prices on items for the item
creation system (which it's about time was officially tackled and despte
being overpowered IMO is done fairly well) but said prices just encourage
people to try to buy & sell magic items.
10) Why can't magic items be recharged in 3e?! I suppose they needed to
balance out the ease of creation problem somehow. This is not the way I
would have chosen.
11) My group really likes having an exhaustive list of NWPs to choose
from. They went a bit overboard in consolidating these into Skills in 3e.
12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options. Not
listed as merely "Special & Superior Items'. IMC, all of these would be
considered magical. It will be tough for first time and young DMs to say
"No" to players on items that are listed plain as day in the PH as
available stuff fot ehm to buy.
13) Why does a masterwork dagger, long sword, halberd & dwarven waraxe all
cost the same exact amount (in addition to their base cost)? Way too
oversimplified for my tastes.
14) Starting equipment recomended for characters beyond 1st level as
outlined by the 3e DMG p. 43 is way too pawerful for my tastes.
15) Why is a Fire Trap spell cast by a Wiz or Sor harder to save against
than one cast by the same level Druid???? (DC 10 + spell level + relevant
ability bonus) As a 2nd level druid spell and 4th level Wiz/Sor spell,
shouldn't it come easier to druids and yet, if they're all 8th level, the
Sor just learned it, but is better at it than the Druid, who could've
known the spell since 3rd level. This is just one example of a spell
system, that while at its core is extremely clever, has a lot of bugs in
it.
16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
17) Stuff on a character's person is incredibly safer in 3e than in
previous editions. In fact, the table in the 3ePH that deals with which
*one* item may be destroyed after the character rolls a 1 (not simply
fails) is completely geared towards munchkinism as it implies that every
character is loaded with magic items. Go read it again, its table 10-1 on
page 150. Why are magically items effected before non-magical ones??? Why
isn't everything potentially affected by a fireball??? Why are your
shield, armor & helmet as likely to be destroyed by a fireball as the
scroll in your other hand?????!!!!! Finally on this topic, I've really
come to appreciate 1e/2e tables for handling item saving throws. They make
infinitely more sense than the, once again, streamlined & oversimplified
3e approach.
17a) I suppose I'll be changing a number of skills for high level
characters from HLC to feats. Starting with Signature Item.
18) Why & How can a character load a musket in 6 seconds??? (3e DMG, p.163)
19) Counterspells are a fantastic idea - its too bad the mechanics suck so bad.
20) 3e has really made the raise dead rules more powerful. (or less tough
of penalties, that is.)
21) OK, I get why you might want to create some cursed items. But they
missed a Golden Opportunity to create a subset of item creation rules
where "accidents happen".
One final note. Its amazes me just how much of the much maligned Player's
Option series material made it into 3e and now everyone praises it.
my 2cp (and then some)
LARE
--
Visit the Kingdom of Hurva
http://www.hurva.org
- A 2nd Edition/Player's Option Campaign
- Campaign Journals, House Rules, NWPs, Characters, Fig Pics,
Recipes, Detailed Clerics, Myths...In short, lots of stuff.
- Well organized, easy to navigate & searchable.
John Simpson
>Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
>going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
>heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
>want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
>without any house rules or fixes?
Only in the sense that I'm already using it, and I don't need to buy
more books or spend time learning it.
>Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly broken mess?
Not me. What I've heard of it sounds fine. Just redundant.
>Personally, I love 3e. I love it. I want to marry it and have its
>babies. But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
>sticking with 2e, and I want to know if there is a group of people to
>watch for out there who just *hate* the new rules, or if its more a
>matter of "if I already fixed it, it ain't broken, and I don't need to
>fix it again"
The latter, in my case, although I never noticed that AD&D2 was
"broken." Such fixes as I applied, and those I saw applied, were more
refinements than repairs, as far as I know.
--
Peace,
John Simpson
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
"I am not a cowboy, nor is my wife a horse! We are simply two people
trying to make love in an elementary school cafeteria."
CSR
Gilok wrote in message ...
Generally the latter. Though of course there are folks that can't just not
like something, they have to actively despise it.
There are 2 areas where I have found that people have real issues with the
3e rules: ( and that doesn't mean they are 'broken'. just they are very
different from what went before. There are a lot of games out there that
aren't broke, but people don't play them because they don't deal with what
they want to deal with in the way they want them dealt with. )
Combat:
There are people that like simple, undetailed combat and prefer to rely
on common sense, ad hoc DM judgment and description than on game mechanics.
They won't like the 3e combat rules no matter how good they are because they
are rules for something they don't want.
Clerics:
If you come from a background where clerics are preists and religious
figures first, and in many cases couldn't heal at all, the way 3e reverts to
the general cleric, albeit with a few custom trim options, isn't going to
cut it. I know some people that won't play a cleric under 3e rules, even if
it is more powerful than the specialist they would have under 2e.
CSR
Varl
> Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
> going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
> heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
> want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> without any house rules or fixes?
I think it's better only because it's what I'm used to using, and I've
noticed quite a few times that some of the "features" in 3e are something
that is already modeled in a previous edition, or could be easily. This
isn't to say that 3e hasn't opened my eyes to some aspects of 1e/2e, it
has. But I'd have to say there an equal portion that's made me yawn.
> Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
> broken mess?
I don't, but I don't see it as the godsend some folks here do. On a scale
of 1-10, I'd give it a 4.
> Personally, I love 3e. I love it. I want to marry it and have its
> babies. But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
> sticking with 2e, and I want to know if there is a group of people to
> watch for out there who just *hate* the new rules, or if its more a
> matter of "if I already fixed it, it ain't broken, and I don't need to
> fix it again"
A little bit of both for me. Some of the new rules I can't stand; others
I'm going to use.
--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.
Ralph Glatt
I can only speak for myself. I don't HATE it, but it's not for me. I'm
just happier with my first edition rules. I kinda liken it to religion
- others may find a new game (or religion) more to their liking
because it fits in with their view on things. Personally, I'd rather
stick to something that's established, something that's been around
for a while, and has already proved it's worth.
Ralph Glatt
Member, Old Farts Club
Motherboard
"Gilok" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ih2ait0sav95kajts...@4ax.com...
Robert Baldwin
>Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
>going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
>heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
>want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
>without any house rules or fixes? Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
>broken mess?
Well, I can't see how anyone could call 3e "hoplessly broken". Not to
their taste, but that's another issue.
As for 1e/2e being better, not without house rules. At a minimum, my
house rules for 1e would eliminate level limits and race/class limits.
Also, I'd eliminate pre-selected spells, and use a point-buy system
instead of dice rolls for stats. That makes 1e a seriouly good game
(and almost 3e).
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
"Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain."
Mr. Weasley
-
"Because forgiveness, for one like you, could never be an option".
Achika Masaki, House of Jurai
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Duane VP
> babies. But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
> sticking with 2e, and I want to know if there is a group of people to
No, what you see is not a fair chunk of the population of this group
doing any such thing. What you see is a decided minority who are
nonetheless very vocal about their opposition making the position seem more
prevalent than it actually is.
--
Duane VanderPol
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp
Duo Maxwell
> going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
> heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
> want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> without any house rules or fixes? Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
> broken mess?
I really, really like 3rd ed.
I abhorred 2nd ed, and havent read or played 1st edition, other than the
assorted sourcebook.
I have almost every 1st ed book, but I dont really have the time to read
them, though I did buy
them to get the full view of AD&D.
From my observations, 3rd ed is still the best, followed by 1st ed, which is
flawed, but charming,
and 2nd ed last, which I consider a broken shitfest.
I dont like making up house rules.
If you have to make lots of house rules for a game, it might not be your
game of choice..
Stephenls
No seriously. As of this postling, there are 10 replies to the original
message, and no replies to the replies.
--
Stephenls
Geek
I'd like to, but I'm paralyzed with not caring very much.
--Spike
Denakhan
Stephenls <step...@dccnet.com> wrote in message
news:3B25B36C...@dccnet.com...
> Wow. This thread is really flat.
>
> No seriously. As of this postling, there are 10 replies to the original
> message, and no replies to the replies.
Maybe...but its also interesting that the majority of replyers prefer
1e/2e/house over 3e/3ehouse....except for the "3e fan" who wants to have
3e's babies (notice I was nice and said "3e fan" and left off the "atic"?
;-)
For me; Basic D&D over 1st ed, over 2nd ed, over (multiple game
systems)..and last on the list, 3rd ed. Just about any game I've played is
better than 3rd edition D&D for what me and my group enjoy playing. I'm
holding my breath for 4th edition D&D... ;-)
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage, Arch-Heretic of the Third Edition
dave brohman & shoshana bir
>
> Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
> going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
> heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
> want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> without any house rules or fixes? Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
> broken mess?
I don't. There were a lot of people who had a hand in creating 3e,
including us lowly players. WotC actually listened to D&D players
and incorporated many ideas from gamers into 3e, including tons of
common house rules.
WHy bother with an earlier edition with tons of house rules when it
is so much easier to play a well-done and nicely-balanced game like
3e straight?
> Personally, I love 3e. I love it. I want to marry it and have its
> babies. But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
> sticking with 2e, and I want to know if there is a group of people to
> watch for out there who just *hate* the new rules, or if its more a
> matter of "if I already fixed it, it ain't broken, and I don't need to
> fix it again"
Of course there are. If there was a company that gave out free money
and ice cream there would be a group of people who hated it.
--
Budding RPG author: Relics & Rituals, Creature Collection II,
Vigil Watch: Warrens of the Ratmen
Check these out at: http://www.swordsorcery.com/
caine
<snip>
>What I want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
>without any house rules or fixes?
From an /objective/ standpoint, no. From my personal standpoint, I prefer
1E & 2E to 3E. This has more to do with game philosophy than anything
else.
>Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly broken mess?
I really don't think there's such a thing as "hopelessly broken" when it
comes to pen-n-paper RPGs. 3E has a lot of good ideas, but it isn't for
everyone. Much like Palladium, Rolemaster, GURPs, MERPs, BESM, etc etc
aren't for everyone. Personal style comes into play more than anything
else for the majority of gamers I've dealt with.
>Personally, I love 3e. I love it. I want to marry it and have its
>babies.
That's commendable, but you might want to see if it's legal first. ;)
>But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
>sticking with 2e, and I want to know if there is a group of people to
>watch for out there who just *hate* the new rules, or if its more a
>matter of "if I already fixed it, it ain't broken, and I don't need to
>fix it again"
Sure. There's lots 'o both out there. But if you're worried about people
responding badly to your posts just put "3E Only" in the subject line.
Anyone who razes on you for playing 3E will most likely be dealt with by
others before you even get a chance to respond - such is the nature of
Usenet.
Most of the people I know who have been playing for a reasonable time (10+
years) will incorporate some of the new rules into their system, but not
necessarily switch over entirely. Varies from gamer to gamer...
:)
-- Caine --
john v verkuilen
>WHy bother with an earlier edition with tons of house rules when it
>is so much easier to play a well-done and nicely-balanced game like
>3e straight?
'Cause I *like* my house rules. They've stood the test of time *for our
group*, we all know them, and they give us most of the advantages 3E has,
e.g., more dynamic initiative, multiclassing for humans, special moves for
high level fighters, etc., but is closer to the original game (3E departed
too much in several places, IMO, as Lare listed).
I see no current advantage "playing it straight" over standing pat with what
I've got. That is not to say I couldn't see an advantage in the future, for
instance if I were to relocate and switch groups, but there's no advantage
now.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Dr. Samuel Johnson
Hunter
>dave brohman & shoshana bir <shosh...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>>WHy bother with an earlier edition with tons of house rules when it
>>is so much easier to play a well-done and nicely-balanced game like
>>3e straight?
>
>'Cause I *like* my house rules. They've stood the test of time *for our
>group*, we all know them, and they give us most of the advantages 3E has,
>e.g., more dynamic initiative, multiclassing for humans, special moves for
>high level fighters, etc., but is closer to the original game (3E departed
>too much in several places, IMO, as Lare listed).
>
>I see no current advantage "playing it straight" over standing pat with what
>I've got. That is not to say I couldn't see an advantage in the future, for
>instance if I were to relocate and switch groups, but there's no advantage
>now.
>
I'd say that 2e actually deviated from the game. 3rd just brought it back in
line. But then again this is a common complaint when new editions come out, so
it should be expected.
john v verkuilen
>I'd say that 2e actually deviated from the game. 3rd just brought it back in
>line.
I think the fact that you can use a 1E character or monster in a 2E game
pretty much straight or with only a few small shifts really belies your
claim. 3E characters are *very* different from their 1E or 2E counterparts.
But then again this is a common complaint when new editions come out, so
>it should be expected.
No doubt. It's like when a band releases a new album that takes their sound
in a different direction--they may capture new fans but they often alienate
old ones.
Hunter
>no_ad...@this.time.org (Hunter) writes:
>
>>I'd say that 2e actually deviated from the game. 3rd just brought it back in
>>line.
>
>I think the fact that you can use a 1E character or monster in a 2E game
>pretty much straight or with only a few small shifts really belies your
>claim. 3E characters are *very* different from their 1E or 2E counterparts.
>
I disagree with this point. I started to bring my 1e characters into 2e, but
the rules mutated them so much that they were unrecognizeable and what they did
would now be impossible under the new rules. These same characters can be
changed over to 3e with little change in ability. IMO 3e supplies more
continuity between 1e and 3e than 2e did. Heck, they had to have a war of the
Gods to justify the change in character capabilities between editions. 3e
could be retconned into a straight 1e (this means without extra-system kludges)
campaign without mutating capabilities of most characters. At most the
characters and monsters would be gaining abilities, but not many would be lost.
>But then again this is a common complaint when new editions come out, so
>>it should be expected.
>
>No doubt. It's like when a band releases a new album that takes their sound
>in a different direction--they may capture new fans but they often alienate
>old ones.
Or they went back to their roots with a modern twist.
Varl
> >WHy bother with an earlier edition with tons of house rules when it
> >is so much easier to play a well-done and nicely-balanced game like
> >3e straight?
>
> 'Cause I *like* my house rules. They've stood the test of time *for our
> group*, we all know them, and they give us most of the advantages 3E has,
> e.g., more dynamic initiative, multiclassing for humans, special moves for
> high level fighters, etc., but is closer to the original game (3E departed
> too much in several places, IMO, as Lare listed).
I agree 101%. I really like my house rules too, and I don't have to invest in a
complete new game engine to get many of the changes 3e is now offering. Granted,
there are some new rules 3e has made that I like and will use, but not enough to
warrant further financial investment in rehashes of older material.
Rupert Boleyn
Maybe that's because those of us who like 3e aren't fanatical enough
to not get tired of all this sort of crap.
My order of preference would be 3e, screeds of non-D&D games, 2e + PO,
BD&D, 1e (without UA), 2e.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
j
prefer 3e over 2e/1e i'd like to chime in with my reply..which is to
say...i'm definitely in favour of 3e..for various reasons...some of which
have nothing to do with the mechanics ;) i should make a point that i'm
basically a DM who doesn't like playing..make sense? probably not... but as
i've found i'd rather DM (control freak i'm sure) than play...though i have
played a few games of 3e ...
Gilok <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ih2ait0sav95kajts...@4ax.com...
> Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
> going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
> heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
> want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> without any house rules or fixes? Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
> broken mess?
to be quite honest i've not come across anything AT ALL since i started
playing 3e last August that made me stop and think...What the F*** is that
all about?...sometimes theres been some slight mistakes in the books..but
then again i have one of the first printing phbs which has its fair share of
erratum..
peoples seem to be complaining about some of hte most inane stuff to my way
of thinking (which is of course MHO ;)...the magic system is too powerful
say some... priests are all the same say others... its a game for
munchkins.. the combat system sucks... the skill system sucks... its not
2e....its not 1e....
perhaps i should attempt to give a counterpoint to some points made by
someone who intelligently critisized 3e..which is a rarity on this
group....(things should improve now that Denakhan has gone...;)
Some of my personal beefs with 3e:
1) Lack of subabilities. One of the best things to come out of the entire
Player's Option series.
while i agree that at first this seemed to be a good thing in PO after a
while it became the same... a lot of these so-called options to give people
more flexibility allow people to focus in on the more stereotyped characters
anyway...why? because people will play what they know how to play... thats
of couse IMHO and in my experience in any case..which is not that long
considering the length that D&D has been around but still long enough to
have seen around 60 different players in my time... :)
2) Ditching of cantrips for 0 level spells & greatly increasing the power
level of 0 level spells compared to cantrips. The only thing I use out of
UA is the cantrip system.
this is somethign i can only give passing remark to as i've not actually
played a character with the UA rules... however what i have seen is that the
0-level spells/cantrips/orisons are now some of the most useful spells and
actually makes the 1st level mage useful...(in the past i think these were
pretty useless/quick to loose their usefullness till about fourth
level..maybe third)
3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
get one) seems to increase the classes power.
what these classes have gained in *character* far outweighs, IMO, the losses
due to increases in power..if any...with the availability of familiars...
4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
to new spells.
to tell you the truth, i've not really noticed this that much...the landmark
levels are still the same...5th level to get 3rd level spells....perhaps the
amount of spells has changed...but i'd always allowed wizards to gain bonus
spells for higher intelligence anyway..
5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
while i agree that the core list of cleric spells is uniform for all
clerics, the domain system has allowed a lot of customisability without
being to complex...
6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
while i don't see this as a major biggy some people might...in my experience
most of the Traits gave excellent powers to characters while Disadvantages
generally forced the hand of the DM into providing opportunities for his
characters to go "ooooooooh i'm afraid of spiders oooh ooooho eeeeek!" ...
my opinion of the T&D system is based on seeing many many players create
characters with what at first look to be very meritable flaws, but never
getting the chance (sometimes i think they realise this is going to happen)
to play them out due...it was simply too much work to take all the
characters flaws into account andput them into an adventure..hence the
balancing effect of Disadvantages is lost... IMHO
7) Weapon proficiency rules are very different. Almost too different.
Every character of the same class knows exactly the same weapons (before
adding feats) of every other individual?!
i agree with this point actually...while the weapon groupings in C&T was
kind of confusing and the critical hit rules sucked ass (too many rolls
makes for slow combat IMO) there could be a better system of weapon grouping
in 3e...the Simple weapon grouping is fine to me... perhaps crossbow should
be taken out (i know that they are point and click...but still ... i'm vague
about this blargh)..the martial weapons are fairly broad but in essence it
gives you the ability..as stated in the DMG i think that fine honing the
weapon lists is one way of customising the characters more.. limit your
character to light, fast weapons, take some other ability that balances out
the removal of ALL martial weapons and have yourself a swashbuckler... the
rules for this are actually a good guide to customisation...exotic weapons
are vague to me...some i can see why they are called Exotic..although the
definition seems to change here...
simple weapons = weapons that are easy to use
martial weapons = weapons you need training in to use
exotic weapons = weapons that while not hard to use in essence (some of the
time), are rare and hence are harder to find, hence less characters should
have access to them... eg the kukri, which i've at least held though never
tried to chop off someones hand with, is an exotic weapon due to its
historical use being in a small country in SE Asia... if we stick with the
ease of use rules this should be no different to a dagger/knife in
reality...
8) Feats seem very, very disparate in their power levels. For example,
taking Alertness gives you a +2 in two seperate skills where as Skill
Focus only gives you a +2 in one skill. Another example is that a fighter
specialized in light crossbow, would have to use what could have been a
valuable dazzling combat feat just to avoid a non-proficiency penalty in a
magical hand crossbow he finds. The 'groups' of weapons in PO:C&T (and the
associated rules) make far more sense than the over-simplified weapon
categories of 3e.
this was intended to be so as acknowledged by the designers in dragon
magazine i believe, to give people to persue *roleplaying* opportunities and
move away from the min/max style... sounds half-arsed..maybe it is ;)
9) Magic items just seem way too easy to make by even lower level
characters. I understand the need to put prices on items for the item
creation system (which it's about time was officially tackled and despte
being overpowered IMO is done fairly well) but said prices just encourage
people to try to buy & sell magic items.
once again the dm has control of this sort of thing...of course they seem to
have changed their tune quite dramatically in light of the new FR campaign
setting where the Red Wizards now sell items in enclaves... a pretty suave
political move, but one that was borne out of the rules change, which was
borne out of the need for some unit of measure for making magical items...
perhaps they should have made it totally XP based..wouldn't people have
complained then..."OHHHHH you've crippled the mage!!!" ;)
10) Why can't magic items be recharged in 3e?! I suppose they needed to
balance out the ease of creation problem somehow. This is not the way I
would have chosen.
Monte Cook actually counters this by saying...you can.... simply... all you
need is the feats and prerequisites to create the item in the first place...
11) My group really likes having an exhaustive list of NWPs to choose
from. They went a bit overboard in consolidating these into Skills in 3e.
why have three different skills for surviving in the wilderness, when
wilderness lore will do... do i want to customise my character that much
that i have to spread my nwps/skills across firebuilding, survival, xxxxxx
skill/nwp? while the skill list is kind of short, adding skills is not that
much of a problem and something that i've been doing a lot of...the
knowledge/profession/craft supergroups are great for making lots of
customised skills... thats where most of the "hidden/lost" skills are anow
located..
12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options. Not
listed as merely "Special & Superior Items'. IMC, all of these would be
considered magical. It will be tough for first time and young DMs to say
"No" to players on items that are listed plain as day in the PH as
available stuff fot ehm to buy.
i understand the point here..and i guess it depends on the game... you want
low magic, low powered games...easy...
you want high magic, high powered games...just as easy.. want middle of the
road ho-hum games...easy... just carefully look at the rules and change as
desired..as the dmg states ;)..its all there
13) Why does a masterwork dagger, long sword, halberd & dwarven waraxe all
cost the same exact amount (in addition to their base cost)? Way too
oversimplified for my tastes.
i agree..should have a size component in it..although who is to say that the
*work* put into a skillfully and artfully crafted dagger is any more
worthless than a similarly crafted longsword...the base cost is the same for
hte MW element...but the actual materials cost is the variable factor..
14) Starting equipment recomended for characters beyond 1st level as
outlined by the 3e DMG p. 43 is way too pawerful for my tastes.
hmmmm depends on what kind of game you're playing..and its just a guide...
15) Why is a Fire Trap spell cast by a Wiz or Sor harder to save against
than one cast by the same level Druid???? (DC 10 + spell level + relevant
ability bonus) As a 2nd level druid spell and 4th level Wiz/Sor spell,
shouldn't it come easier to druids and yet, if they're all 8th level, the
Sor just learned it, but is better at it than the Druid, who could've
known the spell since 3rd level. This is just one example of a spell
system, that while at its core is extremely clever, has a lot of bugs in
it.
not sure about this one..haven't come across it...and not sure i'd even
worry about it too much unless i had a Wizard with the spell and a Druid
with the spell and they were try8ing to figure out who would cast it and who
would have the better DC...my players don't tend to think like this ...ie
metagame..
16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
and?
17) Stuff on a character's person is incredibly safer in 3e than in
previous editions. In fact, the table in the 3ePH that deals with which
*one* item may be destroyed after the character rolls a 1 (not simply
fails) is completely geared towards munchkinism as it implies that every
character is loaded with magic items. Go read it again, its table 10-1 on
page 150. Why are magically items effected before non-magical ones??? Why
isn't everything potentially affected by a fireball??? Why are your
shield, armor & helmet as likely to be destroyed by a fireball as the
scroll in your other hand?????!!!!! Finally on this topic, I've really
come to appreciate 1e/2e tables for handling item saving throws. They make
infinitely more sense than the, once again, streamlined & oversimplified
3e approach.
this was so boring in the other editions..although i'm probably harping on
about a different point to yours... roll for EVERY item? far out that takes
a lot of time..and is something that i don't like doing..
17a) I suppose I'll be changing a number of skills for high level
characters from HLC to feats. Starting with Signature Item.
18) Why & How can a character load a musket in 6 seconds??? (3e DMG, p.163)
interesting..i'll check it out.. :)
19) Counterspells are a fantastic idea - its too bad the mechanics suck so
bad.
they're not that bad.. although i've only used it against characters.. pcs
never think to counterspell..they're too busy trying to kill the bad guys
directly...in the craze of battle you don't think too much in reality...
20) 3e has really made the raise dead rules more powerful. (or less tough
of penalties, that is.)
counteracts the inherantly more deadly nature of monsters now... some like
this ...some don't...also ..depends on the dm..
21) OK, I get why you might want to create some cursed items. But they
missed a Golden Opportunity to create a subset of item creation rules
where "accidents happen".
perhaps something you could add...interesting... do i have time to do that?
porbably not ;)
just a few poitns..all of which may make no sense whatsoever..
cheers
Jase :)
tussock
<On: 3e changes and stuff>
> IMO, there are many changes that while not necessarily "broken" are indeed
> very different in feel. (read on for concrete examples)
Whereas I fled to GURPS for a goodly while, and find that 3e feels
so close to previous incarnations of DnD that it's not worth mentioning.
I have found it a little easier to vary play style while keeping the
ruleset intact than ADnD.
> >What I
> > want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> > without any house rules or fixes?
>
> I do. IMO, it's slightly easier to run a low or moderately low magic
> campaign using earlier edition rules. There are lots of subtle rules
> changes that make "as is" 3e games seem to be geared towards more powerful
> characters, once again, IMO.
3e most certainly powered up the PC's, and the monsters, and the
NPCs. The only weak thing in relative to the others is the enviroment at
large, thus falling damage is kinda relatively weaker in 3e.
<snip; disclaimer and stuff>
> Some of my personal beefs with 3e:
>
> 1) Lack of subabilities. One of the best things to come out of the entire
> Player's Option series.
Liked the concept, hated the execution. 6 unlinked stats are OK.
> 2) Ditching of cantrips for 0 level spells & greatly increasing the power
> level of 0 level spells compared to cantrips. The only thing I use out of
> UA is the cantrip system.
>
> 3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
> get one) seems to increase the classes power.
>
> 4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
> to new spells.
Yes yes yes. On the whole, low level wizards got bumped up in power
to match the other classes. High level other classes got bumped to match
the wizards. Thieves got bumped all the way through.
This allows the elegance of the 3e unified XP and muliclassing
system. It allows classes to work well in a more modern game design,
with greatly variable yet balanced charecter design.
> 5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
> differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
<cheapshot> Yea, you have to give your clerics a personality to
differentiate them now. </cheapshot>
The domain system enforces use of different spells based on god
_every day_, while allowing a generally broad and balanced selection of
spells.
> 6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
Traits have become world specific feats. Disadvantages, well, if you
want to be a one-legged, blind, pyromaniac, manaphobic, dwarf-tosser,
then feel free.
Why that would make you more powerful is beyond me. 8]
> 7) Weapon proficiency rules are very different. Almost too different.
> Every character of the same class knows exactly the same weapons (before
> adding feats) of every other individual?!
Yep. Only monks learn kukri, only rogues learn hand-crossbow. Some
weapons are hard to learn by anyone, but otherwise there's quick weapons
trining (simple stuff), and full weapons training (only broad combat
training can do it). A couple of classes learn different sets.
Both lists should ideally be variable by culture, but it does the
job for a generic game, with broadly defined cultures anyway.
> 8) Feats seem very, very disparate in their power levels. For example,
> taking Alertness gives you a +2 in two seperate skills where as Skill
> Focus only gives you a +2 in one skill. Another example is that a fighter
> specialized in light crossbow, would have to use what could have been a
> valuable dazzling combat feat just to avoid a non-proficiency penalty in a
> magical hand crossbow he finds. The 'groups' of weapons in PO:C&T (and the
> associated rules) make far more sense than the over-simplified weapon
> categories of 3e.
Feats rock. The weaker ones are often prerequisites for the tougher
ones, and the exotic weapons are supposed to be class niches, more
powerful, or just too damn k3wl for everyone to get.
> 9) Magic items just seem way too easy to make by even lower level
> characters. I understand the need to put prices on items for the item
> creation system (which it's about time was officially tackled and despte
> being overpowered IMO is done fairly well) but said prices just encourage
> people to try to buy & sell magic items.
You're _supposed_ to buy and sell magic items in 3e, or even
commision their construction, but trust me, money is tight if you try it
on a regular basis.
It's supposed to give players some controll over the selection of
magic they get. I like the concept.
Now that comparitive plebs can make them, they're as common as
mighty composite longbows. Kinda explains all the healing potions, eh.
> 10) Why can't magic items be recharged in 3e?! I suppose they needed to
> balance out the ease of creation problem somehow. This is not the way I
> would have chosen.
You just make a new one instead. They used to need recharging,
'cause you couldn't make them. Now, when you should have them, you can
make them yourself. Need removed.
> 12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
> Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
> might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options. Not
> listed as merely "Special & Superior Items'. IMC, all of these would be
> considered magical. It will be tough for first time and young DMs to say
> "No" to players on items that are listed plain as day in the PH as
> available stuff fot ehm to buy.
I love 'em, but it's easy enough to remove the alchemy skill, and
thus all these things. They're really only toys for low levels, and the
odd kobold trap. It's a waste of a round once you're a bit tougher to
use one in combat.
> 14) Starting equipment recomended for characters beyond 1st level as
> outlined by the 3e DMG p. 43 is way too pawerful for my tastes.
Not in play. I used to dish out more than that (if my calculations
are correct), but that's just the average reults from the new treasure
tables.
> 15) Why is a Fire Trap spell cast by a Wiz or Sor harder to save against
> than one cast by the same level Druid???? (DC 10 + spell level + relevant
> ability bonus) As a 2nd level druid spell and 4th level Wiz/Sor spell,
> shouldn't it come easier to druids and yet, if they're all 8th level, the
> Sor just learned it, but is better at it than the Druid, who could've
> known the spell since 3rd level. This is just one example of a spell
> system, that while at its core is extremely clever, has a lot of bugs in
> it.
So make the 'hieghten spell' feat free for all spell casters. Not a
big change.
> 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
There are a shitload of books for ADnD. There's only 288 pages (plus
inserts) in my PHB. Seems it didn't fit.
> 17) Stuff on a character's person is incredibly safer in 3e than in
> previous editions. In fact, the table in the 3ePH that deals with which
> *one* item may be destroyed after the character rolls a 1 (not simply
> fails) is completely geared towards munchkinism as it implies that every
> character is loaded with magic items. Go read it again, its table 10-1 on
> page 150. Why are magically items effected before non-magical ones??? Why
> isn't everything potentially affected by a fireball??? Why are your
> shield, armor & helmet as likely to be destroyed by a fireball as the
> scroll in your other hand?????!!!!! Finally on this topic, I've really
> come to appreciate 1e/2e tables for handling item saving throws. They make
> infinitely more sense than the, once again, streamlined & oversimplified
> 3e approach.
The 3e approach is, it takes damage. Items have hit points too now.
Magic items aren't more vulnerable than non-magic, they infact get an
actual save to avoid any damage!
Pretty much _everything_ not in the hands of a charecter is fried
with a fireball. No special rules required.
IMC PC's have still lost a couple items each to the new rule.
> 18) Why & How can a character load a musket in 6 seconds??? (3e DMG, p.163)
Paper cartriges, look 'em up.
> 19) Counterspells are a fantastic idea - its too bad the mechanics suck so bad.
Ready is fun. My players pretty much used it for the first time last
weekend (though they've charged the odd readied kobold spearman before).
Phase spiders.
> 20) 3e has really made the raise dead rules more powerful. (or less tough
> of penalties, that is.)
Loosing a level is not less of a penalty. Besides, it's far easier
to die.
Trolls BTW, are nasty ass m***********s. Round 1-16, running battle,
power up, soften up trolls, take out one of two (PC still full hit
points, about 50). Round 17, troll disarms lance (PC draws gratsword and
stands to fight). Round 18, rend (ow! hope that doesn't happen again).
Round 19, rend (PC dead).
Now the Paladin/Cleric is again without his warhorse, and gave up
the captued griffon to pay for raising. Oh dear.
> 21) OK, I get why you might want to create some cursed items. But they
> missed a Golden Opportunity to create a subset of item creation rules
> where "accidents happen".
>
> One final note. Its amazes me just how much of the much maligned Player's
> Option series material made it into 3e and now everyone praises it.
Apart from charecter creation, I thaught most PO stuff was OK
(espescially the SnM book) if time consuming in play.
> my 2cp (and then some)
My complaints with 3e are entirely on a lack of detail in certain
areas, WRT treatment of size. Though it's handled very smoothly, and
superior in general to anything else I've run across.
Falling/jumping/swimming rules need serious modifiers for size of
participant. Perhaps this was ignored so as not to boost halflings and
gnomes too much, but probably just for simplicity.
I've had to make one or two ad hod rulings for spotting various size
creatures in the distance too. Yet to find a ruleset that wants to deal
with that junk though. Too many variables I s'pose.
I'd like the dying rules to vary the limit by size of critter (and
probably +1 per lev/HD too).
That, and it wouldn't have hurt my suspension of disbelief any to
have people live on a little beyond 1 minute and still have a chance of
dying. Allows for a few more prisinor scenarios if you slow dying down a
little.
I grew kindof attached to the KO system in GURPS (not that it's at
all realistic). It's a pitty the GURPS charecter creation and combat
systems blow dog.
--
tussock
Still need a new .sig
Ervin Matesin
3e might a first look interesting, but IMO 2e still rules. I think the DC is
a failure to compress all the rolls in one, plus the lack of all those
saves... just why? Besides, all of my fellow friends and the DM agree that
3e is just not worth it: 2e is much more flexible, although both lack
something: Psionics built-in the PHB and the PERception Roll... My DM is
working on it...
LARE
<irrelevant bits here & throughout snipped>
> Gilok <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ih2ait0sav95kajts...@4ax.com...
>>What I
> > want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> > without any house rules or fixes?
This, for the record, is the original premise. In fact the original post
went a step further - asking why would one want to give up their house
rules variant of 1e or 2e for a *totally unmodified* core-books only 3e.
Also, FTR, I stated that I'll be switching to 3e - but not until I've had
a chance to go through it with a fine toothed comb and get some things not
suitable to my campaign straightned out with house rules.
> peoples seem to be complaining about some of hte most inane stuff to my way
> of thinking (which is of course MHO ;)...the magic system is too powerful
> say some...
Wiz/Sor gained immensely at all levels. Simply by letting them control
their own fate by being able to pick so many of their spells.
>priests are all the same say others...
Overstated, but compared to what I have been using, a very true statement.
>its a game for
> munchkins..
Any D&D edition/version and any RPG for that matter, can be abused. They
also can be used intelligently. This is a debate that crops up no matter
what RPG system folks are discussing, but I've always thought it was a
straw man.
>
> perhaps i should attempt to give a counterpoint to some points made by
> someone who intelligently critisized 3e..which is a rarity on this
> group....(things should improve now that Denakhan has gone...;)
Thank you for the compliment. But I've been saddened to see so much of the
'dancing on the ashes' going on here. As long as the posts are on topic,
dissenters should not be run out of town. It does not do anything to
benefit the greater community and only encourages others to only post if
they stay in lockstep with the majority.
> Some of my personal beefs with 3e:
Remember, vs my house rules variant of 2e + PO; also, not a comprehensive
beef list, but I'll stick to replying to what's here.
> 1) Lack of subabilities. One of the best things to come out of the entire
> Player's Option series.
>
> while i agree that at first this seemed to be a good thing in PO after a
> while it became the same... a lot of these so-called options to give people
> more flexibility allow people to focus in on the more stereotyped characters
> anyway...why? because people will play what they know how to play... thats
> of couse IMHO and in my experience in any case..which is not that long
> considering the length that D&D has been around but still long enough to
> have seen around 60 different players in my time... :)
In the hands of quality role players that I'm blessed to have, options
provide a wealth of opportunities to play unique characters. 3e is bland
at lower levels comparatively. However, prestige classes are a brilliant
concept. A lot of an individual campaign's flavor will be generated here,
with unique ones.
> 2) Ditching of cantrips for 0 level spells & greatly increasing the power
> level of 0 level spells compared to cantrips. The only thing I use out of
> UA is the cantrip system.
>
> this is somethign i can only give passing remark to as i've not actually
> played a character with the UA rules... however what i have seen is that the
> 0-level spells/cantrips/orisons are now some of the most useful spells and
> actually makes the 1st level mage useful...(in the past i think these were
> pretty useless/quick to loose their usefullness till about fourth
> level..maybe third)
Then you've never seen really good role players play low level mages! ;-)
One of my ideas to modify 3e is to keep the 0-level designation & add a
cantrip layer below it - and then tweak the levels of lots of things and #
of spells / day. Ugh - this is what I implied when I stated previously
that 3e is going to require a lot of modifiction to work for me.
> 3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
> get one) seems to increase the classes power.
>
> what these classes have gained in *character* far outweighs, IMO, the losses
> due to increases in power..if any...with the availability of familiars...
Every single Wiz/Sor getting a magically empowered pet doesn't do beans
towards giving individuals character. If anything, it portrays conformity
and encourages stereotypes.
> 4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
> to new spells.
>
> to tell you the truth, i've not really noticed this that much...the landmark
> levels are still the same...5th level to get 3rd level spells....perhaps the
> amount of spells has changed...
This is a *huge* change. While trying (and succeeding) to empower low
level mages, probably due to the common mispreception that they were way
too weak, 3e increases not only low level mages power level, but all level
mages!
> 5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
> differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
>
> while i agree that the core list of cleric spells is uniform for all
> clerics, the domain system has allowed a lot of customisability without
> being to complex...
Compared to S&M?! Compared to the CPHB?! No. Absolutely not. This was a
definitive step backwards in differentiating clerics of different powers.
Comparatively, there is so little difference in 3e different priesthoods
as to be laughable. Once again, it's fixable, but not without a lot of
house rules.
> 6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
>
> while i don't see this as a major biggy some people might...in my experience
> most of the Traits gave excellent powers to characters while Disadvantages
> generally forced the hand of the DM into providing opportunities for his
> characters to go "ooooooooh i'm afraid of spiders oooh ooooho eeeeek!" ...
Considering the quality of roleplayers in my group, that's not been my
experience thankfully.
> my opinion of the T&D system is based on seeing many many players create
> characters with what at first look to be very meritable flaws, but never
> getting the chance (sometimes i think they realise this is going to happen)
> to play them out due...it was simply too much work to take all the
> characters flaws into account andput them into an adventure..hence the
> balancing effect of Disadvantages is lost... IMHO
Disadvantages are not designed to balance Traits in S&P on a 1 for 1
basis. (a simple examination of the character creation process reveals
this)
Anyhow, it's a solid game mechanic in 2e/PO that you can easily build upon
using sources such as GURPs, which have many more options to choose from.
> 7) Weapon proficiency rules are very different. Almost too different.
> Every character of the same class knows exactly the same weapons (before
> adding feats) of every other individual?!
>
> i agree with this point actually...while the weapon groupings in C&T was
> kind of confusing
IMO, weapon groups are crystal clear. (btw, they were actually in S&P)
>and the critical hit rules sucked ass (too many rolls
> makes for slow combat IMO)
That's why I never used it - and didn't bring it up! ;-)
>there could be a better system of weapon grouping
> in 3e...the Simple weapon grouping is fine to me...
It's not bad, but it is a simplification of broad & tight groups. Perhaps
a three tier system of Category/broad/tight might suit my group better.
>
> 8) Feats seem very, very disparate in their power levels. For example,
> taking Alertness gives you a +2 in two seperate skills where as Skill
> Focus only gives you a +2 in one skill. Another example is that a fighter
> specialized in light crossbow, would have to use what could have been a
> valuable dazzling combat feat just to avoid a non-proficiency penalty in a
> magical hand crossbow he finds. The 'groups' of weapons in PO:C&T (and the
> associated rules) make far more sense than the over-simplified weapon
> categories of 3e.
>
> this was intended to be so as acknowledged by the designers in dragon
> magazine i believe, to give people to persue *roleplaying* opportunities and
> move away from the min/max style... sounds half-arsed..maybe it is ;)
It does just the opposite, IMO. Due to the imbalance, I'm far more aware
of the system and might feel that I have to make choices based on game
mechanics rather than character development. A truly balanced system
wouldn't make you choose between the two.
> 9) Magic items just seem way too easy to make by even lower level
> characters. I understand the need to put prices on items for the item
> creation system (which it's about time was officially tackled and despte
> being overpowered IMO is done fairly well) but said prices just encourage
> people to try to buy & sell magic items.
>
> once again the dm has control of this sort of thing...of course they seem to
> have changed their tune quite dramatically in light of the new FR campaign
> setting where the Red Wizards now sell items in enclaves... a pretty suave
> political move, but one that was borne out of the rules change, which was
> borne out of the need for some unit of measure for making magical items...
> perhaps they should have made it totally XP based..wouldn't people have
> complained then..."OHHHHH you've crippled the mage!!!" ;)
Or they could've given them a "magical point" cost or some other foo-name.
Giving them GP value can and will change campaign dynamics, as witnessed
by the FR example you cite.
> 10) Why can't magic items be recharged in 3e?! I suppose they needed to
> balance out the ease of creation problem somehow. This is not the way I
> would have chosen.
>
> Monte Cook actually counters this by saying...you can.... simply... all you
> need is the feats and prerequisites to create the item in the first place...
Fair enough.
> 11) My group really likes having an exhaustive list of NWPs to choose
> from. They went a bit overboard in consolidating these into Skills in 3e.
>
> why have three different skills for surviving in the wilderness, when
> wilderness lore will do... do i want to customise my character that much
> that i have to spread my nwps/skills across firebuilding, survival, xxxxxx
> skill/nwp? while the skill list is kind of short, adding skills is not that
> much of a problem and something that i've been doing a lot of...the
> knowledge/profession/craft supergroups are great for making lots of
> customised skills... thats where most of the "hidden/lost" skills are anow
> located..
The problem with that is all of the skills wraped up into the supergroups
all now use the same ability. This was a major change and a step backwards
in game design.
> 12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
> Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
> might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options. Not
> listed as merely "Special & Superior Items'. IMC, all of these would be
> considered magical. It will be tough for first time and young DMs to say
> "No" to players on items that are listed plain as day in the PH as
> available stuff fot ehm to buy.
>
> i understand the point here..and i guess it depends on the game... you want
> low magic, low powered games...easy...
> you want high magic, high powered games...just as easy.. want middle of the
> road ho-hum games...easy... just carefully look at the rules and change as
> desired..as the dmg states ;)..its all there
Yes, yes. If it wasn't clear, I'm fully capable of changing things! ;-) My
criticism was geared towards it's potential effect on new & younger
players.
> 13) Why does a masterwork dagger, long sword, halberd & dwarven waraxe all
> cost the same exact amount (in addition to their base cost)? Way too
> oversimplified for my tastes.
>
> i agree..should have a size component in it..although who is to say that the
> *work* put into a skillfully and artfully crafted dagger is any more
> worthless than a similarly crafted longsword...the base cost is the same for
> hte MW element...but the actual materials cost is the variable factor..
Also on the availabilty of the item. I'm sure exotic (true, not game
definition) weapons would have a much highter cost as well. Also a
variable depending on the amount of enchantment you intend to imbue the
item with would be appropriate.
> 14) Starting equipment recomended for characters beyond 1st level as
> outlined by the 3e DMG p. 43 is way too pawerful for my tastes.
>
> hmmmm depends on what kind of game you're playing..and its just a guide...
Yes. And like all the other guides in the core rules it sets the tone for
the entire game and any & all offical products published later not to
mention establishing a baseline for us all to start our own modifications
& our discussions here from. Either they should have left it out entirely
or perhaps placed variant charts - or ways to vary the one chart - not
establish it as the only baseline present. The text even states that the
bulk of the gp amount listed is in the form of magic items. Why? It could
be other forms of wealth.
>
> 15) Why is a Fire Trap spell cast by a Wiz or Sor harder to save against
> than one cast by the same level Druid???? (DC 10 + spell level + relevant
> ability bonus) As a 2nd level druid spell and 4th level Wiz/Sor spell,
> shouldn't it come easier to druids and yet, if they're all 8th level, the
> Sor just learned it, but is better at it than the Druid, who could've
> known the spell since 3rd level. This is just one example of a spell
> system, that while at its core is extremely clever, has a lot of bugs in
> it.
>
> not sure about this one..haven't come across it...and not sure i'd even
> worry about it too much unless i had a Wizard with the spell and a Druid
> with the spell and they were try8ing to figure out who would cast it and who
> would have the better DC...my players don't tend to think like this ...ie
> metagame..
Neither do mine - except when blatantly flawed rules get in the way.
> 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
>
> and?
Because there was interesting material presented in it.
> 17) Stuff on a character's person is incredibly safer in 3e than in
> previous editions. In fact, the table in the 3ePH that deals with which
> *one* item may be destroyed after the character rolls a 1 (not simply
> fails) is completely geared towards munchkinism as it implies that every
> character is loaded with magic items. Go read it again, its table 10-1 on
> page 150. Why are magically items effected before non-magical ones??? Why
> isn't everything potentially affected by a fireball??? Why are your
> shield, armor & helmet as likely to be destroyed by a fireball as the
> scroll in your other hand?????!!!!! Finally on this topic, I've really
> come to appreciate 1e/2e tables for handling item saving throws. They make
> infinitely more sense than the, once again, streamlined & oversimplified
> 3e approach.
>
> this was so boring in the other editions..although i'm probably harping on
> about a different point to yours... roll for EVERY item?
Yup.
>far out that takes
> a lot of time..and is something that i don't like doing..
Persoanl taste. My campaign may be a bit grittier and more 'realistic' in
tis approach to magic than yours.
> 17a) I suppose I'll be changing a number of skills for high level
> characters from HLC to feats. Starting with Signature Item.
>
>
> 18) Why & How can a character load a musket in 6 seconds??? (3e DMG, p.163)
>
> interesting..i'll check it out.. :)
>
> 19) Counterspells are a fantastic idea - its too bad the mechanics suck so
> bad.
>
> they're not that bad.. although i've only used it against characters.. pcs
> never think to counterspell..
Or maybe they feel their odds of succeeding are next to nil because of how
difficult they made the system.
>they're too busy trying to kill the bad guys
> directly...in the craze of battle you don't think too much in reality...
>
> 20) 3e has really made the raise dead rules more powerful. (or less tough
> of penalties, that is.)
>
> counteracts the inherantly more deadly nature of monsters now... some like
> this ...some don't...also ..depends on the dm..
This once again demonstates just how much the base line of power has
changed and goes far to strengthen my case. In order to maintain a current
campaign, I have to *heavily* modifify 3e.
> 21) OK, I get why you might want to create some cursed items. But they
> missed a Golden Opportunity to create a subset of item creation rules
> where "accidents happen".
>
> perhaps something you could add...
I probably will,...eventually.
+ 2co
LARE
--
Visit the Kingdom of Hurva
http://www.hurva.org
- A 2nd Edition/Player's Option Campaign,...for now
LARE
here we go again ;-)
In article <3B2768A9...@clear.net.nz>, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> LARE wrote:
> <On: 3e changes and stuff>
>
>
> <snip; disclaimer and stuff>
ditto - see previous post for premise of debate.
> > 1) Lack of subabilities. One of the best things to come out of the entire
> > Player's Option series.
>
> Liked the concept, hated the execution. 6 unlinked stats are OK.
Unlinking them is an interesting idea.
>
> > 2) Ditching of cantrips for 0 level spells & greatly increasing the power
> > level of 0 level spells compared to cantrips. The only thing I use out of
> > UA is the cantrip system.
> >
> > 3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
> > get one) seems to increase the classes power.
> >
> > 4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
> > to new spells.
>
> Yes yes yes. On the whole, low level wizards got bumped up in power
> to match the other classes. High level other classes got bumped to match
> the wizards. Thieves got bumped all the way through.
> This allows the elegance of the 3e unified XP and muliclassing
> system. It allows classes to work well in a more modern game design,
> with greatly variable yet balanced charecter design.
The basic concept is elegant (uniform classes) but I think that high level
wizards still break the system. The acquisition of spells has long been by
DM's fiat (with a few exceptions). This allowed individual DMs to balance
spellslingers with the rest of their campaign. 3e tilts the balance,
allowing Wiz/Sor to pick more of their spells than ever before. Of course
this is as written - no DM worth his salt should think twice about vetoing
spells that would imbalance a campaign - my beef is with the books as they
are written.
> > 5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
> > differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
>
> <cheapshot> Yea, you have to give your clerics a personality to
> differentiate them now. </cheapshot>
Methinks you should explore my website - especially the section on
characters in the campaign, before you sling such cheapshots around.
> The domain system enforces use of different spells based on god
> _every day_, while allowing a generally broad and balanced selection of
> spells.
But the spell lists of a cleric of a shadowgod and one of a sun god would
look just like one of a fire god and one of a water god - except for a
very small % of their spells.
2 of their 28 available first level spells would be different. That is a
negligible difference, IMO.
None of their 0 level spells would be different. So much for showing the
specific & special 'blessings of their god' to the initiates.
As clerics gain levels, an ever smaller percentage of their spells they
can cast per day are from their domains and instead from the genric Cleric
list. (At least, if you take the 3ePH literally - I can't imagine anyone
treating like this and not as Specialist Mages were treated with regards
to spell selection in 2e.)
> > 6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
>
> Traits have become world specific feats.
Errr, no. Feats, if anything, resemble the combat options from C&T. The
more advanced ones read much like the Skills for High Level Characters
from HLC.
Ambidexterity is the lone exception - of course, now you can learn that
later rather than being born with it.
Traits, as found in S&P, are no where to be found in 3e.
>Disadvantages, well, if you
> want to be a one-legged, blind, pyromaniac, manaphobic, dwarf-tosser,
> then feel free.
> Why that would make you more powerful is beyond me. 8]
Beware the power hungry, for the path to munchkinism may be hidden beneath
their feet.
;-)
All of the most interesting heroes have some flaw. The only flaw a 3e
character may have is that he didn't optimize his feats for combat.
Disadvantages provide a solid game mechanic to provide that.
> > 7) Weapon proficiency rules are very different. Almost too different.
> > Every character of the same class knows exactly the same weapons (before
> > adding feats) of every other individual?!
>
> Yep. Only monks learn kukri, only rogues learn hand-crossbow.
Why?
>Some
> weapons are hard to learn by anyone, but otherwise there's quick weapons
> trining (simple stuff), and full weapons training (only broad combat
> training can do it).
Ah, I see, every single 3e fighter, paladin, barbarian and ranger took the
exact same training course!!
The system is flawed, else you wouldn't have to specify certain classes
weapons lists weapon by weapon. (such as the monk and the rogue)
> > 8) Feats seem very, very disparate in their power levels. For example,
> > taking Alertness gives you a +2 in two seperate skills where as Skill
> > Focus only gives you a +2 in one skill. Another example is that a fighter
> > specialized in light crossbow, would have to use what could have been a
> > valuable dazzling combat feat just to avoid a non-proficiency penalty in a
> > magical hand crossbow he finds. The 'groups' of weapons in PO:C&T (and the
> > associated rules) make far more sense than the over-simplified weapon
> > categories of 3e.
>
> Feats rock. The weaker ones are often prerequisites for the tougher
> ones, and the exotic weapons are supposed to be class niches, more
> powerful, or just too damn k3wl for everyone to get.
Neither of my examples are addressed by your reply. And I suppose I've
been outcooled since I refuse to spell words in ridiculous ways. ;-)
> > 9) Magic items just seem way too easy to make by even lower level
> > characters. I understand the need to put prices on items for the item
> > creation system (which it's about time was officially tackled and despte
> > being overpowered IMO is done fairly well) but said prices just encourage
> > people to try to buy & sell magic items.
>
> You're _supposed_ to buy and sell magic items in 3e,
Why? That should be dependent upon the individual campaign world - not the
rules system.
>or even
> commision their construction, but trust me, money is tight if you try it
> on a regular basis.
> It's supposed to give players some controll over the selection of
> magic they get. I like the concept.
Once again, it should be campaign dependent.
> Now that comparitive plebs can make them, they're as common as
> mighty composite longbows. Kinda explains all the healing potions, eh.
What healing potions!? There's healing potions just lying around
everywhere?! - I can hear my players now. <sigh>
> > 10) Why can't magic items be recharged in 3e?! I suppose they needed to
> > balance out the ease of creation problem somehow. This is not the way I
> > would have chosen.
>
> You just make a new one instead.
This seems to be a greater commentary on the sad state of our consumer
driven economy with disposable everything than I think any of us realized.
>They used to need recharging,
> 'cause you couldn't make them. Now, when you should have them, you can
> make them yourself. Need removed.
>
> > 12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
> > Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
> > might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options. Not
> > listed as merely "Special & Superior Items'. IMC, all of these would be
> > considered magical. It will be tough for first time and young DMs to say
> > "No" to players on items that are listed plain as day in the PH as
> > available stuff fot ehm to buy.
>
> I love 'em, but it's easy enough to remove the alchemy skill, and
> thus all these things. They're really only toys for low levels,
And Vorpal swords are toys for high levels. My point was not to eliminate
them, but that they should've been listed in the DMG as minor magical (or
alchemical) trinkets instead of appearing on the PH equipment lists.
>
> > 14) Starting equipment recomended for characters beyond 1st level as
> > outlined by the 3e DMG p. 43 is way too pawerful for my tastes.
>
> Not in play. I used to dish out more than that (if my calculations
> are correct), but that's just the average reults from the new treasure
> tables.
see other posting in thread for this reply.
> > 15) Why is a Fire Trap spell cast by a Wiz or Sor harder to save against
> > than one cast by the same level Druid???? (DC 10 + spell level + relevant
> > ability bonus) As a 2nd level druid spell and 4th level Wiz/Sor spell,
> > shouldn't it come easier to druids and yet, if they're all 8th level, the
> > Sor just learned it, but is better at it than the Druid, who could've
> > known the spell since 3rd level. This is just one example of a spell
> > system, that while at its core is extremely clever, has a lot of bugs in
> > it.
>
> So make the 'hieghten spell' feat free for all spell casters. Not a
> big change.
Ugh. Breaking things even further doesn't solve the problem.
> > 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
>
> There are a shitload of books for ADnD. There's only 288 pages (plus
> inserts) in my PHB. Seems it didn't fit.
Perhaps. But almost 100% ignoring of a 2e core book (albeit a secondary
level core book) was a pretty harsh editing choice.
> > 17) Stuff on a character's person is incredibly safer in 3e than in
> > previous editions. In fact, the table in the 3ePH that deals with which
> > *one* item may be destroyed after the character rolls a 1 (not simply
> > fails) is completely geared towards munchkinism as it implies that every
> > character is loaded with magic items. Go read it again, its table 10-1 on
> > page 150. Why are magically items effected before non-magical ones??? Why
> > isn't everything potentially affected by a fireball??? Why are your
> > shield, armor & helmet as likely to be destroyed by a fireball as the
> > scroll in your other hand?????!!!!! Finally on this topic, I've really
> > come to appreciate 1e/2e tables for handling item saving throws. They make
> > infinitely more sense than the, once again, streamlined & oversimplified
> > 3e approach.
>
> The 3e approach is, it takes damage. Items have hit points too now.
I get that.
> Magic items aren't more vulnerable than non-magic, they in fact get an
> actual save to avoid any damage!
> Pretty much _everything_ not in the hands of a charecter is fried
> with a fireball. No special rules required.
Ahhh, no. You miss my point. I'm only talking about stuff on a character's
person. See page 150 of the 3ePH "all items worn or carried are assumed to
have survived a magical attack" It goes on to discuss what I mentioned
above.
The bottom line being on a "1" on your save, you'l be more likely to lose
a magic item than a non-magical one to a fireball because table 10-1 and
it's asscoiated rules really suck.
> IMC PC's have still lost a couple items each to the new rule.
And I've had characters lose almost everything to the old rules. From one
fireball.
> > 18) Why & How can a character load a musket in 6 seconds??? (3e DMG, p.163)
>
> Paper cartriges, look 'em up.
I tried. Too bad the 3e indices suck so much. They're not mentioned
anywhere in the text on pages 162-3 where this type off weapon is
discussed. They certainly have no basis in the reality of primitive
firearms. Perhaps you're assuming a house rule here - or something else
outside of the scope of the 3e core books - in ehich case you strengthen
my case.
> > 19) Counterspells are a fantastic idea - its too bad the mechanics
suck so bad.
>
> Ready is fun.
But not the rule I've criticisized here.
>My players pretty much used it for the first time last
> weekend (though they've charged the odd readied kobold spearman before).
> Phase spiders.
>
> > 20) 3e has really made the raise dead rules more powerful. (or less tough
> > of penalties, that is.)
>
> Loosing a level is not less of a penalty. Besides, it's far easier
> to die.
Compared to losing a Constitution point?! I don't agree.
The fact that everybody who argues this point states that its far easier
to die is also an indictment of the system that I'd like to slide an
existing campaign into.
> > 21) OK, I get why you might want to create some cursed items. But they
> > missed a Golden Opportunity to create a subset of item creation rules
> > where "accidents happen".
> >
> > One final note. Its amazes me just how much of the much maligned Player's
> > Option series material made it into 3e and now everyone praises it.
>
> Apart from charecter creation, I thaught most PO stuff was OK
> (espescially the SnM book) if time consuming in play.
>
> > my 2cp (and then some)
>
LARE
--
Visit the Kingdom of Hurva
http://www.hurva.org
- A 2nd Edition/Player's Option Campaign,...for now
Hunter
>In article <3b26eaa9$0$27...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>, "j" <ma...@tokyo.com> wrote:
>
><irrelevant bits here & throughout snipped>
>
>
>> Gilok <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:ih2ait0sav95kajts...@4ax.com...
>
>Wiz/Sor gained immensely at all levels. Simply by letting them control
>their own fate by being able to pick so many of their spells.
>
Two per level is not so many. That means beyond 1st they will only have 4 per
level until 20th level. And then you can disallow any spell you don't like.
>>
>> perhaps i should attempt to give a counterpoint to some points made by
>> someone who intelligently critisized 3e..which is a rarity on this
>> group....(things should improve now that Denakhan has gone...;)
>
>
>Thank you for the compliment. But I've been saddened to see so much of the
>'dancing on the ashes' going on here. As long as the posts are on topic,
>dissenters should not be run out of town. It does not do anything to
>benefit the greater community and only encourages others to only post if
>they stay in lockstep with the majority.
>
I personally didn't like 2nd ed. PO made it bearable. There are things I
don't like in 3ed but they are more flavor than substance.
2ed was a sawdust cake with great frosting. 3ed is great cake with cheap
frosting.
>> Some of my personal beefs with 3e:
>
>Remember, vs my house rules variant of 2e + PO; also, not a comprehensive
>beef list, but I'll stick to replying to what's here.
>
>> 1) Lack of subabilities. One of the best things to come out of the entire
>> Player's Option series.
>>
>> while i agree that at first this seemed to be a good thing in PO after a
>> while it became the same... a lot of these so-called options to give people
>> more flexibility allow people to focus in on the more stereotyped characters
>> anyway...why? because people will play what they know how to play... thats
>> of couse IMHO and in my experience in any case..which is not that long
>> considering the length that D&D has been around but still long enough to
>> have seen around 60 different players in my time... :)
>
>
>In the hands of quality role players that I'm blessed to have, options
>provide a wealth of opportunities to play unique characters. 3e is bland
>at lower levels comparatively. However, prestige classes are a brilliant
>concept. A lot of an individual campaign's flavor will be generated here,
>with unique ones.
>
I like sub-abilities. Then again I like RM and Palladium also. This is a
granularity issue.
>> 2) Ditching of cantrips for 0 level spells & greatly increasing the power
>> level of 0 level spells compared to cantrips. The only thing I use out of
>> UA is the cantrip system.
>>
>> this is somethign i can only give passing remark to as i've not actually
>> played a character with the UA rules... however what i have seen is that the
>> 0-level spells/cantrips/orisons are now some of the most useful spells and
>> actually makes the 1st level mage useful...(in the past i think these were
>> pretty useless/quick to loose their usefullness till about fourth
>> level..maybe third)
>
>
>Then you've never seen really good role players play low level mages! ;-)
He's talking about the 2ed rules for cantrips. They undervalued them. The
primary thing that truly has changed between UA cantrips and 0 level spells is
that they made some of the Detect's 0 level and they gave a set number for the
classes to cast. Sorcerors can't be part of the consideration.
>One of my ideas to modify 3e is to keep the 0-level designation & add a
>cantrip layer below it - and then tweak the levels of lots of things and #
>of spells / day. Ugh - this is what I implied when I stated previously
>that 3e is going to require a lot of modifiction to work for me.
Don't. Look at them again. Most of the UA cantrips would fit right in if they
are not part of Prestidigitation already.
>> 3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
>> get one) seems to increase the classes power.
>>
>> what these classes have gained in *character* far outweighs, IMO, the losses
>> due to increases in power..if any...with the availability of familiars...
>
>Every single Wiz/Sor getting a magically empowered pet doesn't do beans
>towards giving individuals character. If anything, it portrays conformity
>and encourages stereotypes.
>
Make it part of the Sorceror training, and have the Wizards need to do it in
game maybe even only with an improved familiar feat. That would give
sorcerors more of a Uniqueness.
>> 4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
>> to new spells.
>>
>> to tell you the truth, i've not really noticed this that much...the landmark
>> levels are still the same...5th level to get 3rd level spells....perhaps the
>> amount of spells has changed...
>
>This is a *huge* change. While trying (and succeeding) to empower low
>level mages, probably due to the common mispreception that they were way
>too weak, 3e increases not only low level mages power level, but all level
>mages!
>
They really haven't increased their power that much. Cantrips aren't about
power (in fact most are fixed in effect) but about flexibility. That is what
low levels Wizards have gained. All they have in their spell book to start are
the cantrips and 3 1st level spells. I don't see the power increase you
claim.
>> 5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
>> differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
>>
>> while i agree that the core list of cleric spells is uniform for all
>> clerics, the domain system has allowed a lot of customisability without
>> being to complex...
>
>Compared to S&M?! Compared to the CPHB?! No. Absolutely not. This was a
>definitive step backwards in differentiating clerics of different powers.
>Comparatively, there is so little difference in 3e different priesthoods
>as to be laughable. Once again, it's fixable, but not without a lot of
>house rules.
>
>
This would be a great place for prestige classes. Each god would have their
own prestige priest class. (Might not need to be even a cleric to gain it. A
wizard might become a Priest of Mystarra without being a cleric)
>
>> 7) Weapon proficiency rules are very different. Almost too different.
>> Every character of the same class knows exactly the same weapons (before
>> adding feats) of every other individual?!
>>
>> i agree with this point actually...while the weapon groupings in C&T was
>> kind of confusing
>
>IMO, weapon groups are crystal clear. (btw, they were actually in S&P)
>
>>and the critical hit rules sucked ass (too many rolls
>> makes for slow combat IMO)
>
>That's why I never used it - and didn't bring it up! ;-)
>
>>there could be a better system of weapon grouping
>> in 3e...the Simple weapon grouping is fine to me...
>
>
>It's not bad, but it is a simplification of broad & tight groups. Perhaps
>a three tier system of Category/broad/tight might suit my group better.
>
This might be useful. I think I will just have cultures determine what the
class the weapons are. Using rarity as a guide.
>>
>> 8) Feats seem very, very disparate in their power levels. For example,
>> taking Alertness gives you a +2 in two seperate skills where as Skill
>> Focus only gives you a +2 in one skill. Another example is that a fighter
>> specialized in light crossbow, would have to use what could have been a
>> valuable dazzling combat feat just to avoid a non-proficiency penalty in a
>> magical hand crossbow he finds. The 'groups' of weapons in PO:C&T (and the
>> associated rules) make far more sense than the over-simplified weapon
>> categories of 3e.
>>
>> this was intended to be so as acknowledged by the designers in dragon
>> magazine i believe, to give people to persue *roleplaying* opportunities and
>> move away from the min/max style... sounds half-arsed..maybe it is ;)
>
>
>It does just the opposite, IMO. Due to the imbalance, I'm far more aware
>of the system and might feel that I have to make choices based on game
>mechanics rather than character development. A truly balanced system
>wouldn't make you choose between the two.
You shouldn't be doing that in 3rd either. There are no bad/useless feats.
>> 9) Magic items just seem way too easy to make by even lower level
>> characters. I understand the need to put prices on items for the item
>> creation system (which it's about time was officially tackled and despte
>> being overpowered IMO is done fairly well) but said prices just encourage
>> people to try to buy & sell magic items.
>>
>> once again the dm has control of this sort of thing...of course they seem to
>> have changed their tune quite dramatically in light of the new FR campaign
>> setting where the Red Wizards now sell items in enclaves... a pretty suave
>> political move, but one that was borne out of the rules change, which was
>> borne out of the need for some unit of measure for making magical items...
>> perhaps they should have made it totally XP based..wouldn't people have
>> complained then..."OHHHHH you've crippled the mage!!!" ;)
>
>
>Or they could've given them a "magical point" cost or some other foo-name.
>Giving them GP value can and will change campaign dynamics, as witnessed
>by the FR example you cite.
I think that was the intent. Magic is part of the society. Just that it
won't be in the hands of the common people, but part of the background, like
art auctions, jewelry, designer clothes, private planes....
Now IMO magic items and potions make sense. Also it allows for not needing to
have high level mages do all the work in item creation to make the item
available.
>> 11) My group really likes having an exhaustive list of NWPs to choose
>> from. They went a bit overboard in consolidating these into Skills in 3e.
>>
>> why have three different skills for surviving in the wilderness, when
>> wilderness lore will do... do i want to customise my character that much
>> that i have to spread my nwps/skills across firebuilding, survival, xxxxxx
>> skill/nwp? while the skill list is kind of short, adding skills is not that
>> much of a problem and something that i've been doing a lot of...the
>> knowledge/profession/craft supergroups are great for making lots of
>> customised skills... thats where most of the "hidden/lost" skills are anow
>> located..
>
>The problem with that is all of the skills wraped up into the supergroups
>all now use the same ability. This was a major change and a step backwards
>in game design.
>
So use some common sense and change the ability based on what they are doing.
The default ability is the one that would make the most sense overall. Riding
and wis or int might let some judge how well a person is riding or the quality
of a leap. But beyond using a skill for knowledge or professional use, I don't
see any skill that needs to be based on a differant ability without adding
unneeded complexity.
>> 12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
>> Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
>> might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options. Not
>> listed as merely "Special & Superior Items'. IMC, all of these would be
>> considered magical. It will be tough for first time and young DMs to say
>> "No" to players on items that are listed plain as day in the PH as
>> available stuff fot ehm to buy.
>>
>> i understand the point here..and i guess it depends on the game... you want
>> low magic, low powered games...easy...
>> you want high magic, high powered games...just as easy.. want middle of the
>> road ho-hum games...easy... just carefully look at the rules and change as
>> desired..as the dmg states ;)..its all there
>
>Yes, yes. If it wasn't clear, I'm fully capable of changing things! ;-) My
>criticism was geared towards it's potential effect on new & younger
>players.
>
New and younger players won't have the hang-ups and expectations of "the way
things should be". The amount of magic in fantasy does seem to mimic the
amount of technology in RL.
>> 13) Why does a masterwork dagger, long sword, halberd & dwarven waraxe all
>> cost the same exact amount (in addition to their base cost)? Way too
>> oversimplified for my tastes.
>>
>> i agree..should have a size component in it..although who is to say that the
>> *work* put into a skillfully and artfully crafted dagger is any more
>> worthless than a similarly crafted longsword...the base cost is the same for
>> hte MW element...but the actual materials cost is the variable factor..
>
>Also on the availabilty of the item. I'm sure exotic (true, not game
>definition) weapons would have a much highter cost as well. Also a
>variable depending on the amount of enchantment you intend to imbue the
>item with would be appropriate.
>
A mw longsword, might be bought 'off-the-rack" ("the floor model") where as
the mw exotic would need to be commissioned. You might need to even find a
smith that can make the exotic. RP is the consideration, not price.
>> 14) Starting equipment recomended for characters beyond 1st level as
>> outlined by the 3e DMG p. 43 is way too pawerful for my tastes.
>>
>> hmmmm depends on what kind of game you're playing..and its just a guide...
>
>Yes. And like all the other guides in the core rules it sets the tone for
>the entire game and any & all offical products published later not to
>mention establishing a baseline for us all to start our own modifications
>& our discussions here from. Either they should have left it out entirely
>or perhaps placed variant charts - or ways to vary the one chart - not
>establish it as the only baseline present. The text even states that the
>bulk of the gp amount listed is in the form of magic items. Why? It could
>be other forms of wealth.
Look through the MM. Without that level of magic, they won't be able to deal
with the level of challenge they are supposed to be able to handle.
>>
>> 15) Why is a Fire Trap spell cast by a Wiz or Sor harder to save against
>> than one cast by the same level Druid???? (DC 10 + spell level + relevant
>> ability bonus) As a 2nd level druid spell and 4th level Wiz/Sor spell,
>> shouldn't it come easier to druids and yet, if they're all 8th level, the
>> Sor just learned it, but is better at it than the Druid, who could've
>> known the spell since 3rd level. This is just one example of a spell
>> system, that while at its core is extremely clever, has a lot of bugs in
>> it.
>>
>> not sure about this one..haven't come across it...and not sure i'd even
>> worry about it too much unless i had a Wizard with the spell and a Druid
>> with the spell and they were try8ing to figure out who would cast it and who
>> would have the better DC...my players don't tend to think like this ...ie
>> metagame..
>
>Neither do mine - except when blatantly flawed rules get in the way.
>
They aren't flawed. You are thinking in meta-game terms. A druidic flame trap
is not the same spell as a arcane flame trap. The arcane one is harder to
learn and save against because it is more complex for the same effect.
Just because the same write-up is used for both spells doesn't mean that they
are the same spell and use the same somatic and verbal components. Scrying is
a good example of this.
>> 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
>>
>> and?
>
>Because there was interesting material presented in it.
>
True, and it might be brought over in other books. There was only so much
they could put in the core rules, and ToM was not that either.
>> 17) Stuff on a character's person is incredibly safer in 3e than in
>> previous editions. In fact, the table in the 3ePH that deals with which
>> *one* item may be destroyed after the character rolls a 1 (not simply
>> fails) is completely geared towards munchkinism as it implies that every
>> character is loaded with magic items.
Magic *is* a standard part of the world. Look at what the characters are
facing to see why.
> Go read it again, its table 10-1 on
>> page 150. Why are magically items effected before non-magical ones??? Why
>> isn't everything potentially affected by a fireball???
Because Magic one are the only ones to get saved. Others take damage without
saves. And it is presumed that you are not just standing there when the
fireball hits. You are protecting your self and your items. The one means
that you utterly failed at this. You did protect the other items though.
> Why are your
>> shield, armor & helmet as likely to be destroyed by a fireball as the
>> scroll in your other hand?????
Because that is not expected to be out but protected by your body when the
fireball hits. This is the reason it is a reflex save.
>>!!!!! Finally on this topic, I've really
>> come to appreciate 1e/2e tables for handling item saving throws. They make
>> infinitely more sense than the, once again, streamlined & oversimplified
>> 3e approach.
I find cumulative damage is better than the all or nothing approach of earlier
editions.
>>
>> this was so boring in the other editions..although i'm probably harping on
>> about a different point to yours... roll for EVERY item?
>
>Yup.
>
>>far out that takes
>> a lot of time..and is something that i don't like doing..
>
>Persoanl taste. My campaign may be a bit grittier and more 'realistic' in
>tis approach to magic than yours.
I think yours is low fantasy,not more realistic. D&D's default setting is
heroic fantasy.
>> 20) 3e has really made the raise dead rules more powerful. (or less tough
>> of penalties, that is.)
>>
>> counteracts the inherantly more deadly nature of monsters now... some like
>> this ...some don't...also ..depends on the dm..
>
>This once again demonstates just how much the base line of power has
>changed and goes far to strengthen my case. In order to maintain a current
>campaign, I have to *heavily* modifify 3e.
>
I feel this is the wrong approach. I would hate changing editions
mid-campaign, unless something in the world changed also. IMO in the middle of
a campaign is one valid reason for not switching systems.
Douglas Laedtke
> "Gilok" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ih2ait0sav95kajts...@4ax.com...
> > Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
> > going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
> > heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
> > want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> > without any house rules or fixes? Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
> > broken mess?
[snip]
> 3e might a first look interesting, but IMO 2e still rules. I think the DC is
> a failure to compress all the rolls in one, plus the lack of all those
> saves... just why? Besides, all of my fellow friends and the DM agree that
> 3e is just not worth it: 2e is much more flexible, although both lack
> something: Psionics built-in the PHB and the PERception Roll... My DM is
> working on it...
Gotta disagree here. I played 1st edition AD&D until both my first and
second PHBs turned into rags. My original DMG, though arguably still
intact, is held together by athletic tape (don't ask -- it seemed like
a good idea at the time). My 2e books are still in pretty good shape.
Why? 'cause I didn't use them nearly so much. Indeed, they made me go
looking for a more flexible, less dogmatic, less convoluted systems. I
played Traveller, Hero, BURPS, Heavy Gear, and a bunch of others, all
the while missing the magic of those early D&D games.
That's what I found in 3e. The magic came back. 3e is extremely
flexible and (perhaps too) expandable. Game mechanics aside for the
minute, the modularity of 3e makes it easy, nay, *trivial*, to drop in
new races, classes and other crunchy bits and to tweak existing ones
to fit your campaign vision (assuming you're not playing a canned
world like FR or GH). Monte Cook's brilliant work on the DMG provides
ample guidence to get these changes right the first time. I wish I had
had that book as I struggled through my early years of DMing (or when
I was trying to house-rule 2e into playability)!
As far as systems go, the unified DC, high-is-always-good mechanic
works very well, even though it *is* a big departure from old D&D. And
the streamlined saves are great! They provide a sense of how your
character is actually avoiding the effects of a spell rather than some
arbitrary value inserted purely for game balance. Psionics are not my
cuppa tea in fantasy, so I'm not heartbroken to see them pulled from
the main book, but I'll confess I'm one of the few people I know who
actually likes the PsiHB. And as PERception rolls go, check out Spot
and Listen checks. An excellent addition, methinks.
Doug.
Mike Miller
> Ok, I just gotta know. I know a lot of people don't want the hassle of
> going from a perfectly good house rules game of 2e/1e to 3e, and I've
> heard a number of arguments concerning "broken" aspects of 3e. What I
> want to know is, does anyone think 2e or 1e is *better* than 3e,
> without any house rules or fixes? Does anyone see 3e as a hopelessly
> broken mess?
>
> babies.
Uh...whatever floats your boat. That's hardly the weirdest fetish
I've encountered. :)
I like 3E for a lot of reasons. Primarily, it includes a lot of
house and optional rules I used in 1E & 2E as standard. After
that, I like some of the new ideas such as multiclassing. Last,
I think I like the streamlining and condensing of previous rules,
especially character-related ones: one XP chart, one attribute
bonus chart, etc.
But I find the edge of 3E over 1E and 2E only a matter of degree.
It's still a level & class system I find most suitable for fantasy
games. I wouldn't - and don't - use it for other settings. Nor
do my players. Heck, they prefer Rolemaster for their fantasy
campaigns.
(But then they don't seem to agree with me that RM is only
suitable for toilet paper, even going so far as to drop large
bucks for rare RM books on e-bay.)
> But I'm seeing a fair chunk of the population of this group
> sticking with 2e, and I want to know if there is a group of people to
> watch for out there who just *hate* the new rules, or if its more a
> matter of "if I already fixed it, it ain't broken, and I don't need to
> fix it again"
IME, it's the opposite. A lot of pro-[older D&D edition] folks
don't get too preachy and are pretty clear that their reasons for
liking [insert older edition] are personal. Don't want to switch
mid-campaign, like written level/race/class/gender limits, etc.,
and they don't expect other people to, uh, deconvert back to 2E/1E/
OD&D. Pro-3E folks then jump in and demand immediate conversion
because all that can be done in 3E, for 3E is the only True and
Holy D&D edition being published.
(Disclaimer: the above statements have some artistic license taken,
and observations are based on incomplete attention to flamewars I
haven't stuck anatomical extremities into.)
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
john v verkuilen
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:18:15 GMT, ja...@uiuc.edu (john v verkuilen) wrote:
>>no_ad...@this.time.org (Hunter) writes:
>>
>>>I'd say that 2e actually deviated from the game. 3rd just brought it back in
>>>line.
>>
>>I think the fact that you can use a 1E character or monster in a 2E game
>>pretty much straight or with only a few small shifts really belies your
>>claim. 3E characters are *very* different from their 1E or 2E counterparts.
>>
>I disagree with this point.
Obviously. I respectfully submit you're on crack.
I started to bring my 1e characters into 2e, but
>the rules mutated them so much that they were unrecognizeable and what they did
>would now be impossible under the new rules. These same characters can be
>changed over to 3e with little change in ability. IMO 3e supplies more
>continuity between 1e and 3e than 2e did.
Nearly all 2E monsters have the *same* statistics as 1E, with a few changes
here and there. Nearly all 2E characters have the same statistics as 1E,
modulo a few changes here and there. Every 3E character above 9th level
and most below departs substantially from the 1E or 2E analogues. Feats,
skills, multiclasses, the basic stats--all different. (I ain't saying these
things are *bad* but they are *different* and any kind of conversion needs
careful thought indeed if it is to be at all true.)
Heck, they had to have a war of the
>Gods to justify the change in character capabilities between editions.
They had to have an abortion of a conversion manual and then in the end
told us not to bother, just start over after we destroyed all our existing
campaigns.
3e
>could be retconned into a straight 1e (this means without extra-system kludges)
>campaign without mutating capabilities of most characters.
LOL! You *must* be joking! Ask the gnome sorcerer/paladin multiclass if he'd
survive the transition. How about the double weapon cleave power attacked
out fighter? Or the magic item creating dwarf wizard?
At most the
>characters and monsters would be gaining abilities, but not many would be lost.
I have but two words for you: Multiclass spellcasters.
Rupert Boleyn
>(But then they don't seem to agree with me that RM is only
>suitable for toilet paper, even going so far as to drop large
>bucks for rare RM books on e-bay.)
I don't agree with you either - those RM books strike me as being too
stiff to make good toilet paper. They'd be good for lighting fires,
though.
Jeff Taylor
Now just a thought here. How much money (generally) per month were you
spending on 2E AD&D related products, stuff from Wotc/TSR. For myself,
before 3E it was exactly zero. I hadn't bought a new AD&D book in about
6 years. I bought some 1E stuff (used) to try and fill my collection
(just found D1-2 Decent into the Depths yesterday at the local used
bookshop MAJOR score!) and the occasional Warhammer Roleplay book
brought out by Hogshead, but nothing on 2E. Just curious
Happy Games
Jeff
Liberty Jay
> Some of my personal beefs with 3e:
> Player's Option series.
Eeew. Too easy to munchkin. Ex: Strength - you can get tons of hit/dmg
bonus while sacrificing very little (ooo, so I can't carry all the gold
I can find).
> 2) Ditching of cantrips for 0 level spells & greatly increasing the power
> level of 0 level spells compared to cantrips. The only thing I use out of
> UA is the cantrip system.
I like the 2e way: one spell lasts for hours and lets you do anything
listed in UA during that time. Great flexibility for random wizard
effect that enhance roleplaying opps.
> 3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
> get one) seems to increase the classes power.
> 4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
> to new spells.
But mages are still screwed in D&D and have always been and will always
be.
> 6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
Thank goodness. Smelled like GURPS. Also very munchkin-prone.
> 11) My group really likes having an exhaustive list of NWPs to choose
> from. They went a bit overboard in consolidating these into Skills in 3e.
I miss this too. It requires a flexible DM to get around this (that is
your DM must have a broader interpretation of what Profession:
Apothecary should let you check for).
> 12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
> Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
> might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options.
Yeah. These are kinda queer. Especially the Tanglefoot Bag. Just the
name makes want to never buy it anyway.
> 13) Why does a masterwork dagger, long sword, halberd & dwarven waraxe all
> cost the same exact amount (in addition to their base cost)? Way too
> oversimplified for my tastes.
I would have preferred a percentage. Everything in 1st Ed used
percentages. See 1e DMG p.36-37 for example. Also, in 3e a masterwork
q-staff costs double because it's a double weapon! Stupid. The damn
thing is FREE without the extra +1 to hit!
> 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
I'm hoping to see some of it in the Tome and Blood handbook.
> One final note. Its amazes me just how much of the much maligned Player's
> Option series material made it into 3e and now everyone praises it.
I think the attack of opportunity stuff in 3e is way out of control, but
it's a real challenge to extract it from the 3e rules (AoO provoked by
spellcasting especially). It almost forces you to use miniatures or
maps, and I prefer to use my imagination -- but combat is more
positional now.
I miss the minute long rounds. We're still trying to adjust to having
only 6 seconds of banter per combat round. No more bad guys spouting
loads of insults and giving away their plans over sword blows -- they
just don't have time before the fight's over!
> Visit the Kingdom of Hurva
> http://www.hurva.org
> - A 2nd Edition/Player's Option Campaign
> - Campaign Journals, House Rules, NWPs, Characters, Fig Pics,
> Recipes, Detailed Clerics, Myths...In short, lots of stuff.
> - Well organized, easy to navigate & searchable.
I like your site. Very nice graphic design.
To answer the original post, assuming no house rules:
There are several things I miss about 1e and 2e, but it's mostly just
nostalgia and not specific game mechanics or flavor. I miss the spell
and monster descriptions that went beyond the game mechanics to provide
some flavor (Ex: Tasha's Laughter).
I miss the way illusions used to work. A lot.
I miss "hobbit" halflings.
I love the D20 concept. I've always thought the "to hit" roll was an
intuitive way to stack up modifiers and determine a success chance.
3e is not a hopelessly broken mess. 1e and 2e had so many holes,
loopholes, complications, and inconsistencies, that 3e's shortcomings
pale in comparison. Remember, the question stipulated NO HOUSE RULES.
--Jay
--
I vote Libertarian! Find out why: http://www.LP.org
Liberty Jay
> For me; Basic D&D over 1st ed, over 2nd ed, over (multiple game
> systems)..and last on the list, 3rd ed. Just about any game I've played is
> better than 3rd edition D&D for what me and my group enjoy playing.
Have you ever played Shadowrun? God, that system sucks. The math of it
is way wrong. Gotta be worse than 3E on your list?
Here's hoping,
Hunter
>
>here we go again ;-)
>
>In article <3B2768A9...@clear.net.nz>, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> LARE wrote:
>> <On: 3e changes and stuff>
>>
>>
>> <snip; disclaimer and stuff>
>
>ditto - see previous post for premise of debate.
>
>> >
>> > 4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
>> > to new spells.
>>
>> Yes yes yes. On the whole, low level wizards got bumped up in power
>> to match the other classes. High level other classes got bumped to match
>> the wizards. Thieves got bumped all the way through.
>> This allows the elegance of the 3e unified XP and muliclassing
>> system. It allows classes to work well in a more modern game design,
>> with greatly variable yet balanced charecter design.
>
>The basic concept is elegant (uniform classes) but I think that high level
>wizards still break the system. The acquisition of spells has long been by
>DM's fiat (with a few exceptions). This allowed individual DMs to balance
>spellslingers with the rest of their campaign. 3e tilts the balance,
>allowing Wiz/Sor to pick more of their spells than ever before. Of course
>this is as written - no DM worth his salt should think twice about vetoing
>spells that would imbalance a campaign - my beef is with the books as they
>are written.
>
You are using house rules and expansion products of the old systems and you
only want to look at rules as written?
>> > 5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
>> > differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
>>
>> <cheapshot> Yea, you have to give your clerics a personality to
>> differentiate them now. </cheapshot>
>
>Methinks you should explore my website - especially the section on
>characters in the campaign, before you sling such cheapshots around.
The fact it is tagged should tell you something.
>> The domain system enforces use of different spells based on god
>> _every day_, while allowing a generally broad and balanced selection of
>> spells.
>
>But the spell lists of a cleric of a shadowgod and one of a sun god would
>look just like one of a fire god and one of a water god - except for a
>very small % of their spells.
>
>2 of their 28 available first level spells would be different. That is a
>negligible difference, IMO.
But beyond 0, 1/2 their spells are going to be domain. Look at what they can
cast, not choose. There is a differance. Even at 10th level 1/4 of their
spells are domain specific. By then if they want to be more specialized they
can take the prestige class for their god.
>None of their 0 level spells would be different. So much for showing the
>specific & special 'blessings of their god' to the initiates.
You don't choose, the God chooses you.:)
>As clerics gain levels, an ever smaller percentage of their spells they
>can cast per day are from their domains and instead from the genric Cleric
>list. (At least, if you take the 3ePH literally - I can't imagine anyone
>treating like this and not as Specialist Mages were treated with regards
>to spell selection in 2e.)
Choice is not everything. Casting is what is important. Specialty priests
were optional. The base cleric is better than the base cleric. Specialty
priests should be prestige classes now.
>> > 6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
>>
>> Traits have become world specific feats.
>
>Errr, no. Feats, if anything, resemble the combat options from C&T. The
>more advanced ones read much like the Skills for High Level Characters
>from HLC.
>
>Ambidexterity is the lone exception - of course, now you can learn that
>later rather than being born with it.
>
>Traits, as found in S&P, are no where to be found in 3e.
>
Look in the FR book. You seem to want to compare a core book vs, a supplement.
Optional rules of one system vs the default of another.
>> > 7) Weapon proficiency rules are very different. Almost too different.
>> > Every character of the same class knows exactly the same weapons (before
>> > adding feats) of every other individual?!
>>
>> Yep. Only monks learn kukri, only rogues learn hand-crossbow.
>
>Why?
Default setting.
>>Some
>> weapons are hard to learn by anyone, but otherwise there's quick weapons
>> trining (simple stuff), and full weapons training (only broad combat
>> training can do it).
>
>Ah, I see, every single 3e fighter, paladin, barbarian and ranger took the
>exact same training course!!
Nope, but the same weapons were covered in each. Fighting style is represented
by feats.
>The system is flawed, else you wouldn't have to specify certain classes
>weapons lists weapon by weapon. (such as the monk and the rogue)
>
Which is better, having every class need to have weapons listed, or only some
classes. Or have 10 differant ways to group weapons.
>
>> > 8) Feats seem very, very disparate in their power levels. For example,
>> > taking Alertness gives you a +2 in two seperate skills where as Skill
>> > Focus only gives you a +2 in one skill.
Look in FR for more options. The choice is why only +2 for one skill. Listen
and spot are very specific skills.
>> > Another example is that a fighter
>> > specialized in light crossbow, would have to use what could have been a
>> > valuable dazzling combat feat just to avoid a non-proficiency penalty in a
>> > magical hand crossbow he finds.
Because a hand Crossbow is not the same as a light crossbow. He wants to
dazzle with the hand x-bow so he spends time learning to use it instead of
something else. Good thing he gets extra feats to do such things.
>
>> > 9) Magic items just seem way too easy to make by even lower level
>> > characters. I understand the need to put prices on items for the item
>> > creation system (which it's about time was officially tackled and despte
>> > being overpowered IMO is done fairly well) but said prices just encourage
>> > people to try to buy & sell magic items.
>>
>> You're _supposed_ to buy and sell magic items in 3e,
>
>Why? That should be dependent upon the individual campaign world - not the
>rules system.
That is the default for D&D games. Supplements and other optional rules can
change that for other settings. Why shouldn't magic be sold. The world is a
dangerous place, and PC's are not the only ones that will want magic, let alone
only adventurers.
>>or even
>> commision their construction, but trust me, money is tight if you try it
>> on a regular basis.
>> It's supposed to give players some controll over the selection of
>> magic they get. I like the concept.
>
>Once again, it should be campaign dependent.
But a default is needed. And more campaigns will have it. DM fiat only works
with good DM's.
>> Now that comparitive plebs can make them, they're as common as
>> mighty composite longbows. Kinda explains all the healing potions, eh.
>
>
>What healing potions!? There's healing potions just lying around
>everywhere?! - I can hear my players now. <sigh>
So you are a stingy DM, that is not our fault. You should not expect others to
be such.
>> > 10) Why can't magic items be recharged in 3e?! I suppose they needed to
>> > balance out the ease of creation problem somehow. This is not the way I
>> > would have chosen.
>>
>> You just make a new one instead.
>
>This seems to be a greater commentary on the sad state of our consumer
>driven economy with disposable everything than I think any of us realized.
>
There are rules to allow the item to be used as part of the cost.
>>They used to need recharging,
>> 'cause you couldn't make them. Now, when you should have them, you can
>> make them yourself. Need removed.
>>
>> > 12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
>> > Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
>> > might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options. Not
>> > listed as merely "Special & Superior Items'. IMC, all of these would be
>> > considered magical. It will be tough for first time and young DMs to say
>> > "No" to players on items that are listed plain as day in the PH as
>> > available stuff fot ehm to buy.
>>
>> I love 'em, but it's easy enough to remove the alchemy skill, and
>> thus all these things. They're really only toys for low levels,
>
>And Vorpal swords are toys for high levels. My point was not to eliminate
>them, but that they should've been listed in the DMG as minor magical (or
>alchemical) trinkets instead of appearing on the PH equipment lists.
>
But they aren't magical. Detect Magic wouldn't pick them up. They add flavor
to the world.
>>
>> > 14) Starting equipment recomended for characters beyond 1st level as
>> > outlined by the 3e DMG p. 43 is way too pawerful for my tastes.
>>
>> Not in play. I used to dish out more than that (if my calculations
>> are correct), but that's just the average reults from the new treasure
>> tables.
>
>see other posting in thread for this reply.
See above for the reply to your reply.
>> > 15) Why is a Fire Trap spell cast by a Wiz or Sor harder to save against
>> > than one cast by the same level Druid???? (DC 10 + spell level + relevant
>> > ability bonus) As a 2nd level druid spell and 4th level Wiz/Sor spell,
>> > shouldn't it come easier to druids and yet, if they're all 8th level, the
>> > Sor just learned it, but is better at it than the Druid, who could've
>> > known the spell since 3rd level. This is just one example of a spell
>> > system, that while at its core is extremely clever, has a lot of bugs in
>> > it.
>>
>> So make the 'hieghten spell' feat free for all spell casters. Not a
>> big change.
>
>Ugh. Breaking things even further doesn't solve the problem.
>
See other post for the proper solution.
>> > 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
>>
>> There are a shitload of books for ADnD. There's only 288 pages (plus
>> inserts) in my PHB. Seems it didn't fit.
>
>Perhaps. But almost 100% ignoring of a 2e core book (albeit a secondary
>level core book) was a pretty harsh editing choice.
ToM is not a core book. It is a supplement. Next you will be saying the PO
books are core.
First, I'm gald I'm not in your campaign, that is just stupid. Next the rules
are expecting the character to be protecting himself and his items (that is what
the saving throw represents). Finally if you want to stupidly destroy the
characters items anyway, just have them take damage outward in (that is what the
table represents anyway), stop when an item survives. Jsut be consistant and
apply the damage to the character last, he might survive but his armor is toast.
Liberty Jay
> I disagree with this point. I started to bring my 1e characters into 2e, but
> the rules mutated them so much that they were unrecognizeable and what they did
> would now be impossible under the new rules. These same characters can be
> changed over to 3e with little change in ability. IMO 3e supplies more
> continuity between 1e and 3e than 2e did.
Hunter, man, I love 3E but I gotta say you're wrong about this. The only
thing that is the same from 2e to 3e characters is that stats still
basically go from 3 to 18 -- but not really. At least you still need all
five Platonic solids...
Rupert Boleyn
<panco...@SPAMconcentric.net> wrote:
I find that some characters convert really easily, and others don't.
This is sometimes due to being multiclass spellcasters, but more often
because in 1e or 2e they had certain things that fitted the concept
that the rules didn't support so they were assumed to be able to 'just
do'. If they are things that fit nicely into 3e's feat and skill
system the conversion is painless, whereas if they don't either they
don't convert well or you have to spend time and energy bending rules
or inventing new feats and/or skills which may or may not be balanced
in 3e.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Now just a thought here. How much money (generally) per month were you
>spending on 2E AD&D related products, stuff from Wotc/TSR. For myself,
>before 3E it was exactly zero. I hadn't bought a new AD&D book in about
>6 years. I bought some 1E stuff (used) to try and fill my collection
>(just found D1-2 Decent into the Depths yesterday at the local used
>bookshop MAJOR score!) and the occasional Warhammer Roleplay book
>brought out by Hogshead, but nothing on 2E. Just curious
Before 3e came out the last product I bought new was the Night Below
campaign boxed set. Before that some PO stuff when it was new. Other
than that most of my 2e stuff is secondhand, as it wasn't worth
getting new IMO. As for secondhand things - I spend about as much on
1e as 2e products, and aside from getting hold of some copies of the
old S-series modules for old times' sake I haven't gone after that
much either. Mystra gazetters, OTOH...
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>They really haven't increased their power that much. Cantrips aren't about
>power (in fact most are fixed in effect) but about flexibility. That is what
>low levels Wizards have gained. All they have in their spell book to start are
>the cantrips and 3 1st level spells. I don't see the power increase you
>claim.
<nitpick>
Actually all cantrips plus 3+Ind mad 1st-level spells.
</nitpick>
>Now IMO magic items and potions make sense. Also it allows for not needing to
>have high level mages do all the work in item creation to make the item
>available.
Given how common scrolls and potions were in 1e and 2e modules I think
that all 3e has done is make it possible to explain where they all
came from.
Hunter
>no_ad...@this.time.org (Hunter) writes:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:18:15 GMT, ja...@uiuc.edu (john v verkuilen) wrote:
>
>>>no_ad...@this.time.org (Hunter) writes:
>>>
>>>>I'd say that 2e actually deviated from the game. 3rd just brought it back in
>>>>line.
>>>
>>>I think the fact that you can use a 1E character or monster in a 2E game
>>>pretty much straight or with only a few small shifts really belies your
>>>claim. 3E characters are *very* different from their 1E or 2E counterparts.
>>>
>>I disagree with this point.
>
>Obviously. I respectfully submit you're on crack.
>
I might've been if you hadn't smoked it all first.
>I started to bring my 1e characters into 2e, but
>>the rules mutated them so much that they were unrecognizeable and what they did
>>would now be impossible under the new rules. These same characters can be
>>changed over to 3e with little change in ability. IMO 3e supplies more
>>continuity between 1e and 3e than 2e did.
>
>Nearly all 2E monsters have the *same* statistics as 1E
Same name, but not same effects. For the name. RND() started rounding instead
of generating a random number.
>, with a few changes
>here and there. Nearly all 2E characters have the same statistics as 1E,
>modulo a few changes here and there.
Some had the same. Comapre the assassin, barbarian, druid, monk to their 2e
counterparts. Nowhere near the same even if they existed.
> Every 3E character above 9th level
>and most below departs substantially from the 1E or 2E analogues.
Give me any 1e character (with no house rules) and I can convert it to 3e with
little continuity problems. It will be able to do the same thing it did
(mostly) that it did in 1e. In fact it will probably gain in ability.
> Feats,
>skills, multiclasses, the basic stats--all different. (I ain't saying these
>things are *bad* but they are *different* and any kind of conversion needs
>careful thought indeed if it is to be at all true.)
>
They didn't exist in 1e, Adding stuff to the character, doesn't change the
character. It will still be able to do what it did before (mostly). Can't say
the same for the classes I mentioned earlier.
>
>Heck, they had to have a war of the
>>Gods to justify the change in character capabilities between editions.
>
>They had to have an abortion of a conversion manual and then in the end
>told us not to bother, just start over after we destroyed all our existing
>campaigns.
>
This alone should say that there is more continuity between 1e and 3e than
between 1e and 2e. Conversion is possible.
>
>3e
>>could be retconned into a straight 1e (this means without extra-system kludges)
>>campaign without mutating capabilities of most characters.
>
>LOL! You *must* be joking! Ask the gnome sorcerer/paladin multiclass if he'd
>survive the transition. How about the double weapon cleave power attacked
>out fighter? Or the magic item creating dwarf wizard?
>
I never knew those were in 1e. Must be the crack you smoked talking. I said
the 3e rules were retconned into a 1e campaign. That means you start with 1e,
and convert it to 3e, without any in game knowledge the change in mechanics was
made.
>At most the
>>characters and monsters would be gaining abilities, but not many would be lost.
>
>I have but two words for you: Multiclass spellcasters.
I did say not many, from my experience Cleric/Mages were rare. Those were
what you were talking about since they are the only ones that can't be
duplicated exactly, one class or the other will have to be lower.
j
LARE <hey_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hey_lare-130...@gruel-115-16.ppp.andrew.cmu.edu...
> In article <3b26eaa9$0$27...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>, "j" <ma...@tokyo.com>
wrote:
>
> <irrelevant bits here & throughout snipped>
interesting...
>
>
>
> Also, FTR, I stated that I'll be switching to 3e - but not until I've had
> a chance to go through it with a fine toothed comb and get some things not
> suitable to my campaign straightned out with house rules.
> > perhaps i should attempt to give a counterpoint to some points made by
> > someone who intelligently critisized 3e..which is a rarity on this
> > group....(things should improve now that Denakhan has gone...;)
>
>
> Thank you for the compliment. But I've been saddened to see so much of the
> 'dancing on the ashes' going on here. As long as the posts are on topic,
> dissenters should not be run out of town. It does not do anything to
> benefit the greater community and only encourages others to only post if
> they stay in lockstep with the majority.
i appreciate different opinions as long as they don't go along the lines of
"oh my god how stupid are you for liking Xedition...dear god...its so
obvious that this edition is flawed/brocked/sucks because i'm the only one
who could possibly have an opinion!" ...it precisely this type of
gaming-elitism that i hate so much... and somethign i've been drumming into
the younger players in my club... your opinion is just as valid as the guy
who owns the old red books over in the corner... no matter how inexperienced
you are...if you like it ..play it... simple.. :)
>
> In the hands of quality role players that I'm blessed to have, options
> provide a wealth of opportunities to play unique characters. 3e is bland
> at lower levels comparatively. However, prestige classes are a brilliant
> concept. A lot of an individual campaign's flavor will be generated here,
> with unique ones.
unfortunately i haven't yet seen the blandness you describe... and while
doubling the amount of scribble on your character sheet for granularity's
sake might seem like customising at first...it IMO just makes for more
book-keeping and does little for the actual character customisation is still
available in 3e via feats to the same degree that you're talking about...
lets take dex as an example shall we...
while i can't remember the exact split from S&P i'll stick to 3e..
Dex attibuted actions like Reflex saving throws and Armour Class can be
differentiated by taking feats which pertain to that particular element...
ie want a better saving throw (ie someone who can jump out of hte way of the
lightning bolt quicker? take Lightning Reflexes...want a better Armour
class? take Dodge (granted its slightly more limited than a full extra two
points of dex...)
this can be done for just about anything ...and as the fellow who replied to
your reply earlier stated...the modularity allows you to create/port stuff
across the 3e quite easily..using the existing power levels as a guide...
(i'll get on to power levels later on..so hold your comments, if you will,
till then ;)
> Then you've never seen really good role players play low level mages! ;-)
oh..i've seen good roleplayers play mages...and yes they can be quite
useful...but if you have 1 x 1st level spell at first level...and that it...
you're going to have to be *very* useful in other areas to have the same
impact on the game as say a fighter.. or a cleric even who has more
spells... i prefer my characters to all share the limelight instead of
playing supporting roles..unless the player wants that...
>
> One of my ideas to modify 3e is to keep the 0-level designation & add a
> cantrip layer below it - and then tweak the levels of lots of things and #
> of spells / day. Ugh - this is what I implied when I stated previously
> that 3e is going to require a lot of modifiction to work for me.
fairy snuff... if you require mod ..go for it :) have fun... i am :)
> > 3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
> > get one) seems to increase the classes power.
> >
> > what these classes have gained in *character* far outweighs, IMO, the
losses
> > due to increases in power..if any...with the availability of
familiars...
>
> Every single Wiz/Sor getting a magically empowered pet doesn't do beans
> towards giving individuals character. If anything, it portrays conformity
> and encourages stereotypes.
i've actually been thinking about the stereotype issue for a while and while
i can see you're point, not everyone *has* to take a familiar...in fact i've
got wiz/sor at 5th level in my games who haven't taken them... and in any
case...wasn't the spell find familiar a first level spell in 2e anyway?
thought so... just cos you got it...doesn't mean you have to use it .. but
i'm sure you understand that ;)
>
>
> > 4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
> > to new spells.
> >
> > to tell you the truth, i've not really noticed this that much...the
landmark
> > levels are still the same...5th level to get 3rd level spells....perhaps
the
> > amount of spells has changed...
>
> This is a *huge* change. While trying (and succeeding) to empower low
> level mages, probably due to the common mispreception that they were way
> too weak,
perhaps a misconception in you're eyes, but in all the games i've played in,
dm'd in and watched/heard about in 12 years, the low level mage has been
nursed to 5th level by the party... misconception is a very harsh word to
use.... in pure metagame terms, with one spell, and 4-5 hitpoints...the low
level mage (ie 1st level mage..was... well... weak) ..in roleplaying terms
they have great potential...no more or less than any other class...you seem
to be mixing the two up...
>3e increases not only low level mages power level, but all level
> mages!
once again..i've not seen this... its a relative issue...in a pre-existing
campaign you might see it, without modification...you're also forgetting the
fact that overall, classes are inherantly more balanced over all levels now
than any other edition... magic-users are *still* probably more powerful at
higher levels...
>
>
> > 5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
> > differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
> >
> > while i agree that the core list of cleric spells is uniform for all
> > clerics, the domain system has allowed a lot of customisability without
> > being to complex...
>
> Compared to S&M?! Compared to the CPHB?! No. Absolutely not.This was a
> definitive step backwards in differentiating clerics of different powers.
> Comparatively, there is so little difference in 3e different priesthoods
> as to be laughable. Once again, it's fixable, but not without a lot of
> house rules.
this is an inherantly flawed statement... you are comparing, as you stated
earlier, 3e CORE ...to 2e EXPANDED ruleset... something that can't be
logically done...
i'm sure, although i haven't picked up a 2e players handbook since errrr
August last year, that if you look at the 2e PHB description of priests,
there is little customisability straight out of hte book, (ignoring the
pitiful section on Speciality priests...) ...
>
>
> > 6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
> >
> > while i don't see this as a major biggy some people might...in my
experience
> > most of the Traits gave excellent powers to characters while
Disadvantages
> > generally forced the hand of the DM into providing opportunities for his
> > characters to go "ooooooooh i'm afraid of spiders oooh ooooho eeeeek!"
...
>
> Considering the quality of roleplayers in my group, that's not been my
> experience thankfully.
>
>
> > my opinion of the T&D system is based on seeing many many players create
> > characters with what at first look to be very meritable flaws, but never
> > getting the chance (sometimes i think they realise this is going to
happen)
> > to play them out due...it was simply too much work to take all the
> > characters flaws into account andput them into an adventure..hence the
> > balancing effect of Disadvantages is lost... IMHO
>
> Disadvantages are not designed to balance Traits in S&P on a 1 for 1
> basis. (a simple examination of the character creation process reveals
> this)
the way i remember you could pick Traits...and then pick a Disadvantage to
get more character points to pick more traits... i may be wrong... i never
used them after the first time...
what you are looking for in a mechanic is taken care of in the feats
section... feats can emulate just about as many of the powers you're looking
for as i can think of...i may be mistaken...but i've not noticed any
discernable loss in play quality between games...
> It does just the opposite, IMO. Due to the imbalance, I'm far more aware
> of the system and might feel that I have to make choices based on game
> mechanics rather than character development. A truly balanced system
> wouldn't make you choose between the two.
you've just contradicted yourself, indirectly... earilier you touted that
the traits and flaws S&P mechanic allowed for *good* roleplayers to use and
not abuse.. but here you admit that you yourself would be tempted to the
dark side and give into metagame considerations for power
purposes...interesting..
> > 11) My group really likes having an exhaustive list of NWPs to choose
> > from. They went a bit overboard in consolidating these into Skills in
3e.
> >
> > why have three different skills for surviving in the wilderness, when
> > wilderness lore will do... do i want to customise my character that much
> > that i have to spread my nwps/skills across firebuilding, survival,
xxxxxx
> > skill/nwp? while the skill list is kind of short, adding skills is not
that
> > much of a problem and something that i've been doing a lot of...the
> > knowledge/profession/craft supergroups are great for making lots of
> > customised skills... thats where most of the "hidden/lost" skills are
anow
> > located..
>
> The problem with that is all of the skills wraped up into the supergroups
> all now use the same ability. This was a major change and a step backwards
> in game design.
the design isn't that different... you can port the skills you like
across.... the modularity that Hunter (the other poster) pointed out allows
you to drop things in... as long as you fit it to the mechanic... if you
don't like the fact that craft uses intelligence, profession uses wisdom,
knowledge uses intelligence and that while they are not individual skills,
but just prefixes for a whole bunch of skills, change it...i'm sure i read
that somewhere... cite me some examples of skills and i'd be happy to port
them for you ;)
>
> Yes, yes. If it wasn't clear, I'm fully capable of changing things! ;-) My
> criticism was geared towards it's potential effect on new & younger
> players.
this may be just me, but if i remember back to my younger gaming days at hte
age of 14, using 1st edition... our gaming days went something like
this...10am start gaming...12pm kill first dragon....4pm...kill that pesky
Tarrasque....12am kill those gods who won't give you wish spells...
that may have been a *slight* exaggeration...but what i'm trying to point
out is that ..kids will powergame, munchkinise to their hearts content..then
one day...kids realise that "hey holy batshit batman..theres more to this
game than killing gods and dragons etc..." and become good roleplayers later
on... its rare to find kids who don't enjoy using the rule to make über
powerful characters early on... i'm sure if you ask anyone they will share
their sentiment ...or at least veil the truth with rants about how mature a
gamer they were at the age of 10....
>
> >
> > 15) Why is a Fire Trap spell cast by a Wiz or Sor harder to save against
> > than one cast by the same level Druid???? (DC 10 + spell level +
relevant
> > ability bonus) As a 2nd level druid spell and 4th level Wiz/Sor spell,
> > shouldn't it come easier to druids and yet, if they're all 8th level,
the
> > Sor just learned it, but is better at it than the Druid, who could've
> > known the spell since 3rd level. This is just one example of a spell
> > system, that while at its core is extremely clever, has a lot of bugs in
> > it.
> >
> > not sure about this one..haven't come across it...and not sure i'd even
> > worry about it too much unless i had a Wizard with the spell and a Druid
> > with the spell and they were try8ing to figure out who would cast it and
who
> > would have the better DC...my players don't tend to think like this
...ie
> > metagame..
>
> Neither do mine - except when blatantly flawed rules get in the way.
but evidentally they do ;)
as Hunter pointed out..not flawed...different spells...different
classes...the the roleplay...not the rollplay ... ;)
>
> > 17) Stuff on a character's person is incredibly safer in 3e than in
> > previous editions. In fact, the table in the 3ePH that deals with which
> > *one* item may be destroyed after the character rolls a 1 (not simply
> > fails) is completely geared towards munchkinism as it implies that every
> > character is loaded with magic items. Go read it again, its table 10-1
on
> > page 150. Why are magically items effected before non-magical ones???
Why
> > isn't everything potentially affected by a fireball??? Why are your
> > shield, armor & helmet as likely to be destroyed by a fireball as the
> > scroll in your other hand?????!!!!! Finally on this topic, I've really
> > come to appreciate 1e/2e tables for handling item saving throws. They
make
> > infinitely more sense than the, once again, streamlined & oversimplified
> > 3e approach.
> >
> > this was so boring in the other editions..although i'm probably harping
on
> > about a different point to yours... roll for EVERY item?
>
> Yup.
>
> >far out that takes
> > a lot of time..and is something that i don't like doing..
>
> Persoanl taste. My campaign may be a bit grittier and more 'realistic' in
> tis approach to magic than yours.
perhaps..perhaps not...'realistic' is not a term i'd like to stick in any
discussion about magic if i can help it...
whats realistic about dodging fireballs or lightning bolts...
> >
> > 19) Counterspells are a fantastic idea - its too bad the mechanics suck
so
> > bad.
> >
> > they're not that bad.. although i've only used it against characters..
pcs
> > never think to counterspell..
>
> Or maybe they feel their odds of succeeding are next to nil because of how
> difficult they made the system.
no i believe many just don't take the time to check it out...even after
..how many months is it.. you're still going to have players who are new and
haven't read all the rules..and thats cool :) i'll admit in this particular
area i'm a bit vague myself.. perhaps if i used it more my characters would
use it more... thats the pattern i've seen in the past..
> This once again demonstates just how much the base line of power has
> changed and goes far to strengthen my case. In order to maintain a current
> campaign, I have to *heavily* modifify 3e.
goodo
its been a blast :)
looking forward to your reply...
jase :)
Varl
> Now just a thought here. How much money (generally) per month were you
> spending on 2E AD&D related products, stuff from Wotc/TSR.
If they released it, I bought it, particularly if it were FR based. If the product
turned out to be not so great, I still found something inside that I could use in my
campaign. It may not have been worth the price of the product, once I determined that,
but I had money to burn at that time, and I appreciated a new expansion for the FR or
for AD&D.
> For myself,
> before 3E it was exactly zero. I hadn't bought a new AD&D book in about
> 6 years.
I'm heading this way now with 3e. My expenditures towards WotC products have declined
so much, I could afford building myself this brand new computer, so it's not so bad.
;-)
> I bought some 1E stuff (used) to try and fill my collection
> (just found D1-2 Decent into the Depths yesterday at the local used
> bookshop MAJOR score!) and the occasional Warhammer Roleplay book
> brought out by Hogshead, but nothing on 2E. Just curious
I actually find it nice that I won't have to re-invest in products I already have just
to upgrade to 3e. I can now concentrate my hobby money towards miniatures, paints, and
brushes. My other favorite pastime. :-)
About the only books I might find myself purchasing under the 3e logo will be
adventures, and then, only if they offer me either a definitive new twist on an old
theme, or a new twist entirely. I can easily adapt a 3e module to my campaign; it's
the adventure concepts I'm more interested in rather than making sure all my products
conform to the 3e mainstream.
Jeff Taylor
Varl wrote:
>
> Jeff Taylor wrote:
>
> > Now just a thought here. How much money (generally) per month were you
> > spending on 2E AD&D related products, stuff from Wotc/TSR.
>
> If they released it, I bought it, particularly if it were FR based.
Whoa - did you have a job at Fort Knox or something? That is a LOT of
supplements 8)
If the product
> turned out to be not so great, I still found something inside that I could use in my
> campaign.
This is the exact reason I hunt for those old modules - there are some
great settings/adventure hooks in there (Dwellers of the Lost City just
inspired me supply the 'grand finale' to my existing campaign (3E))
>
. I can now concentrate my hobby money towards miniatures, paints, and
> brushes. My other favorite pastime. :-)
You too???!! I have about 3000 assorted miniatures for everything from
Warhammer to Battletech to D&D. Of course precious few are actually
painted 8(
> About the only books I might find myself purchasing under the 3e logo will be
> adventures, and then, only if they offer me either a definitive new twist on an old
> theme, or a new twist entirely. I can easily adapt a 3e module to my campaign; it's
> the adventure concepts I'm more interested in rather than making sure all my products
> conform to the 3e mainstream.
The great thing is that ideas are universal - the actual edition you
play is just so much window dressing IMHO. It just happens that, for
the foreseeable future, I like the view from that 3E window 8)
Happy Games
Jeff
Jeff Taylor
Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> Before 3e came out the last product I bought new was the Night Below
> campaign boxed set.
One big regret I had was that I found this used about a year ago and
didn't pick it up, I had never heard of it before and just didn't
realize how much good stuff was in there!
I remember when (did I type that **shudder**) 2E first came out -
everyone I knew who played was so pumped up about that we bought PHB's
without even cracking the covers in the stores! 2E was a disappointment
but we still played a year-long campaign with it before finally going
back to 1E. Strangely the only house rule I remember was getting rid of
level limits and allowing humans to multi class (same for both editions)
Happy games
Jeff
Hunter
I never said 2e to 3e was good. I said 1e to 3e was good. 2e to 3e is a
differant story, and I don't plan on converting any of my 2e characters to 3e.
Instead if I need to bring a character with history into a campaign, I will use
an ex 1e character that has been converted. Start clean, without the cancer
that was 2e.
Hunter
>On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:57:46 GMT, no_ad...@this.time.org (Hunter)
>wrote:
>
>>They really haven't increased their power that much. Cantrips aren't about
>>power (in fact most are fixed in effect) but about flexibility. That is what
>>low levels Wizards have gained. All they have in their spell book to start are
>>the cantrips and 3 1st level spells. I don't see the power increase you
>>claim.
>
><nitpick>
>Actually all cantrips plus 3+Ind mad 1st-level spells.
></nitpick>
>
>>Now IMO magic items and potions make sense. Also it allows for not needing to
>>have high level mages do all the work in item creation to make the item
>>available.
>
>Given how common scrolls and potions were in 1e and 2e modules I think
>that all 3e has done is make it possible to explain where they all
>came from.
That was what I was gettig at. All the magic in the world now has an
explanation. It would be like finding large sums of mithral pieces when there
are no mithral mines and mithral is being used for armor.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>
>
>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> Before 3e came out the last product I bought new was the Night Below
>> campaign boxed set.
>
>One big regret I had was that I found this used about a year ago and
>didn't pick it up, I had never heard of it before and just didn't
>realize how much good stuff was in there!
ONe of my regrets for NB is that 3e didn't exist when it came out. If
it had we probably would've stuck with the campaign and finished it.
The other regret is that I don't have enough players in one group to
be able to run it again.
Varl
> > If they released it, I bought it, particularly if it were FR based.
>
> Whoa - did you have a job at Fort Knox or something? That is a LOT of
> supplements 8)
Heh. Actually, construction during those years paid quite a bit if you ignore the rain,
snow, and 9 degree temperatures. And now, I have an even better paying job, and yet, it's
not enough to get me to spend it towards 3e. Besides, have you seen the price lately of a
new miniature, particularly warhammer? Egad man, you'd think they undercoat those things in
gold leaf. ;-)
> If the product
> > turned out to be not so great, I still found something inside that I could use in my
> > campaign.
>
> This is the exact reason I hunt for those old modules - there are some
> great settings/adventure hooks in there (Dwellers of the Lost City just
> inspired me supply the 'grand finale' to my existing campaign (3E))
Yep, and it's the same reason I look to new adventures now. Hooks.
> . I can now concentrate my hobby money towards miniatures, paints, and
> > brushes. My other favorite pastime. :-)
>
> You too???!! I have about 3000 assorted miniatures for everything from
> Warhammer to Battletech to D&D. Of course precious few are actually
> painted 8(
Heh. I have over 5000 of them I bet; I've lost track. I really need to count them sometime.
I don't get the time to paint as many of them as I want too, but I think by not changing to
3e may actually give me more time for just that. :-)
> > About the only books I might find myself purchasing under the 3e logo will be
> > adventures, and then, only if they offer me either a definitive new twist on an old
> > theme, or a new twist entirely. I can easily adapt a 3e module to my campaign; it's
> > the adventure concepts I'm more interested in rather than making sure all my products
> > conform to the 3e mainstream.
>
> The great thing is that ideas are universal - the actual edition you
> play is just so much window dressing IMHO. It just happens that, for
> the foreseeable future, I like the view from that 3E window 8)
That's cool. I hope it gives you as much as 2e gives and has given me, and more.
Cerberus AOD
On 14 Jun 2001 00:41:34 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was quite
moldy, Liberty Jay, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>LARE wrote:
:)>> Some of my personal beefs with 3e:
:)>> 1) Lack of subabilities. One of the best things to come out of the entire
:)>> Player's Option series.
:)>
:)>Eeew. Too easy to munchkin. Ex: Strength - you can get tons of hit/dmg
:)>bonus while sacrificing very little (ooo, so I can't carry all the gold
:)>I can find).
:)>
:)>> 2) Ditching of cantrips for 0 level spells & greatly increasing the power
:)>> level of 0 level spells compared to cantrips. The only thing I use out of
:)>> UA is the cantrip system.
:)>
:)>I like the 2e way: one spell lasts for hours and lets you do anything
:)>listed in UA during that time. Great flexibility for random wizard
:)>effect that enhance roleplaying opps.
Give it a shot. "Concentration" can be a long time...
:)>> 3) All Wizards & Sorcerers getting familiars (or at least the ability to
:)>> get one) seems to increase the classes power.
:)>> 4) Dramatically increasing the ability & rate for Wiz/Sor to gain access
:)>> to new spells.
:)>
:)>But mages are still screwed in D&D and have always been and will always
:)>be.
Depends. The games I run are that way, the one I play is far from it, both were
using the book rules. I have to beef them up. So that's a DMing style thing.
:)>> 6) Completely ditching the concept of Traits - and Disadvantages.
:)>
:)>Thank goodness. Smelled like GURPS. Also very munchkin-prone.
:)>
:)>> 11) My group really likes having an exhaustive list of NWPs to choose
:)>> from. They went a bit overboard in consolidating these into Skills in 3e.
:)>
:)>I miss this too. It requires a flexible DM to get around this (that is
:)>your DM must have a broader interpretation of what Profession:
:)>Apothecary should let you check for).
I don't miss it, as I am a flexible DM, IMO. :)
Profession(Apothecary)
Add in a little Alchemy (not much, given the stated DCs), and _maybe_ wilderness
lore or Knowledge(Nature) and you're st for adventuring, healing, and poisoning.
:)>> 12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
:)>> Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
:)>> might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options.
:)>
:)>Yeah. These are kinda queer. Especially the Tanglefoot Bag. Just the
:)>name makes want to never buy it anyway.
hehe. Agreed.
:)>> 13) Why does a masterwork dagger, long sword, halberd & dwarven waraxe all
:)>> cost the same exact amount (in addition to their base cost)? Way too
:)>> oversimplified for my tastes.
:)>
:)>I would have preferred a percentage. Everything in 1st Ed used
:)>percentages. See 1e DMG p.36-37 for example. Also, in 3e a masterwork
:)>q-staff costs double because it's a double weapon! Stupid. The damn
:)>thing is FREE without the extra +1 to hit!
+25% simple
+35% normal
+50% difficult to make
approximate to the nearest 10gp :)
:)>> 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
:)>
:)>I'm hoping to see some of it in the Tome and Blood handbook.
Yes...when people have to go to old _suppliments_ to complain, you know they are
trying to make strawmen.
:)>> One final note. Its amazes me just how much of the much maligned Player's
:)>> Option series material made it into 3e and now everyone praises it.
:)>
:)>I think the attack of opportunity stuff in 3e is way out of control, but
:)>it's a real challenge to extract it from the 3e rules (AoO provoked by
:)>spellcasting especially). It almost forces you to use miniatures or
:)>maps, and I prefer to use my imagination -- but combat is more
:)>positional now.
Use your imagination and work AoOs just from common sense.
Attacking unarmed, yes.
Spellcasting in melee, yes.
Rummaging through your backpack in battle...uh-huh.
Just add a house rule:
-All that 5' step BS w/ AoOs is crap. There's an AoO when I say so.
Either way, I just use a blank paper and dice. I set out borders, hills, etc.
with pencil, and the players and enemies get their choice of dice (after I've
secured mine for the baddies) to be represented by. Position matters quite a
bit, but at least you don't need grids.
:)>I miss the minute long rounds. We're still trying to adjust to having
:)>only 6 seconds of banter per combat round. No more bad guys spouting
:)>loads of insults and giving away their plans over sword blows -- they
:)>just don't have time before the fight's over!
Change the round time :-)
I never had a problem with this, as I work far more into the pre- and
post-battle RP than I do combat itself.
:)>> Visit the Kingdom of Hurva
:)>> http://www.hurva.org
Been there before. Several times I think...
:)>> - A 2nd Edition/Player's Option Campaign
:)>> - Campaign Journals, House Rules, NWPs, Characters, Fig Pics,
:)>> Recipes, Detailed Clerics, Myths...In short, lots of stuff.
:)>> - Well organized, easy to navigate & searchable.
:)>
:)>I like your site. Very nice graphic design.
:)>
:)>To answer the original post, assuming no house rules:
:)>
:)>There are several things I miss about 1e and 2e, but it's mostly just
:)>nostalgia and not specific game mechanics or flavor. I miss the spell
:)>and monster descriptions that went beyond the game mechanics to provide
:)>some flavor (Ex: Tasha's Laughter).
:)>
:)>I miss the way illusions used to work. A lot.
:)>
:)>I miss "hobbit" halflings.
You don't like Kender? :)
:)>I love the D20 concept. I've always thought the "to hit" roll was an
:)>intuitive way to stack up modifiers and determine a success chance.
:)>
:)>3e is not a hopelessly broken mess. 1e and 2e had so many holes,
:)>loopholes, complications, and inconsistencies, that 3e's shortcomings
:)>pale in comparison. Remember, the question stipulated NO HOUSE RULES.
:)>
:)> --Jay
------------------
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut (ernieSCR...@DoddsTech.com)
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
BlakGard
>spending on 2E AD&D related products, stuff from Wotc/TSR.
I figured this out a while back. Not counting novels, issues of the
Dragon/Dungeon, and video games, I spent (on average) $4.00/month during the 11
years 2e was around. Honestly, I don't find this all that bad, especially
considering the use and enjoyment I got out of the vast majority of it (there
was almost always something I could piecemeal into my campaign). Adjusted for
inflation, I spent A LOT more on 1e mataerial, the majority of which was spent
on modules. Furthermore, although 3e is still new (and I expect it to taper
off), I'm spending about the same amount on 3e material.
I shudder to think what I spent on other hobbies (such as comics) during that
same period.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Mike Miller
> Denakhan wrote:
> > For me; Basic D&D over 1st ed, over 2nd ed, over (multiple game
> > systems)..and last on the list, 3rd ed. Just about any game I've played is
> > better than 3rd edition D&D for what me and my group enjoy playing.
>
> Have you ever played Shadowrun? God, that system sucks. The math of it
> is way wrong. Gotta be worse than 3E on your list?
I prefer SR3 to 3E, it's just too tightly linked to a specific
setting to use elsewhere. Though I've certainly tried.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
tussock
>
> here we go again ;-)
Apologies if i'm a pain with my 3e bias.
> In article <3B2768A9...@clear.net.nz>, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > LARE wrote:
<snip; powering up wizards?>
> The basic concept is elegant (uniform classes) but I think that high level
> wizards still break the system. The acquisition of spells has long been by
> DM's fiat (with a few exceptions). This allowed individual DMs to balance
> spellslingers with the rest of their campaign. 3e tilts the balance,
> allowing Wiz/Sor to pick more of their spells than ever before. Of course
> this is as written - no DM worth his salt should think twice about vetoing
> spells that would imbalance a campaign - my beef is with the books as they
> are written.
I've played through a couple high level games (to ~16th level),
though never DMed beyond about 10th level. All in all mages having free
access to every spell in the book at every level, it just didn't compare
to fighter types with k3wl powers (CFHB, PO:CnT) or neato items (vorpal,
holy avenger).
Mages, with time to prepare, can be nasty. Fighters are always
nasty.
> > > 5) Really, really mucking up Clerics spells. In 3e, there is hardly any
> > > differentiation between various dieties' clerics' spell lists.
> >
> > The domain system enforces use of different spells based on god
> > _every day_, while allowing a generally broad and balanced selection of
> > spells.
>
> But the spell lists of a cleric of a shadowgod and one of a sun god would
> look just like one of a fire god and one of a water god - except for a
> very small % of their spells.
<snip>
As Hunter pointed out, it's all about what they're casting in 3e. At
the very least, 1 in 6 daily spells must be chosen from two *real* short
lists.
Anyhoo, custom spell lists for a dozen gods just would've sucked in
a core book. Alot of people would've rewritten, and they can still do
that from here.
Perhaps more to the point, I've only ever played with core rules
clerics, BDnD, 2e, splatbooks, a little PO:*n*. Never had varying spell
lists by any great amount, so never missed them.
I found they all pretty much loaded up on healing, plus one or two
weird spells. Clerics without healing access weren't played. Now clerics
load up on everything but healing, some of which must be domain
specific.
<snip; Ads/Disads>
> All of the most interesting heroes have some flaw. The only flaw a 3e
> character may have is that he didn't optimize his feats for combat.
>
> Disadvantages provide a solid game mechanic to provide that.
Why need a game mechanic? There's DMG rules for cripples, anything
else is roleplaying, and how much fun that all is is really up to the
individual anyway.
After a year or three of GURPS, I got to despise Disads, so I'm
biased.
<snip: weapon profs>
> Ah, I see, every single 3e fighter, paladin, barbarian and ranger took the
> exact same training course!!
Perhaps more to the point, if you're not worried about every fighter
being just as good in a fight against giants with tree-clubs, tigers,
animate plants, trolls, and dragons, why on earth would the choise of
stick to hit them with matter.
That level of detail ain't worth an absolute 5% penalty. IMO the
non-proficient weapon penalties are still far too harsh in a system of
this granularity, but they do enforce a bit of staying in your classes
style type stuff.
Assuming you can handle classes getting the same training anyway,
but more than that level of detail, I don't want, it'd be so campain
specific anyway.
> > > 8) Feats seem very, very disparate in their power levels. For example,
<snip>
> > Feats rock. The weaker ones are often prerequisites for the tougher
> > ones, and the exotic weapons are supposed to be class niches, more
> > powerful, or just too damn k3wl for everyone to get.
>
> Neither of my examples are addressed by your reply. And I suppose I've
> been outcooled since I refuse to spell words in ridiculous ways. ;-)
Yep. Nope. Note also above point on weapon use vs opponent type
disparity.
> > > 9) Magic items just seem way too easy to make by even lower level
> > > characters. I understand the need to put prices on items for the item
> > > creation system (which it's about time was officially tackled and despte
> > > being overpowered IMO is done fairly well) but said prices just encourage
> > > people to try to buy & sell magic items.
> >
> > You're _supposed_ to buy and sell magic items in 3e,
>
> Why? That should be dependent upon the individual campaign world - not the
> rules system.
You might say it's easier to disregard those rules, than for
everyone to make them up? Perhaps? Hmmm?
It making sense helps too, but it is part of a whole.
Magic stuff is common enough for each adventurer to get some by
2nd-5th level. Magic is nearly as fragile as normal itmes. Magic must
therefore be produceable with relative ease, but still not easy enough
to dish out to the general populous.
Magic stuff is rare, valuable, and producable with difficulty. This
will create a market, legal, moral or otherwise.
> > or even
> > commision their construction, but trust me, money is tight if you try it
> > on a regular basis.
> > It's supposed to give players some controll over the selection of
> > magic they get. I like the concept.
>
> Once again, it should be campaign dependent.
Once again 8], I'm not going to make up a ruleset for buying and
selling magic items, but I can soon chuck out the one provided.
> > Now that comparitive plebs can make them, they're as common as
> > mighty composite longbows. Kinda explains all the healing potions, eh.
>
> What healing potions!? There's healing potions just lying around
> everywhere?! - I can hear my players now. <sigh>
Just out of interest, were did all the increadibly fragile, near
impossible to make magic items that every PC had one or two of
throughout thier career come from IYC?
Those issues used to grate on my nerves a little. Published modules
were the humanoids had potions of healing in the traesure, and the
hobgoblin king had a +1 sword.
<snip: recharging>
> > You just make a new one instead.
>
> This seems to be a greater commentary on the sad state of our consumer
> driven economy with disposable everything than I think any of us realized.
Surely you jest good sir.
> > > 12) The quasi-magical stuff on the 3e PH equipment lists has go to go.
> > > Putting stuff like Sunrods, Thunderstones & matches, errr Tindertwigs
> > > might be cute, but should have been placed in the DMG as options. Not
> > > listed as merely "Special & Superior Items'. IMC, all of these would be
> > > considered magical. It will be tough for first time and young DMs to say
> > > "No" to players on items that are listed plain as day in the PH as
> > > available stuff fot ehm to buy.
> >
> > I love 'em, but it's easy enough to remove the alchemy skill, and
> > thus all these things. They're really only toys for low levels,
>
> And Vorpal swords are toys for high levels. My point was not to eliminate
> them, but that they should've been listed in the DMG as minor magical (or
> alchemical) trinkets instead of appearing on the PH equipment lists.
The Alchemy skill went in the PHB, so what you could do with it did
too. The things you make with it /are/ on a seperate table to regular
equipment.
> > > 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
> >
> > There are a shitload of books for ADnD. There's only 288 pages (plus
> > inserts) in my PHB. Seems it didn't fit.
>
> Perhaps. But almost 100% ignoring of a 2e core book (albeit a secondary
> level core book) was a pretty harsh editing choice.
I'd have preferred some of the stuff from various worldbooks,
particularly Al-Quadim, strangely enough.
I've pretty much converted everything I liked from ToM (the spells,
i'm still unsure about wild mages), old Greyhawk and Realms spells, and
various Mystara races and stuff.
Come to think of it, a fair bit of ToM is in 3e, meta-magic is feats
rather than spells for instance.
<snip; destuction of carried items>
> Ahhh, no. You miss my point. I'm only talking about stuff on a character's
> person. See page 150 of the 3ePH "all items worn or carried are assumed to
> have survived a magical attack" It goes on to discuss what I mentioned
> above.
> The bottom line being on a "1" on your save, you'l be more likely to lose
> a magic item than a non-magical one to a fireball because table 10-1 and
> it's asscoiated rules really suck.
I've read all that, but I don't see the bit were magic is more
likely to be damaged than mundane.
> > IMC PC's have still lost a couple items each to the new rule.
>
> And I've had characters lose almost everything to the old rules. From one
> fireball.
Again, ever make you wonder were the hell all those magic items came
from, and how they survived this long? Compare PC created magic items to
items destroyed while PCs were using them.
Perhaps the original creators made them for show?
> > > 18) Why & How can a character load a musket in 6 seconds??? (3e DMG, p.163)
> >
> > Paper cartriges, look 'em up.
>
> I tried. Too bad the 3e indices suck so much. They're not mentioned
> anywhere in the text on pages 162-3 where this type off weapon is
> discussed. They certainly have no basis in the reality of primitive
> firearms. Perhaps you're assuming a house rule here - or something else
> outside of the scope of the 3e core books - in ehich case you strengthen
> my case.
I was thinking historical references, sorry, should have been clear.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22paper+cartridge%22+renaissance
Hmmm, checking the tables and text again they seem to consider
powder horns the better idea. They obviously mean 1550 matchlock rather
than 1650 flintlock I was thinking of.
Oh well, with that a 5 per minute firing rate might well be too
high. 8]
> > > 19) Counterspells are a fantastic idea - its too bad the mechanics
> suck so bad.
> >
> > Ready is fun.
>
> But not the rule I've criticisized here.
You ready to disrupt the enemy spellcaster.
Oh, so you mean the 'loosing the same spell to stop the enemies
spell' thing? If it was easy being a pure caster would kinda suck.
You can always ready a disrupting dispel magic instead.
> > > 20) 3e has really made the raise dead rules more powerful. (or less tough
> > > of penalties, that is.)
> >
> > Loosing a level is not less of a penalty. Besides, it's far easier
> > to die.
>
> Compared to losing a Constitution point?! I don't agree.
The new mechanics allow restoration of even permanant stat drains,
there's nothing brings a level back. They wanted the penalty for death
to be permanent; until you're massive level with tons of free cash, but
they had to do something with 9th level cleric spells.
> The fact that everybody who argues this point states that its far easier
> to die is also an indictment of the system that I'd like to slide an
> existing campaign into.
It seems, as a follow the dice DM, that player/PC errors in
judgement can have much quicker consequences. If those consequences are
lethal, there's been less time to realise that running would've been the
better option last round.
--
tussock
Still need a new .sig
Jason Pancoast
> :)>> 16) Hardly anything from the Tome of Magic made the cut into 3e
> :)>
> :)>I'm hoping to see some of it in the Tome and Blood handbook.
>
> Yes...when people have to go to old _suppliments_ to complain, you know they are
> trying to make strawmen.
Of course it would be easy enough to write up my own 3E versions of any
spells, but I want to wait to see if any "official" rewrites show up
first...
> :)>> One final note. Its amazes me just how much of the much maligned Player's
> :)>> Option series material made it into 3e and now everyone praises it.
> :)>
> :)>I think the attack of opportunity stuff in 3e is way out of control, but
> :)>it's a real challenge to extract it from the 3e rules (AoO provoked by
> :)>spellcasting especially).
>
> Use your imagination and work AoOs just from common sense.
> Attacking unarmed, yes.
> Spellcasting in melee, yes.
> Rummaging through your backpack in battle...uh-huh.
>
> Just add a house rule:
> -All that 5' step BS w/ AoOs is crap. There's an AoO when I say so.
Maybe we'll try that. I'm not currently DM in our group. We're still
using by-the-book rules. I find it's best to really learn the rules as
written before implementing house rules.
AoO can probably be done by common sense. Flanking is another thing that
is very important in 3E an also requires careful attention to position.
I suppose you could just assume that as long as a foe is double-teamed,
the rogue can sneak attack. Hmm.
> :)>I miss "hobbit" halflings.
>
> You don't like Kender? :)
I love kender. Ironically, I've never really liked hobbits! But now that
they're gone... especially with LOTR feature film coming out soon...