Convince me to play Third Edition
Al (Just Al)
second edition. I have a ton of money invested in 2nd edition stuff
but third edition looks kinda cool and maybe when this campaign ends I
might want to run third edition especially since the new suppliments
and modules are all being published for third edition and with a full
time job and an impending marrige I can use all the outside help I can
get instead of doing everything myself.
Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
minor complaints.
or.....
Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
it.
Thanks....
Hari the Monk
fair ones, this time). Removal of race/class restrictions. Removal of hard
stat requirements. Removal of racial level limits. Half orcs.
Barbarians. Monks. Sorcerers. Unified skill system(d20). Increasing
ACs(instead of decreasing from 10). Darkvision and Lowlight vision(instead
of that infernal infravision). Wizards able to wear armor(albeit with a
spell failure % chance). Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
That's all I can think of, off hand.
Hari the Monk
"Al (Just Al)" <jus...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3a7380a...@news.ne.mediaone.net...
madd...@my-deja.com
I went through a similar thread not long ago (I'm a long time 2e player
and DM)
Pros:
Simpler mechanics to teach new players.
Clearer rules on how magic items combine.
Prestige class - a class characters work towards
Cons:
Us 'old fogies' have to relearn how to do attack rolls
Combat less detailed
- only roll initiative once per combat
- no maneuvers for a block
- no weapon speeds
No race/class combination restrictions (this just screams MUNCHKIN to
me)
No kits
Final analysis:If you and your players already know 2e there's not
really a reason to switch. If you have some new players, the different
mechanics may make it easier to teach them how to play. Still, I've
been teaching new players 2e for like 12 years now, its not THAT hard :)
I'm sure many others disagree with me, but that's my $.02
--
"Chivalry is dead. Women killed it." - Dave Chapelle
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
KiM
> Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
> it.
I don't like 3e because it creates a gaming world that's further removed
from reality (to me it feels cheesey, but that's an issue of personal
taste since I like more reality based campaigns) and the d20 system does
mean that fate dictates a lot of the issues more than I would like (a d20
has a possiblities). The capless aspect of the d20 system also anoys me
since it clouds perspective IMO (since everything is compared to assigned
DCs rather than a chance of success).
As anyone watching the newgroup knows I don't like the way it has turned
some aspects of personality (bluff, sense motive etc) into skills. Nor do
I like the comparative lack of depth it has compared to 2e (but given time
and supplements it may fill out). I also actively dislike the d20 system
since I personally think it's too simplified and many of the aspects it
removed (like subtractive AC) were never a problem for me (again, that's
me).
I do like some of the additional ideas (like weapon finesse which means
dexterity comes into play regarding rapiers etc), the sorceror class
(trading power for flexibility), the new priest ability to trade off
regular spells for healing magic and the tendancy to start including more
items being spectacular due to the worksmanship and the materials used
rather than just them being enchanted.
My DM also likes the multiclassing system since it eliminates many of the
problems from from 2nd Ed that were caused by the existance of dual and
multi-class ("It'd make you too powerful" vs "But I'm still practicing
fighting even as a thief/mage/cleric/druid/etc...")
Overall I tend to find it gives a smoother, faster game but it does lack
the depth and complexity that 2e had. Which you prefer is your own
choice.
> Thanks....
Your welcome.
--
KiM
email: ki...@dingoblue.net.au
url: http://www.geocities.com/k_i_m_13
"A kind word and a loaded .45 generally gets you more than a kind word
alone."
David Benson
I have to comment on some of these Cons:
> Cons:
> Us 'old fogies' have to relearn how to do attack rolls
> Combat less detailed
How can you say that combat is LESS detailed when we have so many more
options, such as charges, trips, AoO's, counterspells, etc. I find combat
to be much more deep and exciting, and so much easier to adjudicate.
> - only roll initiative once per combat
I was put off by this at first, but I have found that it works wonderfully
and actually adds to the tactical options available. Speeds combat, too!
> - no maneuvers for a block
Since D&D combat has always been an abstraction for continual combat, not
just one blow, one hit, a maneuver for block is unnecessary.
> - no weapon speeds
Unnecessary with the combat system in place.
> No race/class combination restrictions (this just screams MUNCHKIN to
> me)
> No kits
Then smack my ass and call me a munchkin! We've been playing without these
ridiculous restrictions for years! You need to get your elitism out of your
game.
I think that there is no comparison to 3E. Go to a local convention and try
it out. I'm sure you will enjoy it.
D Benson
Greg Kerner
Al (Just Al) wrote in message <3a7380a...@news.ne.mediaone.net>...
>Ok, we just started a campaign (characters are 2nd/3rd level) playing
>second edition. I have a ton of money invested in 2nd edition stuff
>but third edition looks kinda cool and maybe when this campaign ends I
>might want to run third edition especially since the new suppliments
>and modules are all being published for third edition and with a full
>time job and an impending marrige I can use all the outside help I can
>get instead of doing everything myself.
>
>Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
>minor complaints.
My main complaints have to do with the classes and the increas in special
abilities:
1) I don't like that fighters start knowing all martial weapons. I would
have preferred weapon proficiencies having been kept or spending skill
points
2) Ranger, Paladin, Bard. After seeing the multiclassing rules, I would have
preferred that these classes would have had to multiclass to get spells.
Also:
Ranger: I don't like that they kept the virtual feats of
Ambidexterity and two weapon fighting or the multiple favored enemies.
Bard: I don't like that they limited the bardic voice to level uses
per day
3) I dislike the monk-- not the addition just the handling of the class. I
would have preferred that most of the class features had been discarded and
the feat system been used to simulate martial arts and ki training.
4) I dislike the barbarian-- again not the addition of the class but how it
was handled. My preference would have been basing it off the reworked 1e
Barbarian that was in Dragon Magazine.
5) The cleric. I prefer 2e specialty priests.
5) The Rogue: Why does every Rogue know how to sneak attack? There are
rogues in fantasy novels that do not know how to sneak attack. I would have
preferred Rogue's getting their own lists of class feats.
6) Disarming Device and Rogues: Rogues should be required to have spellcraft
to disarm magical traps if they are going to do disarm magical traps.
7) Prestiege Clases: Many prestiege classes just don't need to be
(Swashbuckler, Gladiator, Outrider, Pirate) . They, IMO, are better
simulated with tailoring classes (per PHB and DMG) or multiclassing along
with skill and feat selection.
8) Some Skills are too broad and, therefore, some classes don't have things
that should be class skills. A skilled fighter should be able to feignt and
resist feignts, but these fall under Bluff and Sense motive which are cross
class skill for fighters.
9) I would have preferred a little larger section on tailoring classes, but
with a little thought it doesn't appear that hard to tailor the fighter to
create a hunter, swashbuckler, gladiator, or mariner.
>Is there anything you do like about
>it.
Many of my house rules became official
1) exceptional percentile strength, system shock, ressurection are all gone
2) Constitution: extra hit point point bonus for high con applies to anyone.
Con bonus applies to saves vs. things like poisons.
3) Intelligence: Wizards get bonuses for high intelligence
4) darkvision and low light vision replace infravision
5) humans can multiclass
6) no level restrictions for demi humans
7) Ascending Armor Class: You have to roll above AC to hit
Many things I wanted TSR/WOTC do was done and noted in the questionaire
1)ability score bonuses start earlier
2) abilitiy scores extend beyond 25
3) a new encumberance system (not quite what I had hope, but much better
than before)
4)characters get Skill points
5)unified skill resolution system
6)skills (well most skills are learnable by anyone)
7) Saving Throws reduced to 3 categories
8) monsters have ability scores and Ac's are broken down (natural armor,
dex,etc.)
Other Cool stuff
1) Meta Magic feats
>
>Thanks....
No problem
Ben Buckner
"Al (Just Al)" wrote:
>
> Ok, we just started a campaign (characters are 2nd/3rd level) playing
> second edition. I have a ton of money invested in 2nd edition stuff
> but third edition looks kinda cool and maybe when this campaign ends I
> might want to run third edition especially since the new suppliments
> and modules are all being published for third edition and with a full
> time job and an impending marrige I can use all the outside help I can
> get instead of doing everything myself.
>
> Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
> minor complaints.
Better design, thought out better, more carefully balanced.
Downside is that it's a little more complicated. It also
leans more toward magic being common, and it has been opined
that the advancement is designed to make the delayed
gratification of gaining a level a little less delayed.
With regard to levels though, it seems like there was
an intention to make the high levels more playable and
the low levels more survivable (so that you don't have
to start at 2nd/3rd level, as so many do :-)). I don't
know if it really does work up to 20th level, but there
was at least some intention to address the problems
old editions have with 15th+ characters.
I wouldn't invest in switching unless you want to try
something new or find 2E severely distasteful though.
Ben B.
Isaac
system designed from scratch should be. I tended to just ignore the rules
for 2nd ed as they confused and bewildered me, just never seeming to make
sense in one way or another (level limits/multiclassing
restrictions/exceptional strength vs 19 strength etc). 3rd ed seems much
more consistant and feels as though all the cracks have been filled in. I
now understand the rules properly (mostly!).
As a 1st print there are still some explanations which need clarifying, but
they are minor and can be sorted with just a definitive answer from WotC, so
they don't get in the way of play. Most complaints I could raise are
preferences rather than criticisms, and of course house rules can be
incorporated as required.
I say go for 3rd ed (as you may have guessed), I'll be binning my 2nd ed
soon.
Isaac
Al (Just Al) <jus...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3a7380a...@news.ne.mediaone.net...
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:t7721sa...@corp.supernews.com...
(Hari, you make this soooo easy for me...;-)
> Classes are fairly well balanced.
Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
> AoOs.
Ugh. Definitly not a good point. Shouldn't be a rule(s). Too much hassle
for what it's worth. Every DM I've known has been using "AoO's" (all the way
back to 1980).
If you've been using commons sense to dictate extra/bonus attacks for a
character or monster on a case by case basis, stick with 2e.
> New Multiclass rules(sensible and
> fair ones, this time).
Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the aftertaste
is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much. If
you've been running a 2e game and have never had problems with multiclassed
characters, stick with 2e.
>Removal of race/class restrictions.
<Mr.Horse>
Hmmmm.... No sir. I dont' like it.
</Mr.Horse>
I can see why they did it (much more "generic" than limiting), but I
think it puts the DM in the light of the "bad guy" a bit much if he creates
a world where ther are class/race restrictions.
If you've developed your own specific race/class restrictions to suit
your own world, then stick with 2e.
>Removal of hard
> stat requirements.
A bit mistake in my opinion. Some sort of qualifications should be in
order.
Again, if you've been using your own home-grown rules in 2e, stick with
it.
>Removal of racial level limits.
Another mistake...but again, I can see why they did it (the "make it
more generic" thing). If your world/game has it's own racial limits to suit
it, keep playing 2e.
>Half orcs.
Cool. I've always used them (then again, I've always played 1e). My only
complaint is that all the pictures of the half-orc look like orcs. There is
no longer the assumption that a PC is within the 10% of half-orcs that can
pass for human (unless they choose otherwise). *shrug* Minor quibble.
One point for 3e (or 1e if you want to go that way...;-)
> Barbarians. Monks.
See above.
>Sorcerers.
Interesting class. Different enough from Wizards to be a viable class.
Add's a unique taste to a world if they are used. Closest 2e thing I can
think of is "Spellfire" weilders from FR.
Another point for 3e.
> Unified skill system(d20).
I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring game
mechanics" side of it. ;-) It may be "simple" to grasp, but it also sucks
out some of the flavour of the game, IMHO.
Not sure if this make's it a pro- or anti- 3e thing; check it out and
see for yourself.
>Increasing
> ACs(instead of decreasing from 10).
Pointless. Not really any difference when it gets right down to it.
Might be better for those that have difficulty doing any math other than
addition.
If you've got 2e down pat, no point in going this route.
>Darkvision and Lowlight vision(instead
> of that infernal infravision).
Quite trivial. I've seen infravision interpreted different ways for
different campaigns. In some it is "heat vision", some it is low-light
vision, and in others its more mystical and generic "can see in the dark".
Yet again, if you are happy with whatever you're defining it in 2e, stay
there.
>Wizards able to wear armor(albeit with a
> spell failure % chance).
Pretty cool. Seen it done for a long time, so it's hardly a "new
concept". It does lay out some more specific rules/formula. Eah.
2e was modeled after older 'books and stories'. If you have always
wondered why wizards can't wear armor, then 3e get's a point; but if it's
never bothered you or you have your own rules, stick with 2e.
>Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
> figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however. For the
most part I think monsters should be monsters. If a DM creates a world
where, say, kobolds are 'civilized' and a PC race, he will develope the
specific adjustments, abilities, etc. For DM's who just want to play and
don't really get off on solid world creation, I guess it's a good thing.
For the 2e perspective....do you really care? If you want to have a
free-for-all world where any race can become any clase, etc..etc..etc., then
I can see the benefit of 3e. If you take the more "serious" approach to
your game, then you'll probably never really use them. YMMV I guess.
Overall, I don't see 3e as being a good _switch_ (meaning, if you have
to play 3e or an earlier edition...and can't play both). It's much to
different from classic AD&D for me to put it in the same bag. 3E is a whole
new game that is based on 1e/2e. If you don't much care for learning new
games and whatnot, then don't bother. If you like to buy, read and play new
game systems just for the pleasure of learning new systems and whatnot, then
I'd say go and pick it up (PHB, DMG, MM) and give it a go for a few months.
One thing is for certain, however, if you do pick up 3e, *DON'T* assume that
just because 2e did something one way that 3e does it the same; you'll be
wrong most of the time. As I said, it's a new game system. Think of it this
way, do you want to buy another game system, like Runequest, Earthdawn,
Rolemaster, or Darkurthe Legends and learn how to play it? If you answer
"No, I dont' have the desire/time to be able to do that.", then you should
probably just stick with 2e. The 3e stuff will be easily enough to 'modify'
to 2e....probably much easier to go from 3e to 1e/2e than the other way
around.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Jimmy Kerl
> Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
> minor complaints.
> or.....
> Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
> it.
I think those of us who dislike have given up long ago. the
pro-3e-brain-dead-it-must-be-good-its-the-newest-thing-from-tsr
outnumber us by far to high a ratio lately. I should say that
there's many reasonable supporters of 3e though too.
ok here goes for me: i play basic d&d plus quite a few house
rules/mods so all comparisions are to that system
don't like:
d20 system; i LIKE rolling all the different sized dice!
they have such neat shapes. :)
classes/races and multiclassing too open
clerics WAY WAY overpowered and out of balance with other classes.
rangers: WHAT happened? where's the class? or is this just
another fighter with an excuse to throw around an extra weapon?
AoO: my God! i still havent taken the time to understand these rules
feats & skills: completly inferior to the nice variety of skills found
in the RC which i use (might be comparable to 1e or 2e but doesnt hold a
candle aginst the bd&d skills.)
prestige classes: (the ones presented not the idea) ok theres a LOT of
classes in the 3e PHB, along with allowing any multi-class combo, there's
just no need for this many different classes.
do like:
multiclassing rules: 3e is the only edition that does this right; other
editions are uncomparable.
sorcerers: i'd really like these but there underpowered. they need a d6 hp;
and either more spells/day 1-2 more each spell level AND/or more spell selection
arcane spell failure: another very good 3e idea.
oh i could go on on both lists; but i suppose weve all beat on this long
enough. I'm sure this thread will reach all time highs in number of replies.
Jimmy
Chuck Capko
>
>I was put off by this at first, but I have found that it works wonderfully
>and actually adds to the tactical options available. Speeds combat, too!
There is a variant rule in the DMG to roll this every round. However I
find that it does indeed speed up combat if you don't.
>> - no maneuvers for a block
>
>Since D&D combat has always been an abstraction for continual combat, not
>just one blow, one hit, a maneuver for block is unnecessary.
Total Defense.
>> - no weapon speeds
>
>Unnecessary with the combat system in place.
I missed them actualy, because you only have to roll one init during
combat, it may be a good idea to add them back. (Possibly if the wep
is 2 size classes smaller then tripple your DEX bonus or 1/3 penalty
to init, 1 size class smaller doubble it or half the penalty, same
size standard, 1 size larger 1/2 DEX bonus or doubble penalty...)
>> No race/class combination restrictions (this just screams MUNCHKIN to
>> me)
>> No kits
>
>Then smack my ass and call me a munchkin!
Kit's for the most part are taken by the prestiege classes, and the
new suplements that come out give options to character creation that
take a simelar place.
As for Munchkinism, I found out tonight that the most powerfull
characters were the standard arctypes, Dwarven Fighter, Halfling
Thief, Human Cleric.... etc... I found that the multi-classers while
they were very usefull in a generic utility fashion, the "normal"
characters really shined.
Later,
-Chuck.
--------------------------------------
Http://www.Geocities.com/Wormspeaker/
Tremble you weaklings, cower in fear.
I am you ruler land, sea, and air.
Immense in my girth, erect I stand tall.
I am a nuclear murderer, I am Polaris.
-Rust in Peace...Polaris, Megadeath
Chuck Capko
like playing 2nd edition, I thought it made it too complex. That said,
I just tryed out 3ed in actual play tonight and found it to be a
superior system. It's not an evolution of AD&D it is definetly it's
own game, but that's not bad, it still carys the flavor.
>> Classes are fairly well balanced.
>
> Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
There were some classes that stood out as being unbalacnced, I myself
never found them to be so, but others I played with found the
Barbarian and Cavaleer to be to powerful...
>> AoOs.
>
> Ugh. Definitly not a good point. Shouldn't be a rule(s). Too much hassle
>for what it's worth. Every DM I've known has been using "AoO's" (all the way
>back to 1980).
> If you've been using commons sense to dictate extra/bonus attacks for a
>character or monster on a case by case basis, stick with 2e.
They sound complex on paper, but in actual use, it's not too bad. It's
mostly just common sense when to apply them. They happen whenever a
character let's down their guard or when they pass throug someones
zone of control... Not too hard.
>> New Multiclass rules(sensible and
>> fair ones, this time).
>
> Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the aftertaste
>is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much. If
>you've been running a 2e game and have never had problems with multiclassed
>characters, stick with 2e.
I liked to play multi-class characters untill I realised how weak they
become by mid level. I have the same problem with Casters in 3ed, the
caster level is lower than it would be in a plain single class caster.
This makes them less powerfull, but it's the trade off for more
utility type abilitys.
>> Barbarians. Monks.
Like barbarians, don't like monks. In a western setting anyway,
Shao-Lin (sp?) monks should be limited to eastern campaigns. I
restricted them from the campaing I started, but I am going to make a
NPC class for Gregorian (SP) style monks, that get a few devine
spells, and get the abulity to resist elements and bonuses to fort and
will saves....
>> Unified skill system(d20).
>
> I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring game
>mechanics" side of it. ;-) It may be "simple" to grasp, but it also sucks
>out some of the flavour of the game, IMHO.
> Not sure if this make's it a pro- or anti- 3e thing; check it out and
>see for yourself.
I feel that it is superior to 2ed skill system. Thants just my two
cents though.
>>Increasing
>> ACs(instead of decreasing from 10).
>
> Pointless. Not really any difference when it gets right down to it.
>Might be better for those that have difficulty doing any math other than
>addition.
> If you've got 2e down pat, no point in going this route.
I thought so too, it was so much cooler to say I have an AC -5 or
something, but while it's not to hard to use THAC0 or the charts in
1ed, the 3ed way is much easyer. I just say roll a (AC of creature) on
a d20 and add your bonus. It is much easyer for newbies to grasp, and
it takes less than half the time of the original. I found it much
easyer to run a combat with 6 creatures and 6 PC's than I ever did in
1st ed. Again, just my two cents.
3rd Edition D&D is much different mechanics wise, but it has the same
spirit, and I think you could go from 1st/2nd edition to 3rd edition
much easyer than to Palladium, Role Master, Rune Quest, or GURPS. And
I have all of them, so I can say that with some confidence.
Blackthorne
"Chuck Capko" <pmc...@pbtcomm.net> wrote in message
news:3a73c9c5...@nntp.pbtcomm.net...
> I'll say first that I was a hard core, 1st edition player. I did not
> like playing 2nd edition, I thought it made it too complex. That said,
> I just tryed out 3ed in actual play tonight and found it to be a
> superior system.
Not an evolution? I really don't think one evening cannot possibly unearth
all that flaws that it took years of careful preparation to conceal >:->
But seriously, you really need to play it a lot longer than 1 day to find
out what problems may or may not exist. Are you 1st level? 9th? 18th?
Higher?
> It's not an evolution of AD&D it is definetly it's
> own game,
Again I think this is just a plain silly statement. If it wasn't an
evolution it would not carry the name, nor would it be called 3rd. Ed. It's
an evolution. Accept this.
> but that's not bad, it still carys the flavor.
>
> >> Classes are fairly well balanced.
> >
> > Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
>
> There were some classes that stood out as being unbalacnced, I myself
> never found them to be so, but others I played with found the
> Barbarian and Cavaleer to be to powerful...
The Cavalier in 1st ed. was so ridiculously overpowered it hurts my brain to
think about it. An official class that adds 2-20% of ability scores as you
increase levels, hehe, and you all thought Method IV was munchkin? Can any
of you even remotely think of *anything* in AD&D prior to the Cavalier that
on average added 1 natural point to multiple ability every 10 levels to one
particular class, and was not available to any other classes?
> >for what it's worth. Every DM I've known has been using "AoO's" (all the
way
> >back to 1980).
> > If you've been using commons sense to dictate extra/bonus attacks for
a
> >character or monster on a case by case basis, stick with 2e.
>
> They sound complex on paper, but in actual use, it's not too bad. It's
> mostly just common sense when to apply them. They happen whenever a
> character let's down their guard or when they pass throug someones
> zone of control... Not too hard.
>
> >> New Multiclass rules(sensible and
> >> fair ones, this time).
> >
> > Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the
aftertaste
> >is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much. If
> >you've been running a 2e game and have never had problems with
multiclassed
> >characters, stick with 2e.
>
> I liked to play multi-class characters untill I realised how weak they
> become by mid level. I have the same problem with Casters in 3ed, the
> caster level is lower than it would be in a plain single class caster.
> This makes them less powerfull, but it's the trade off for more
> utility type abilitys.
This is all relative. In 1st Ed. AD&D, take Greyhawk for example, a 12th
level character was considered "high" level, almost retirement age. But by
2nd Ed. the bar had been raised so the old level limits to multi-class that
existed in 1st ed. now made multi-class weak. Consequently they were
raised. A typical leader type in the Forgotten Realms was of much higher
level than in Greyhawk -- in fact 12th level characters would have been
almost common in large centers where in 1st Ed. Greyhawk they would have
been rare, and it was the 18th+ level characters in the Realms (next to
non-existent in Greyhawk) that were rare, but at they existed.
My personal feeling is, what's the point of ultra-high level skill sets if
you don't have characters with them walking around? I think you would,
otherwise such skills would not exist or else would have long been
forgotten. I like Forgotten Realms for that reason, among many others.
I long since abandonded level limits for multi-class when we played 1st Ed.
simply because it is more interesting to make a campaign that challenges the
best of the best. An elf that (in 1st Ed.) lived over 1,000 years should be
able to attain very high level in his chosen classes. I feel that an
arbitrary restriction was unnecessary. Granted such characters were
EXTREMELY powerful and annoying to me as a DM, but I managed, and I also
learned a great deal!
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 02:19:08 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, Al (Just Al), a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>Ok, we just started a campaign (characters are 2nd/3rd level) playing
:)>second edition. I have a ton of money invested in 2nd edition stuff
:)>but third edition looks kinda cool and maybe when this campaign ends I
:)>might want to run third edition especially since the new suppliments
:)>and modules are all being published for third edition and with a full
:)>time job and an impending marrige I can use all the outside help I can
:)>get instead of doing everything myself.
:)>
:)>Why do you like 3rd edition?
Not as broken, easier to modify w/o screwing everything up, able to get new
players into it faster with everything on one mechanic, good skill system, and
makes low level players much more afraid of even enemies straight out of the
book. Also, the saves make more sense (albeit there are only 3)
> If you like 3rd edition, what are your
:)>minor complaints.
http://www.doddstech.com/shirkiana.house_rules.htm
All of mine are addressed there, except magic (Not that it isn't addressed, but
that I have nothing against the D&D slot-based system).
:)>or.....
:)>
:)>Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
:)>it.
:)>
:)>
:)>Thanks....
------------------
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
Samy Merchi
> Why do you like 3rd edition?
Multiclassing, lack of racial class limitations.
> If you like 3rd edition, what are your minor complaints.
Clerics were genericized from 2e's IMO far more interesting specialty
priest concept.
--
Samy Merchi | <sam...@mash.yok.utu.fi> | http://mash.yok.utu.fi/
"One false move, wizard, and your familiar gets it!"
-- DMG1
Sir Bob
'cept that this is ass-backwards, 'cause due to relative reach,
small weapons like daggers usually strike dead last.
Realistically, you might be able to get more *hits* in with a
dagger than a longsword, but the sword-wielder is generally going
to get first whack.
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
Agamemnon
>
>> If you like 3rd edition, what are your minor complaints.
>
>Clerics were genericized from 2e's IMO far more interesting specialty
>priest concept.
>
in some sourcebook or another. A company like WOTC likes to milk the
fanbase for all it's worth. I play MtG, I should know. :-)
-Agamemnon
Cerberus AOD
On 28 Jan 2001 15:07:17 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was quite
moldy, Agamemnon, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>
:)>>
:)>>> If you like 3rd edition, what are your minor complaints.
:)>>
:)>>Clerics were genericized from 2e's IMO far more interesting specialty
:)>>priest concept.
:)>>
:)> Somehow, I for one am sure that the specialty priests will make a comeback
:)>in some sourcebook or another. A company like WOTC likes to milk the
:)>fanbase for all it's worth. I play MtG, I should know. :-)
Heh. They will, they will. The 2E core books DID NOT HAVE SPECIALTY PRIESTS, in
case people don't realize it. So why not follow that as well...there will be a
priest suppliment. If it doesn't have 3e specialty priest rules, then look out
netbooks.
:)>-Agamemnon
Alan Kohler
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
> Hiya.
>
> "Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:t7721sa...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> (Hari, you make this soooo easy for me...;-)
>
> > Classes are fairly well balanced.
>
> Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
No, they weren't. In 2e, there was almost no reason to play a fighter if
you could play a paladin or ranger, or were multiclass (or played PO).
There was almost no reason to play a thief unless you were multiclass.
>
> > AoOs.
>
> Ugh. Definitly not a good point. Shouldn't be a rule(s). Too much
hassle
> for what it's worth. Every DM I've known has been using "AoO's" (all
the way
> back to 1980).
> If you've been using commons sense to dictate extra/bonus attacks
for a
> character or monster on a case by case basis, stick with 2e.
>
This is a constant point of debate, and this won't be the last of them.
However, let me add: as in any situation that you ajudicate by "common
sense", it is rarely quite that easy. Inconsistancies and illogic creep
in. It is far better to have a sensible, well considered, codified
system if the concept is usable to you at all.
> > New Multiclass rules(sensible and
> > fair ones, this time).
>
> Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the
aftertaste
> is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much.
If
> you've been running a 2e game and have never had problems with
multiclassed
> characters, stick with 2e.
I think they may have went overboard with weakening multiclass, but
something had to be done. However, at the very least the new rules are
at least more efficient overall, and make MUCH more sense that the
multiclass/dual class dichotomy and limitations.
>
> >Removal of race/class restrictions.
>
> <Mr.Horse>
> Hmmmm.... No sir. I dont' like it.
> </Mr.Horse>
>
I think its pretty hard to object to this sort of thing. Its merely a
change in the baseline. If an individual campaign desires such limits,
it is easy to do so.
> >Removal of hard
> > stat requirements.
>
> A bit mistake in my opinion. Some sort of qualifications should be
in
> order.
> Again, if you've been using your own home-grown rules in 2e, stick
with
> it.
>
Again, I disagree. Just because a low strength makes you a crappy
fighter doesn't mean that crappy fighters shouldn't exist. Further,
things like weapon finesse make it perfectly possible that someone with
a low strength might be a very good fighter indeed. It's hard to offhand
dismiss something that broadens the spectrum of character types
available.
> >Removal of racial level limits.
>
> Another mistake...
Again, totally cannot agree. Level limits were pretty difficult to
justify.
> >Half orcs.
>
> Cool. I've always used them (then again, I've always played 1e).
Total non-issue, unless you have lived in a cave. Half orcs were
available in 2e in both the brown book series and PO.
> > Barbarians. Monks.
>
> See above.
Barbarian could have been a fighter with the right skill selection
AFAIAC. Could have lived without them. Monks are also odd, and I felt
that a more generic treatment of unarmed arts a la 1e Oriental
Adventures, would have been better.
>
> >Sorcerers.
>
> Interesting class. Different enough from Wizards to be a viable
class.
>
Nice if you or you players have never liked the vancian style mage. Not
much of an issue if it never bothered you. However, I get enough
sorcerers in my games to say that the players certainly like it.
> > Unified skill system(d20).
>
> I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring game
> mechanics" side of it.
Sheesh... how anyone cannot see this as an absolute positive, I don't
know. Even in the waning days of my 2e experience, I had players who had
to ask "is this roll high or low..."
>
> >Increasing
> > ACs(instead of decreasing from 10).
>
> Pointless. Not really any difference when it gets right down to
it.
> Might be better for those that have difficulty doing any math other
than
> addition.
Not at all. Being an engineer, I am plenty good at math,
thankyouverymuch. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a benefit from
simplifying/demistifying the process. It makes handling NPCs quicker and
easier for me, and just because I am good at math doesn't mean my
players are.
> >Darkvision and Lowlight vision(instead
> > of that infernal infravision).
>
> Quite trivial.
Indeed. Could've lived without it.
> >Wizards able to wear armor(albeit with a
> > spell failure % chance).
>
> Pretty cool. Seen it done for a long time, so it's hardly a "new
> concept".
So? It does seem to work; that it's old is irrelevant. The only thing
that bothers me is I never saw the issue with armor being "physical",
but rather magical.
> >Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
> > figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
>
> I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however.
For the
> most part I think monsters should be monsters.
I completely and totally disagree. This was the greatest selling point
of 3e to me. The whole environment of the campaign became much richer
from this, allowing the DM to add lavish detail to all inhabitants of
the setting, not just those arbitrarily labeled "PC races." It also
makes for the tools to make some very interesting challenges. So whether
you are role-playing heavy or action heavy, this is nothing but a boon.
--
Alan D. Kohler - http://members.tripod.com/~hawk_wind/homepage.html
"Look into my face and you will know I am a man possessed by DEMONS!
Polite demons... demons that would open a door for a lady carrying too
many parcels... but demons nonetheless!" - from KITH
John Simpson
<bb...@charter.net> wrote:
>Classes are fairly well balanced. AoOs. New Multiclass rules(sensible and
>fair ones, this time). Removal of race/class restrictions. Removal of hard
>stat requirements. Removal of racial level limits. Half orcs.
>Barbarians. Monks. Sorcerers. Unified skill system(d20). Increasing
>ACs(instead of decreasing from 10). Darkvision and Lowlight vision(instead
>of that infernal infravision). Wizards able to wear armor(albeit with a
>spell failure % chance). Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
>figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
>
>That's all I can think of, off hand.
That's quite a list. I'm interested in seeing people's answers
(though I'm not gonna buy any more WotC products).
Were these advantages you found in 3E worth the trouble of learning
the new edition? In other words, has your gaming been better since
switching? Did you have to abandon an ongoing campaign when you
switched?
--
Peace,
John Simpson
Real username's in the URL
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
If someone asks if you're a god, say "Yes."
If someone asks if you're Sarah Conner, say "No."
James Kiley
> Were these advantages you found in 3E worth the trouble of learning
>the new edition?
Very, yes. We've lost a large number of the things I disliked about
previous editions, and added very few new dislikable things -- in fact
I can't think of any offhand.
>In other words, has your gaming been better since switching?
My D&D gaming has. I don't always or even usually play D&D, but we've
got a good D&D campaign going on now, and my players really seem to be
enjoying it.
>Did you have to abandon an ongoing campaign when you switched?
Nope; I had been running Aberrant before this, for a little more than a
year.
jk
jwal...@toad.net
(Cerberus AOD) wrote:
>Heh. They will, they will. The 2E core books DID NOT HAVE SPECIALTY PRIESTS, in
>case people don't realize it. So why not follow that as well...there will be a
>priest suppliment. If it doesn't have 3e specialty priest rules, then look out
>netbooks.
The 2E PHB mentioned the concept of specialty priest, but didn't give
any well fleshed-out examples (not counting the druid). In a way, all
3E clerics are (limited forms of ) specialty priests, since they all
have domain specific abilities.
Hari the Monk
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:euOc6.22202$_8.6...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> Hiya.
>
> "Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:t7721sa...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> (Hari, you make this soooo easy for me...;-)
>
> > Classes are fairly well balanced.
>
> Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
Totally untrue. How is a Fighter balanced in any way with a Paladin? Or a
Ranger, for that matter? Or a wizard, at level 15? Or a Cleric at level
16? They aren't. Wizards *will* mop the floor with fighters at any level
above 5th or so. Same with Clerics mopping floors with fighters at about
that level. When the 4th level paladin with his warhorse both attack the
Fighter, the fighter Dies. The classes aren't balanced in 2e. To belive so
is to delude one's self.
>
> > AoOs.
>
> Ugh. Definitly not a good point. Shouldn't be a rule(s). Too much
hassle
> for what it's worth. Every DM I've known has been using "AoO's" (all the
way
> back to 1980).
> If you've been using commons sense to dictate extra/bonus attacks for
a
> character or monster on a case by case basis, stick with 2e.
>
Except you can't count on 'common sense' to be common at all. DMs, if they
don't have rules, *will* cheat in favor of themselves/thier monsters. It's
all about fair and consistent application of rules in this instance.
> > New Multiclass rules(sensible and
> > fair ones, this time).
>
> Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the aftertaste
> is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much. If
> you've been running a 2e game and have never had problems with
multiclassed
> characters, stick with 2e.
I think that multiclass casters, in particular, *needed* to be weakened. A
15/15 Wizard cleric in 2e only had about 1 level's less experience than a
16th Wizard, but had twice the firepower/selection, good AC, good ThAC0,
etc. Totally unbalanced.
>
> >Removal of race/class restrictions.
>
> <Mr.Horse>
> Hmmmm.... No sir. I dont' like it.
> </Mr.Horse>
>
> I can see why they did it (much more "generic" than limiting), but I
> think it puts the DM in the light of the "bad guy" a bit much if he
creates
> a world where ther are class/race restrictions.
Poor DM. Let's all have a good cry for him. If he can't handle it, he
shouldn't be the DM.
> If you've developed your own specific race/class restrictions to suit
> your own world, then stick with 2e.
>
Or simply apply them to 3e, and let the player's know ahead of time.
There's a new rule concerning this: Rule 0, check with your DM before you
even roll stats.
>
> >Removal of hard
> > stat requirements.
>
> A bit mistake in my opinion. Some sort of qualifications should be in
> order.
> Again, if you've been using your own home-grown rules in 2e, stick
with
> it.
Again, not a mistake. Why can't a guy be a fighter with an 8 Str and an 18
Dex? Answer: there's no reason. It might not be totally practical, but
it's possible now, where it wasn't before. And it's even more practical,
due to Weapon finesse(use Dex bonus in place of Str bonus for to-hit
modifier, but still use Str modifier for damage).
>
> >Removal of racial level limits.
>
> Another mistake...but again, I can see why they did it (the "make it
> more generic" thing). If your world/game has it's own racial limits to
suit
> it, keep playing 2e.
And, it never made sense. It was a balancing method that just didn't work.
Either you were low level, and it didn't matter, or you were high level, and
shafted all to hell.
>
>
> >Half orcs.
>
> Cool. I've always used them (then again, I've always played 1e). My
only
> complaint is that all the pictures of the half-orc look like orcs. There
is
> no longer the assumption that a PC is within the 10% of half-orcs that can
> pass for human (unless they choose otherwise). *shrug* Minor quibble.
> One point for 3e (or 1e if you want to go that way...;-)
>
> > Barbarians. Monks.
>
> See above.
>
> >Sorcerers.
>
> Interesting class. Different enough from Wizards to be a viable class.
> Add's a unique taste to a world if they are used. Closest 2e thing I can
> think of is "Spellfire" weilders from FR.
> Another point for 3e.
>
> > Unified skill system(d20).
>
> I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring game
> mechanics" side of it. ;-) It may be "simple" to grasp, but it also sucks
> out some of the flavour of the game, IMHO.
Flavor like, uh, some skills use proficiency checks(a d20 method anyway) and
some use a % chance(rogue skills, learning new spells). Better to have
everything on one page. There's flavor, and then there's unnecessary
complication.
> Not sure if this make's it a pro- or anti- 3e thing; check it out and
> see for yourself.
>
>
> >Increasing
> > ACs(instead of decreasing from 10).
>
> Pointless. Not really any difference when it gets right down to it.
> Might be better for those that have difficulty doing any math other than
> addition.
Has nothing to do with math at all. It just makes sense, and brings combat
in line with the D20 mechanic(the AC is just a Difficulty Class for the
attack roll, or Combat skill).
> If you've got 2e down pat, no point in going this route.
>
No point in *not* going this way, either.
>
> >Darkvision and Lowlight vision(instead
> > of that infernal infravision).
>
> Quite trivial. I've seen infravision interpreted different ways for
> different campaigns. In some it is "heat vision", some it is low-light
> vision, and in others its more mystical and generic "can see in the dark".
> Yet again, if you are happy with whatever you're defining it in 2e,
stay
> there.
>
And now, it's all one mechanic(if you will). Don't have to worry about
differing interpretations of infravision when we have Darkvision clearly
defined. Same with Lowlight vision.
>
> >Wizards able to wear armor(albeit with a
> > spell failure % chance).
>
> Pretty cool. Seen it done for a long time, so it's hardly a "new
> concept". It does lay out some more specific rules/formula. Eah.
> 2e was modeled after older 'books and stories'. If you have always
> wondered why wizards can't wear armor, then 3e get's a point; but if it's
> never bothered you or you have your own rules, stick with 2e.
>
> >Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
> > figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
>
> I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however. For
the
> most part I think monsters should be monsters. If a DM creates a world
> where, say, kobolds are 'civilized' and a PC race, he will develope the
> specific adjustments, abilities, etc. For DM's who just want to play and
> don't really get off on solid world creation, I guess it's a good thing.
What about when you want to have an 'arm wrestlling contest' or something
similar, before they had to just make things up(inconsistent/unfair),
whereas now they have something to start from for *every* monster/race in
the MM. Much easier.
> For the 2e perspective....do you really care? If you want to have a
> free-for-all world where any race can become any clase, etc..etc..etc.,
then
> I can see the benefit of 3e. If you take the more "serious" approach to
> your game, then you'll probably never really use them. YMMV I guess.
See above.
>
>
> Overall, I don't see 3e as being a good _switch_ (meaning, if you have
> to play 3e or an earlier edition...and can't play both). It's much to
> different from classic AD&D for me to put it in the same bag.
Mechanically, I'll agree. However, it still has the same feel as all the
other previous editions.
3E is a whole
> new game that is based on 1e/2e. If you don't much care for learning new
> games and whatnot, then don't bother. If you like to buy, read and play
new
> game systems just for the pleasure of learning new systems and whatnot,
then
> I'd say go and pick it up (PHB, DMG, MM) and give it a go for a few
months.
> One thing is for certain, however, if you do pick up 3e, *DON'T* assume
that
> just because 2e did something one way that 3e does it the same; you'll be
> wrong most of the time.
This is the best statement in your whole post:).
Hari the Monk
Peter Seebach
John Simpson <see...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Were these advantages you found in 3E worth the trouble of learning
>the new edition?
Yes. The new edition is enough simpler and more consistent that I find
it takes negative effort to learn it. We *never* used NWP's in any games
I played, because they were sucky, complicated, rules. Now that skills are
all fairly consistent, we can use them, and they make for richer characters.
>In other words, has your gaming been better since
>switching?
Yes, quite a lot.
>Did you have to abandon an ongoing campaign when you
>switched?
No. It might have been easier, but I didn't want to start over at the time.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
John Simpson
(Cerberus AOD) wrote:
>On 28 Jan 2001 15:07:17 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was quite
>moldy, Agamemnon, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
>:)>
>:)> Somehow, I for one am sure that the specialty priests will make a comeback
>:)>in some sourcebook or another. A company like WOTC likes to milk the
>:)>fanbase for all it's worth. I play MtG, I should know. :-)
>
>Heh. They will, they will. The 2E core books DID NOT HAVE SPECIALTY PRIESTS, in
>case people don't realize it.
Per the PHB2: "The druid is an example of a priest designed for a
specific mythos." That's where the concept was made official, and
rules were included for constructing other specialty priests.
tuffnoogies
<bb...@charter.net> wrote:
>Except you can't count on 'common sense' to be common at all. DMs, if they
>don't have rules, *will* cheat in favor of themselves/thier monsters. It's
>all about fair and consistent application of rules in this instance.
Funny. IME, the DMs would cheat for the PCs.
tuffnoogies
Alan Kohler
> <bb...@charter.net> wrote:
(snip list)
> That's quite a list. I'm interested in seeing people's answers
> (though I'm not gonna buy any more WotC products).
> Were these advantages you found in 3E worth the trouble of
learning
> the new edition? In other words, has your gaming been better since
> switching? Did you have to abandon an ongoing campaign when you
> switched?
That's a fair question, and AFAIAC, the major one worth considering. If
you are in the middle of a campaign with a current group of PCs
underway, and you are comfortable with the system, then it can probably
wait. The effort behind converting everything is probably too much.
However, I converted a campaign setting to 3e. As the campaign was quite
detailed, it took a fair bit of effort. However, the 3e system was clean
enough that I couldn't conceive NOT doing it.
Last year I started two campaigns: my first 3e campaign, and continued
running a low-level 2e/PO campaign that I had just started. I'm a big
fan of 2e/PO, and must admit that I miss some of the customization
techniques. However, after getting used to 3e, I just had to switch my
2e campaign over. It was just that much easier to use, cleaner, more
sensible, and more self consistant. Not to mention I was able to chuck
about half of the house rules I had shoring up the 2e/PO system.
Cerberus AOD
I just scare my players by doing neither. I try to balance the encounter, and
from there it is me trying to kill them. The dice and decisions made will decide
what happens.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:47:40 -0600, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, tuffnoogies, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:10:17 -0500, "Hari the Monk"
:)><bb...@charter.net> wrote:
:)>>Except you can't count on 'common sense' to be common at all. DMs, if they
:)>>don't have rules, *will* cheat in favor of themselves/thier monsters. It's
:)>>all about fair and consistent application of rules in this instance.
:)>
:)>Funny. IME, the DMs would cheat for the PCs.
:)>tuffnoogies
Hari the Monk
"Greg Kerner" <hban...@csun.edu> wrote in message
news:9508cu$hmbq$1...@hades.csu.net...
Just my $.02 here, but a 'rogue' who doesn't know how to sneak attack would
be an 'expert' from the DMG's NPC classes. Similar skill points(6/level,
but get to pick any 10 as 'class skills'), similar saves and attack
progressions. None of the 'baggage' of the rogue class.
>
> 6) Disarming Device and Rogues: Rogues should be required to have
spellcraft
> to disarm magical traps if they are going to do disarm magical traps.
>
> 7) Prestiege Clases: Many prestiege classes just don't need to be
> (Swashbuckler, Gladiator, Outrider, Pirate) . They, IMO, are better
> simulated with tailoring classes (per PHB and DMG) or multiclassing along
> with skill and feat selection.
This I totally agree with.
>
> 8) Some Skills are too broad and, therefore, some classes don't have
things
> that should be class skills. A skilled fighter should be able to feignt
and
> resist feignts, but these fall under Bluff and Sense motive which are
cross
> class skill for fighters.
>
Heh, then trade off some proficiency in martial weapons for Bluff and Sense
Motive as class skills:).
Hari the Monk
Hari the Monk
all. It's just my mindset. I realize that not everyone shares it.
Hari the Monk
"tuffnoogies" <j...@myexcel.com> wrote in message
news:ppm87tg21ml8lfovk...@4ax.com...
Hari the Monk
it's due to how you played your character, and not the DM being nice to you.
As for the 'too random' aspect some folks abhor, I realize that sometimes,
some things just happen. Some times, the Dragon just eats the party.
*shrug*.
Hari the Monk
"Cerberus AOD" <see_my_rep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3a755c11....@207.126.101.100...
Michael Scott Brown
>
> Ugh. Definitly not a good point. Shouldn't be a rule(s). Too much
hassle
> for what it's worth.
Bah.
> > New Multiclass rules(sensible and fair ones, this time).
>
> Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the aftertaste
> is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much.
Bah.
> If you've been running a 2e game and have never had problems with
multiclassed
> characters, stick with 2e.
What about "munchkin overpower" did you fail to recognize?
> >Removal of race/class restrictions.
> I can see why they did it (much more "generic" than limiting), but I
> think it puts the DM in the light of the "bad guy" a bit much if he
creates
> a world where ther are class/race restrictions.
Wimp.
> If you've developed your own specific race/class restrictions to suit
> your own world, then stick with 2e.
Bah.
> >Removal of hard stat requirements.
>
> A bit mistake in my opinion. Some sort of qualifications should be in
order.
There are. Be good at what you do or stink at it. Notice the
spellcasting limitations.
Congratulations on being so well informed.
> > Unified skill system(d20).
>
> I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring game
> mechanics" side of it. ;-) It may be "simple" to grasp, but it also sucks
> out some of the flavour of the game, IMHO.
How was the 2E skill system an important part of the game's flavour?
> >Increasing ACs(instead of decreasing from 10).
>
> Pointless.
Bah. Elegant.
> >Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
> > figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
>
> I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however.
Bah.
Denakhan's objections are bizarre. It's important to point this out.
-Michael
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:59:26 -0800, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Michael Scott Brown, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
his antennae:
:)>"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote in message news:euOc6.22202>
:)>> AoOs.
:)>>
:)>> Ugh. Definitly not a good point. Shouldn't be a rule(s). Too much
:)>hassle
:)>> for what it's worth.
:)>
:)> Bah.
You have to admit the PHB didn't explain it the best. The d20 document was what
finally got me figuring out AoOs.
:)>> > New Multiclass rules(sensible and fair ones, this time).
:)>>
:)>> Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the aftertaste
:)>> is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much.
:)>
:)> Bah.
You could have at least shown how all but cleric/wizards are better in 3e...
:)>> If you've been running a 2e game and have never had problems with
:)>multiclassed
:)>> characters, stick with 2e.
:)>
:)> What about "munchkin overpower" did you fail to recognize?
:)>
:)>> >Removal of race/class restrictions.
:)>> I can see why they did it (much more "generic" than limiting), but I
:)>> think it puts the DM in the light of the "bad guy" a bit much if he
:)>creates
:)>> a world where ther are class/race restrictions.
:)>
:)> Wimp.
Yeah...my world has no clerics or sorcerers. Tough. Divine spells are for
monsters, bard, druids, and specialist wizards.
:)>> If you've developed your own specific race/class restrictions to suit
:)>> your own world, then stick with 2e.
:)>
:)> Bah.
Hey! Openning up a word processor and changing the wording around for 3e is
tough...if you type at like 5 WPM...
:)>> >Removal of hard stat requirements.
:)>>
:)>> A bit mistake in my opinion. Some sort of qualifications should be in
:)>order.
:)>
:)> There are. Be good at what you do or stink at it. Notice the
:)>spellcasting limitations.
:)> Congratulations on being so well informed.
:)>
:)>
:)>> > Unified skill system(d20).
:)>>
:)>> I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring game
:)>> mechanics" side of it. ;-) It may be "simple" to grasp, but it also sucks
:)>> out some of the flavour of the game, IMHO.
:)>
:)> How was the 2E skill system an important part of the game's flavour?
You know...for...rewarding people for rolling good stats.
:)>> >Increasing ACs(instead of decreasing from 10).
:)>>
:)>> Pointless.
:)>
:)> Bah. Elegant.
:)>
:)>
:)>> >Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
:)>> > figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
:)>>
:)>> I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however.
:)>
:)> Bah.
You do realize most people don't use monsters as NPCs, right? They don't give
them personalitites. They are machines in most games.
:)> Denakhan's objections are bizarre. It's important to point this out.
Yes. And I was bored and felt like replying.
:)>-Michael
:)>
:)>
Cerberus AOD
don't get cut some XP, or whether they lose a level. My bard nearly died at the
hands of vampires. Multiple vampires. He was level one. My two fighters nearly
died from a dragon (A dragon that could kick a red dragon of equal age category
to the abyss). Then they nearly got lycanthropy. The party is level three. The
one where they nearly died from the dragon had to have been the most fun game I
ever ran, though. The only combat roll involved knocking out an armorsmith. All
else was skill rolls getting into and out of the dragon's lair, and roleplay and
more roleplay once the dragon found them. :)
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:03:50 -0500, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Hari the Monk, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>This is what I prefer. This way, you know that, if your character survives,
:)>it's due to how you played your character, and not the DM being nice to you.
:)>As for the 'too random' aspect some folks abhor, I realize that sometimes,
:)>some things just happen. Some times, the Dragon just eats the party.
:)>*shrug*.
:)>
:)>Hari the Monk
:)>
:)>
:)>
:)>"Cerberus AOD" <see_my_rep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
:)>news:3a755c11....@207.126.101.100...
:)>> Yeah...
:)>> I just scare my players by doing neither. I try to balance the encounter,
:)>and
:)>> from there it is me trying to kill them. The dice and decisions made will
:)>decide
:)>> what happens.
:)>>
:)>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:47:40 -0600, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug,
:)>which
:)>> was quite moldy, tuffnoogies, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
:)>> antennae:
:)>> :)>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:10:17 -0500, "Hari the Monk"
:)>> :)><bb...@charter.net> wrote:
:)>> :)>>Except you can't count on 'common sense' to be common at all. DMs, if
:)>they
:)>> :)>>don't have rules, *will* cheat in favor of themselves/thier monsters.
:)>It's
:)>> :)>>all about fair and consistent application of rules in this instance.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>Funny. IME, the DMs would cheat for the PCs.
:)>> :)>tuffnoogies
:)>>
:)>> ------------------
:)>> 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
:)>
Michael Scott Brown
> Combat less detailed
Bah.
> - only roll initiative once per combat
Irrelevant - random ordering is replaced by tactical ordering.
> - no maneuvers for a block
Fight defensively.
> - no weapon speeds
These were *awful* rules that accomplished nothing of what they were
perhaps attempting to represent.
> No race/class combination restrictions (this just screams MUNCHKIN to me)
Why? Please explain how, if each race and class is balanced against all
the others, then combining them in various ways leads to overpower of some
sort? Does it matter what race a Fighter is? Is one arguably far more
powerful than another? *Think*.
> No kits
Prestige classes.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:3a743...@news.newsdudes.com...
> Realistically, you might be able to get more *hits* in with a
> dagger than a longsword,
Only if you presume that the contest is one of seeing how many times one
can hit a post in a given time, where you have a target that does not move,
does not strike back, and against which you have a complete choice of range
and can just hack away.
To make an effective attack against a real combatant needs more work the
smaller your weapon is, which means that even if you get all excited about
how a smaller weapon is slightly easier to accelerate, the fact is you have
to do *more* fancy manouvers (or whole-body dodging) to get the weapon onto
your foe in a way that matters.
-Michael
Barry Smith
> > It's not an evolution of AD&D it is definetly it's
> > own game,
>
> Again I think this is just a plain silly statement. If it wasn't an
> evolution it would not carry the name, nor would it be called 3rd. Ed. It's
> an evolution. Accept this.
This smacks of elitism (in my best paladinic voice): "I have evolved to
a greater form of gaming! Accept this and grovel, lowly 1e/2e worms!"
Yeah, right.
--
Long live 2e.
Chad Lubrecht
>> No kits
>
> Prestige classes.
>
And the feats/skills/and multiclassing allow you
to do much of the customization that kits did without
needing to be high enough to be a prestige class.
Barry Smith
> Why don't you like 3rd edition.
There's certain mechanics and procedural rhythms I've grown *very*
accustomed to over the years, second nature as it were, and see no need
to break that rhythm. That's mainly the reason for my not switching to
3e fully. It's a choice, and one I am very comfortable accepting, and
despite the "but it's easier now!" comments that pervade this group, it
never has been hard for me to run things under 2e. And as much as the
appeal of the new changes appear to be on the surface, it's the deeper
changes in my campaign that I don't want to alter. Newest doesn't always
mean best, or easiest to work with. Comfort level is a nice quality to
have in a campaign.
Is there anything you do like about
> it.
A few things that I'll add to my campaign. New weaponry, spells, certain
concepts such as AoO (though, these are going to be needing a serious
overhaul to prevent 'over attacking' imc; they seem to allow an attack
if people just *hint* at being in the wrong place at the wrong time...
;) The squares mechanic/principle also reminds me too much of chess;
positioning and strategy is all fine and well, but I never liked
"counting squares" to determine if I get attacked or not. That's the DMs
job to determine, not some quirky square grid system imo).
> Thanks....
Aye.
--
Long live 2e.
Barry Smith
>
> Al (Just Al) wrote:
>
> > minor complaints.
> > Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
> > it.
>
> I think those of us who dislike have given up long ago. the
> pro-3e-brain-dead-it-must-be-good-its-the-newest-thing-from-tsr
> outnumber us by far to high a ratio lately. I should say that
> there's many reasonable supporters of 3e though too.
Heh.
> ok here goes for me: i play basic d&d plus quite a few house
> rules/mods so all comparisions are to that system
>
> don't like:
>
> d20 system; i LIKE rolling all the different sized dice!
> they have such neat shapes. :)
Ha!! I do too!
> classes/races and multiclassing too open
>
> clerics WAY WAY overpowered and out of balance with other classes.
Oh yes. And they used to worry about how much healing previous editions
granted...I still remember all the "too much healing" rants during the
peak of 1e and 2e. Those were nothing. ;)
> rangers: WHAT happened? where's the class? or is this just
> another fighter with an excuse to throw around an extra weapon?
*shrugs*
> AoO: my God! i still havent taken the time to understand these rules
These are okay, if you can get away from the seemingly numerous
instances where these many be a possibility. If they're clear cut in
which instances grant an AoO, and which instances don't, they'll work.
> feats & skills: completly inferior to the nice variety of skills found
> in the RC which i use (might be comparable to 1e or 2e but doesnt hold a
> candle aginst the bd&d skills.)
>
> prestige classes: (the ones presented not the idea) ok theres a LOT of
> classes in the 3e PHB, along with allowing any multi-class combo, there's
> just no need for this many different classes.
>
> do like:
>
> multiclassing rules: 3e is the only edition that does this right; other
> editions are uncomparable.
Yeah, they do a pretty good job on it, except the "Uneven Levels"
section. Yuck. What's the rationale behind being unable to develop a
character into a 2nd level fighter/8th level mage without gaining the
20% XP penalty? I really don't like having a system tell me that I can
only raise my multi-classed character one way to prevent a penalty like
that, and besides, I like the concept of multi-classed characters with
widely uneven levels anyhow. Allowing the player to develop their
multiclassed character any damn way they like, without XP penalties for
an uneven level choice, is the way to go imho. I'll definitely have to
ax that rule out, if I use it.
> sorcerers: i'd really like these but there underpowered. they need a d6 hp;
> and either more spells/day 1-2 more each spell level AND/or more spell selection
>
> arcane spell failure: another very good 3e idea.
Yep.
--
Long live 2e.
Certic
--
You are not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
***
Give a man a fish and it'll feed him for a day.
Teach him to fish and he'll sit in a boat and
drink beer.
madd...@my-deja.com
>
> >> - no maneuvers for a block
> >
> >Since D&D combat has always been an abstraction for continual combat,
not
> >just one blow, one hit, a maneuver for block is unnecessary.
>
> Total Defense.
>
People have made this arguement before - my position is that I DON'T
LIKE a defense manuever that adds on to your armor class. I DO like
giving up an attack and making a roll to physically block your
opponent's weapon. Why? Because its more FUN. Nothing is more boring
that accumulating tactics as either a plus or minus on an attack roll
then having the two opponents roll against each other until one of them
runs out of hit points.
Also, Attacks of opportunity are from combat and tactics, not new to 3e
(used the same way, from what I've read). The weapon styles and special
maneuvers really spice up combat. I understand that many of them have
been converted to feats, but I don't care for how they are implemented.
Furthur, the reworked attack roll system wouldn't work well in my
campaign for a few reasons. First, its impossible to convert my house
rule for blocks. Second, it would actually change the speed in
calculating attack rolls. We don't keep armor classes a secret. Once
you attack something, the DM tells you what armor class you hit.
Everyone has thier thac0 pre calculated. Subtract the AC from your
thac0, you have your to-hit number. Its the same number throughout the
fight, unless the AC changes.
We'd end up using the new system the same way. Okay, I have a total +5
to attack. The monster has an AC of 17. I need a 12 to hit. Not only
is this the same amount of steps if I had a thac0 of 15 and was
attacking AC 3, but I'm still subtracting! Do you see why there's no
incentive for me to switch? The new attack system is not any simpler
for the way my group uses it. Its just different.
btw - I'm not elitist. If I met some 3e gamers who invited me to a
game, I'd play and probably have fun. But personally as a DM, there
simply isn't enough there to overcome the cost and time to learn the new
rules.
--
"Chivalry is dead. Women killed it." - Dave Chapelle
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:26:59 -0800, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Barry Smith, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>Jimmy Kerl wrote:
:)>>
:)>> Al (Just Al) wrote:
:)>>
:)>> > Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
:)>> > minor complaints.
:)>> > or.....
:)>> > Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
:)>> > it.
:)>>
:)>> I think those of us who dislike have given up long ago. the
:)>> pro-3e-brain-dead-it-must-be-good-its-the-newest-thing-from-tsr
:)>> outnumber us by far to high a ratio lately. I should say that
:)>> there's many reasonable supporters of 3e though too.
:)>
:)>Heh.
:)>
:)>> ok here goes for me: i play basic d&d plus quite a few house
:)>> rules/mods so all comparisions are to that system
:)>>
:)>> don't like:
:)>>
:)>> d20 system; i LIKE rolling all the different sized dice!
:)>> they have such neat shapes. :)
Me too. But I play several games, so no problems there.
:)>Ha!! I do too!
:)>
:)>> classes/races and multiclassing too open
:)>>
:)>> clerics WAY WAY overpowered and out of balance with other classes.
:)>
:)>Oh yes. And they used to worry about how much healing previous editions
:)>granted...I still remember all the "too much healing" rants during the
:)>peak of 1e and 2e. Those were nothing. ;)
But there is more damage being dealt around. If I allowed clerics, they'd be on
the wizard's spell slots, if not more restrictions. As it is my pantheon simply
doesn't suit them well.
:)>> rangers: WHAT happened? where's the class? or is this just
:)>> another fighter with an excuse to throw around an extra weapon?
:)>
:)>*shrugs*
And the favored enemy. That is basically all the ranger really has. Given the
multiclassing rules, a Ranger/Druid would be a little better for the typical
ranger concept.
:)>> AoO: my God! i still havent taken the time to understand these rules
:)>
:)>These are okay, if you can get away from the seemingly numerous
:)>instances where these many be a possibility. If they're clear cut in
:)>which instances grant an AoO, and which instances don't, they'll work.
Which means: Read the AoO stuff from the d20 SRD thing and it should make more
sense than from the PHB. They try to overcomplicate "Don't be an idiot" way too
much in the PHB.
:)>> feats & skills: completly inferior to the nice variety of skills found
:)>> in the RC which i use (might be comparable to 1e or 2e but doesnt hold a
:)>> candle aginst the bd&d skills.)
:)>>
:)>> prestige classes: (the ones presented not the idea) ok theres a LOT of
:)>> classes in the 3e PHB, along with allowing any multi-class combo, there's
:)>> just no need for this many different classes.
:)>>
:)>> do like:
:)>>
:)>> multiclassing rules: 3e is the only edition that does this right; other
:)>> editions are uncomparable.
:)>
:)>Yeah, they do a pretty good job on it, except the "Uneven Levels"
:)>section. Yuck. What's the rationale behind being unable to develop a
:)>character into a 2nd level fighter/8th level mage without gaining the
:)>20% XP penalty?
Easy: That is what the player wants to have. IMO, the DM should be expected to
handle all that anyway.
> I really don't like having a system tell me that I can
:)>only raise my multi-classed character one way to prevent a penalty like
:)>that, and besides, I like the concept of multi-classed characters with
:)>widely uneven levels anyhow. Allowing the player to develop their
:)>multiclassed character any damn way they like, without XP penalties for
:)>an uneven level choice, is the way to go imho. I'll definitely have to
:)>ax that rule out, if I use it.
I haven't used it. It is really just to keep people from grabbing a level here
and level there...but any decent DM should be able to stop that.
:)>> sorcerers: i'd really like these but there underpowered. they need a d6 hp;
:)>> and either more spells/day 1-2 more each spell level AND/or more spell selection
:)>>
:)>> arcane spell failure: another very good 3e idea.
:)>
:)>Yep.
:)>
Sorcerers are a bit underpowered. I'd give them a choice of a few more spells
per level, 2 more skill points, or a higher HD. Sorcerers are really only good
for multiclassing as-is...JMHO though. :)
Michael Scott Brown
>
> You have to admit the PHB didn't explain it the best. The d20 document was
what
> finally got me figuring out AoOs.
The PhB explained them just fine. Drop your guard, get thwacked.
Instances where we consider people to be dropping their guard are: moving
past someone non-carefully, trying to use a bow in melee, trying to cast
spells, rummaging through packs in melee, etc. - it's *completely* common
sense derivation from the principle.
> :)>> Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the
aftertaste
> :)>> is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much.
> :)>
> :)> Bah.
>
> You could have at least shown how all but cleric/wizards are better in
3e...
The arch-mage thinks that munchkin megapower is desireable; given that
he likes the old mutliclassing rules, therefore, his concept of "too much
weakening" is what the rest of us consider *fairness*.
> :)>> >Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
> :)>> > figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
> :)>>
> :)>> I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however.
> :)> Bah.
>
> You do realize most people don't use monsters as NPCs, right? They don't
give
> them personalitites. They are machines in most games.
Ahem. Having the stats is incredibly useful for determining
*capabilities*, especially when the target is subjected to effects that
might enhance or weaken these. Are you going to sit here and argue that the
only reason to have stats for a critter is so that it can be assigned a
character class? That's *absurd*!
-Michael
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:07:54 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, madd...@my-deja.com, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>
:)>
:)>>
:)>> >> - no maneuvers for a block
:)>> >
:)>> >Since D&D combat has always been an abstraction for continual combat,
:)>not
:)>> >just one blow, one hit, a maneuver for block is unnecessary.
:)>>
:)>> Total Defense.
:)>>
:)>
:)>People have made this arguement before - my position is that I DON'T
:)>LIKE a defense manuever that adds on to your armor class. I DO like
:)>giving up an attack and making a roll to physically block your
:)>opponent's weapon. Why? Because its more FUN. Nothing is more boring
:)>that accumulating tactics as either a plus or minus on an attack roll
:)>then having the two opponents roll against each other until one of them
:)>runs out of hit points.
:)>
:)>Also, Attacks of opportunity are from combat and tactics, not new to 3e
:)>(used the same way, from what I've read). The weapon styles and special
:)>maneuvers really spice up combat. I understand that many of them have
:)>been converted to feats, but I don't care for how they are implemented.
:)>
:)>Furthur, the reworked attack roll system wouldn't work well in my
:)>campaign for a few reasons. First, its impossible to convert my house
:)>rule for blocks. Second, it would actually change the speed in
:)>calculating attack rolls. We don't keep armor classes a secret. Once
:)>you attack something, the DM tells you what armor class you hit.
:)>Everyone has thier thac0 pre calculated. Subtract the AC from your
:)>thac0, you have your to-hit number. Its the same number throughout the
:)>fight, unless the AC changes.
:)>
:)>We'd end up using the new system the same way. Okay, I have a total +5
:)>to attack. The monster has an AC of 17. I need a 12 to hit. Not only
:)>is this the same amount of steps if I had a thac0 of 15 and was
:)>attacking AC 3, but I'm still subtracting! Do you see why there's no
:)>incentive for me to switch? The new attack system is not any simpler
:)>for the way my group uses it. Its just different.
As it has been the whole time.
:)>btw - I'm not elitist. If I met some 3e gamers who invited me to a
:)>game, I'd play and probably have fun. But personally as a DM, there
:)>simply isn't enough there to overcome the cost and time to learn the new
:)>rules.
So you're happy w/ what you had? Then don't bother switching. It is those of us
who were not even close to happy w/ 2e that preferred the switch. Most of the
stuff has been made more elegant, but a lot has only been switched around a
little to fit the "d20" mechanic, and hardly changed from that.
Michael Scott Brown
> People have made this arguement before - my position is that I DON'T
> LIKE a defense manuever that adds on to your armor class. I DO like
> giving up an attack and making a roll to physically block your
> opponent's weapon. Why? Because its more FUN.
But the game has never (in its basic forms) had such a mechanic- so it's
hardly "bad" that it doesn't have them yet. The game also has never had
*any* rule for full-defense fighting styles - so the inclusion of one at all
is only an improvement.
> Furthur, the reworked attack roll system wouldn't work well in my
> campaign for a few reasons. First, its impossible to convert my house
> rule for blocks.
?? How hard could it be? Just use the C&T idea - in 3E, this amounts to
replacing your AC with your attack roll for one attack.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:3A747283...@premier1.net...
> Yeah, they do a pretty good job on it, except the "Uneven Levels"
> section. Yuck. What's the rationale behind being unable to develop a
> character into a 2nd level fighter/8th level mage without gaining the
> 20% XP penalty?
The 1st level of a character class is a *huge* increase in capability;
if you don't pay the "price" for this by keeping your levels even (thus
eschewing the highest echelons of power in another class) then some
mechanism must be used to pay for the privelege of having some seven extra
feats in one level.
> I really don't like having a system tell me that I can
> only raise my multi-classed character one way to prevent a penalty like
> that, and besides, I like the concept of multi-classed characters with
> widely uneven levels anyhow.
The rules don't stop you! They just make it *fair*. Why do people have
such a problem with paying for the power they want?
-Michael
Colin Fisher
>1) I don't like that fighters start knowing
> all martial weapons. I would have
> preferred weapon proficiencies having
> been kept or spending skill points
But the system is already there: in feats. It's a bonus that a fighter
has the simple/martial weapons feats. Other classes will have to take
those feats in order tobe up to par. Also, fighters don't know every
weapon- they still have to learn the exotic ones.
I hated 2E's WP system. By 2E core rules, a starting fighter who is
assumed to be training at fighting for a long time(afterall, they're
good enough to get a class) will only know how to use *4* weapons. 3 if
you specialize. To me, that was moronic. I think 3E handles it much
better.
>5) The cleric. I prefer 2e specialty
> priests.
3E has something similiar in the domain system. Perhaps not as detailed
as 2E's SP's, but much cleaner and easier to remember IMO.
>8) Some Skills are too broad and,
> therefore, some classes don't have
> things that should be class skills. A
> skilled fighter should be able to feignt
> and resist feignts, but these fall under
> Bluff and Sense motive which are cross
> class skill for fighters.
I disagree. Bluff and Sense Motive are *non-combat* skills. You are
correct in that a fighter should be able to fiegnt and resist, but that
feature is already in the class- by this I mean that D&D's abstract
combat already accounts for feignts and how they resist them.
Colin Fisher
Michael Scott Brown
news:3a746a90...@news.earthlink.net...
True; the feat rules go a long way towards applying some structure to
character customizaiton without unbalancing much-fest kit silliness. The
"kit" idea could be retained for 3E in the sense that one might take the
time to suggest typical feat and skill combinations that would *reflect* a
certain theme of character - I'm surprised that this wasn't actually done
somewhere in the Core books, actualy.
Prestige classes, unfortunately, are kits resurrected, and worse than
ever. New Special Powers! No Thoughts of Balance!
<sigh>
-Michael
Chuck Capko
>> own game,
>
>Again I think this is just a plain silly statement. If it wasn't an
>evolution it would not carry the name, nor would it be called 3rd. Ed. It's
>an evolution. Accept this.
Would then the new version of Basic D&D be a de-evolution of D&D2e?
What is the difference between basic D&D and AD&D2e, I say they both
were published at the same time and would consider them to be
different games. This is just my opinion, but I say that 3rd Edition
is a different game than Basic, 1st, and 2nd editions, but they all
are D&D. D&D is not just a game, not just a set of rules, it's a genre
and a feel. Again, just my two cents.
(quite frankly, I don't care wheter it's an evolution or a new game,
this is just my feeling on the situation.)
Later,
-Chuck.
--------------------------------------
Http://www.Geocities.com/Wormspeaker/
Tremble you weaklings, cower in fear.
I am you ruler land, sea, and air.
Immense in my girth, erect I stand tall.
I am a nuclear murderer, I am Polaris.
-Rust in Peace...Polaris, Megadeath
john v verkuilen
>> It's not an evolution of AD&D it is definetly it's
>> own game,
>Again I think this is just a plain silly statement. If it wasn't an
>evolution it would not carry the name, nor would it be called 3rd. Ed. It's
>an evolution. Accept this.
I could call it Rumplestilskin if I wanted. It's got obvious roots, in the
same way that Palladium (basically an AD&D ripoff) does, but I don't think
it breeds fertile with past editions too well. I'm *not* saying it's a bad
game (though it's not *my* game, if you know what I mean), but it definitely
has a different feel than 1E or 2E.
>almost common in large centers where in 1st Ed. Greyhawk they would have
>been rare, and it was the 18th+ level characters in the Realms (next to
>non-existent in Greyhawk) that were rare, but at they existed.
I'd say that the 18th level characters *existed* in Greyhawk, but were rare.
You had the Circle of Eight (not all 18th level), the Hierarchs of Molag, the
Mage of the Valley, and a few other baddies around. In the Realms they're...
not unusual. You expect most cities of any size to have a batch of 18th level
characters.
>My personal feeling is, what's the point of ultra-high level skill sets if
>you don't have characters with them walking around? I think you would,
>otherwise such skills would not exist or else would have long been
>forgotten. I like Forgotten Realms for that reason, among many others.
And I dislike FR (as presented in the book) for exactly the same reason. Were
I ever to run FR I'd pare back a lot of the high level NPCs.
>I long since abandonded level limits for multi-class when we played 1st Ed.
>simply because it is more interesting to make a campaign that challenges the
>best of the best. An elf that (in 1st Ed.) lived over 1,000 years should be
>able to attain very high level in his chosen classes. I feel that an
>arbitrary restriction was unnecessary. Granted such characters were
>EXTREMELY powerful and annoying to me as a DM, but I managed, and I also
>learned a great deal!
And I long since abandoned them because they made no f$&%ing sense and don't
matter anyway. The chance of someone surviving to 18th level or higher
*assuming you actually played more or less by the rules* is so ridiculously
small regardless of how many years you need to get there, it doesn't matter.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"It will kill you faster than a bullet." --Claude LaMont
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:53:30 -0800, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Michael Scott Brown, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
his antennae:
:)>"Cerberus AOD" <see_my_rep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
:)>> :)>> AoOs.
:)>>
:)>> You have to admit the PHB didn't explain it the best. The d20 document was
:)>what
:)>> finally got me figuring out AoOs.
:)>
:)> The PhB explained them just fine. Drop your guard, get thwacked.
:)>Instances where we consider people to be dropping their guard are: moving
:)>past someone non-carefully, trying to use a bow in melee, trying to cast
:)>spells, rummaging through packs in melee, etc. - it's *completely* common
:)>sense derivation from the principle.
:)>
:)>> :)>> Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the
:)>aftertaste
:)>> :)>> is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit much.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)> Bah.
:)>>
:)>> You could have at least shown how all but cleric/wizards are better in
:)>3e...
:)>
:)> The arch-mage thinks that munchkin megapower is desireable; given that
:)>he likes the old mutliclassing rules, therefore, his concept of "too much
:)>weakening" is what the rest of us consider *fairness*.
:)>
:)>
:)>
:)>> :)>> >Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
:)>> :)>> > figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
:)>> :)>>
:)>> :)>> I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however.
:)>> :)> Bah.
:)>>
:)>> You do realize most people don't use monsters as NPCs, right? They don't
:)>give
:)>> them personalitites. They are machines in most games.
:)>
:)> Ahem. Having the stats is incredibly useful for determining
:)>*capabilities*, especially when the target is subjected to effects that
:)>might enhance or weaken these. Are you going to sit here and argue that the
:)>only reason to have stats for a critter is so that it can be assigned a
:)>character class? That's *absurd*!
Those capabilities are: whack PC. Oh wow, what a great challenge.
"Um, why are these guys here?"
"Bceause I put them here to fight you."
"And they are fighting us...why?"
"Because that is what they do. They hunt PCs. Haven't you ever read the
rulebooks?"
:)>
:)>-Michael
Reginald
<madd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > - no maneuvers for a block
> > >
> > > Since D&D combat has always been an abstraction for continual
> > > combat, not just one blow, one hit, a maneuver for block is
> > unnecessary.
> >
> > Total Defense.
>
> People have made this arguement before - my position is that I DON'T
> LIKE a defense manuever that adds on to your armor class. I DO like
> giving up an attack and making a roll to physically block your
> opponent's weapon. Why? Because its more FUN. Nothing is more
boring
> that accumulating tactics as either a plus or minus on an attack roll
> then having the two opponents roll against each other until one of
them
> runs out of hit points.
Hehehe. In the DMG (page 64), there is a variant rule that allows
defender to roll their defense roll whenever he is attacked. He simply
roll d20 + (AC - 10). If he beats the attacker's attack roll the hit
missed.
What's more the defense roll is a free action or a reaction (like saving
throws). You can make as many defense rolls as there are incoming
attacks. It may bog down the game if your defender is being ganged up by
high-level attackers with multiple attacks (of course, your DM may rule
for the sake of speeding up the game, to roll your defense roll once per
round). But this is what you want, right?
> Also, Attacks of opportunity are from combat and tactics, not new
> to 3e (used the same way, from what I've read).
Correct. It's an optional rule made standard. They refined the mechanics
with an errata, with regards to moving ONLY in a round.
> The weapon styles and special maneuvers really spice up combat. I
> understand that many of them have been converted to feats, but I
> don't care for how they are implemented.
Correct. Again, they're an optional rules made standard.
> Furthur, the reworked attack roll system wouldn't work well in
> my campaign for a few reasons. First, its impossible to convert
> my house rule for blocks.
That's depends on what is your house rule for blocks. I am sure at least
one person here can take your 2e house rule and convert it to 3e.
Never say "impossible."
> Second, it would actually change the speed in calculating attack
> rolls. We don't keep armor classes a secret. Once you attack
> something, the DM tells you what armor class you hit.
I hope not. How else can an attacker would know what he need to beat?
> Everyone has thier thac0 pre calculated. Subtract the AC from your
> thac0, you have your to-hit number. Its the same number throughout
> the fight, unless the AC changes.
I subtract my attack modifiers from the defender's AC, and I'll know
what number I need to roll. If the result is 20 and above, then I have
nothing to lose but to roll a natural 20 and score an automatic hit.
> We'd end up using the new system the same way. Okay, I have a
> total +5 to attack. The monster has an AC of 17. I need a 12 to
> hit. Not only is this the same amount of steps if I had a thac0
> of 15 and was attacking AC 3, but I'm still subtracting!
True, but you don't have to deal with negative armor class, or the fact
that magical armor bonus you have to remember to change the positive to
negative to get an even lower negative armor class (which in 2e, is an
improvement).
The bonus stays positive, therefore the AC goes up.
> Do you see why there's no incentive for me to switch? The new
> attack system is not any simpler for the way my group uses it. Its
> just different.
At least you don't have to keep track of the fractional multiple
attacks.
> btw - I'm not elitist. If I met some 3e gamers who invited me to a
> game, I'd play and probably have fun. But personally as a DM, there
> simply isn't enough there to overcome the cost and time to learn the
new
> rules.
Well, eventually you and your group will cross over or not. I just hope
that you do that within 10 years or you'll find yourself having face
with a new edition of the rules (not unlike other RPG who keep dishing
out new edition after 5 or less years).
john v verkuilen
>:)> Somehow, I for one am sure that the specialty priests will make a comeback
>:)>in some sourcebook or another. A company like WOTC likes to milk the
>:)>fanbase for all it's worth. I play MtG, I should know. :-)
>Heh. They will, they will. The 2E core books DID NOT HAVE SPECIALTY PRIESTS, in
>case people don't realize it. So why not follow that as well...there will be a
>priest suppliment. If it doesn't have 3e specialty priest rules, then look out
>netbooks.
But they basically had all the rules you needed to make specialty priests,
though I felt a lot of the sphere lists were a bit cracked (the revised ones
were better). 3E's list of spells for all clerics is just way too broad,
IMO.
madd...@my-deja.com
"Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote:
> I've seen it go both ways, actually. But I'd rather the DM didn't
cheat at
> all. It's just my mindset. I realize that not everyone shares it.
>
> Hari the Monk
Hari, for once I agree with you. :)
Nothing is more satisfying than overcoming a tough encounter when the DM
isn't pulling any punches
>
> "tuffnoogies" <j...@myexcel.com> wrote in message
> news:ppm87tg21ml8lfovk...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:10:17 -0500, "Hari the Monk"
> > <bb...@charter.net> wrote:
> > >Except you can't count on 'common sense' to be common at all. DMs,
if
> they
> > >don't have rules, *will* cheat in favor of themselves/thier
monsters.
> It's
> > >all about fair and consistent application of rules in this
instance.
> >
> > Funny. IME, the DMs would cheat for the PCs.
> > tuffnoogies
>
>
--
john v verkuilen
> Were these advantages you found in 3E worth the trouble of learning
>the new edition? In other words, has your gaming been better since
>switching? Did you have to abandon an ongoing campaign when you
>switched?
We made the IMO wise decision not to switch any of our existing campaigns.
I ran some 3E for a while; it was OK. It seems to have died on the vine but
that's got more to do with other issues, not the system.
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:43:01 -0600 (CST), in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug,
which was quite moldy, Colin Fisher, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
his antennae:
:)>hban...@csun.edu (Greg Kerner) wrote:
:)>
:)>>1) I don't like that fighters start knowing
:)>> all martial weapons. I would have
:)>> preferred weapon proficiencies having
:)>> been kept or spending skill points
:)>
:)>But the system is already there: in feats. It's a bonus that a fighter
:)>has the simple/martial weapons feats. Other classes will have to take
:)>those feats in order tobe up to par. Also, fighters don't know every
:)>weapon- they still have to learn the exotic ones.
:)>
:)>I hated 2E's WP system. By 2E core rules, a starting fighter who is
:)>assumed to be training at fighting for a long time(afterall, they're
:)>good enough to get a class) will only know how to use *4* weapons. 3 if
:)>you specialize. To me, that was moronic. I think 3E handles it much
:)>better.
Though I think it was Xeno who made a pretty good WP setup, where simple weapons
cost 1 point, martial 2, and exotic 4. A good way to do it, and it makes more
sense than the 2e WPs (A crossbow being as hard to learn as a longbow?!).
:)>>5) The cleric. I prefer 2e specialty
:)>> priests.
:)>
:)>3E has something similiar in the domain system. Perhaps not as detailed
:)>as 2E's SP's, but much cleaner and easier to remember IMO.
And 3e's priest suppliment isn't out yet, so that is an irrelavent argument.
Core books vs. core books.
:)>>8) Some Skills are too broad and,
:)>> therefore, some classes don't have
:)>> things that should be class skills. A
:)>> skilled fighter should be able to feignt
:)>> and resist feignts, but these fall under
:)>> Bluff and Sense motive which are cross
:)>> class skill for fighters.
:)>
:)>I disagree. Bluff and Sense Motive are *non-combat* skills. You are
:)>correct in that a fighter should be able to fiegnt and resist, but that
:)>feature is already in the class- by this I mean that D&D's abstract
:)>combat already accounts for feignts and how they resist them.
So why can't a fighter do that better than other classes?
He can't.
Bluff _is_ a non-combat skill.
Feinting is a combat action though, and nothing to do with the non-combat
bluffing.
My solution: Feint(Int). Class skill for Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Bards and
Rogues. Uses the rules from the Bluff(Cha) skill for the feint action.
:)>Colin Fisher
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:06:31 -0800, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Michael Scott Brown, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
his antennae:
:)>"Chad Lubrecht" <resi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:)>news:3a746a90...@news.earthlink.net...
:)>> >> No kits
:)>> >
:)>> > Prestige classes.
:)>> >
:)>> And the feats/skills/and multiclassing allow you
:)>> to do much of the customization that kits did without
:)>> needing to be high enough to be a prestige class.
:)>
:)> True; the feat rules go a long way towards applying some structure to
:)>character customizaiton without unbalancing much-fest kit silliness. The
:)>"kit" idea could be retained for 3E in the sense that one might take the
:)>time to suggest typical feat and skill combinations that would *reflect* a
:)>certain theme of character - I'm surprised that this wasn't actually done
:)>somewhere in the Core books, actualy.
I could have sworn it was suggested in the DMG...
:)> Prestige classes, unfortunately, are kits resurrected, and worse than
:)>ever. New Special Powers! No Thoughts of Balance!
:)> <sigh>
Oh well. Some of us like balance. Some people liked using kits and ignoring the
roleplay penalties.
:)>-Michael
:)>
:)>
Quentin Stephens
<3a7380a...@news.ne.mediaone.net>:
>Ok, we just started a campaign (characters are 2nd/3rd level) playing
>second edition. I have a ton of money invested in 2nd edition stuff
>but third edition looks kinda cool and maybe when this campaign ends I
>might want to run third edition especially since the new suppliments
>and modules are all being published for third edition and with a full
>time job and an impending marrige I can use all the outside help I can
>get instead of doing everything myself.
>
>Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
>minor complaints.
The whole thing is cleaned up to an amazing degree. It's very easy to
convert from 2E to 3E.
From a game POV, perhaps the best thing is that humans are finally balanced
against demi-humans. All too often, I have been presented with parties
where only the Paladin was human.
The balance of power of the statistics has changed: whereas CHA was usually
the one that was ignored, now it's STR - CHA is important for many classes.
My only major gripe is that while multi-classing works well for fighters
and rogues, it does not work well for spellcasters at higher than very low
levels, nor Paladin and Ranger when they achieve spellcaster status.
madd...@my-deja.com
I've used AoO rules from C&T. I assume it all boils down to the same
thing in 3e - if you do something stupid in a fight (like turn your back
on an unarmed opponent or try to walk past a guy with a sword) he gets a
chance to cut you. Its never really confused me, and doesn't lead to
overattacking. It actually makes the players more cautious in a fight.
I remember the first time I used C&T, the group was clearing out a
kobold hole. The got into the main chamber and saw the chieftan, his
guards, and a bunch of tribesmen. He charged the chieftan. I explained
the rules. He shrugged and said "I've got an AC of 2, they're just
kobolds" and ran in. Well, each of the tribesmen he ran past, all the
guards, and the chieftan got AoO on him. They dropped him before he
even got to the chief.
Lesson - AoO means stupid will get you killed
madd...@my-deja.com
no...@none.not (Agamemnon) wrote:
>
> >
> >> If you like 3rd edition, what are your minor complaints.
> >
> >priest concept.
> >
> Somehow, I for one am sure that the specialty priests will make a
comeback
>
>
Don't say that! If they follow the MtG track we'll have 4th edition
next summer and 5th edition by Christmas 2002, when they'll ban critical
hits, fighters, and long swords in the interest of 'game balance'
:)
A'koss
news:3a741...@news.utu.fi...
> Clerics were genericized from 2e's IMO far more interesting specialty
> priest concept.
IIRC, the FR sourcebook will have specialty priests again (where they
originated from) not to mention the Defenders of the Faith book with
prestige classes which essentially do the same thing. Champion of
Heironeous, etc...
A'koss!
--
The Rings of Concordance.
http://members.home.net/infinity/Main_Page.htm
madd...@my-deja.com
My house rule for blocks is this. Subtract ten from the calculated
thac0 of the attacker. Roll an attack roll against that as an armor
class. If you hit, you block thier weapon. I liked it because its
quick, simple, and accurately reflects what you are trying to do.
On furthur thought, I could take the attacker's plus to hit, add ten to
it and use that as an attack roll. Guess I can do it.
I guess my real conclusion on 3e is that IMO, 2e(with PO) isn't broken.
It isn't unbalanced the way I play - except maybe bards. Do bards suck
ass as bad in 3e? All other classes are equally represented.
For instance, we have many more fighters than rangers or paladins. The
PO rules help balance the classes, as players want the cheap
specialization at low levels and the advanced mastery at high levels.
Though even PO couldn't help the crap-ass bard :)
madd...@my-deja.com
Then how the $&*#& am I supposed to bullshit my DM "uh, yeah, I'm on
three attacks this round" :)
> > btw - I'm not elitist. If I met some 3e gamers who invited me to a
> > game, I'd play and probably have fun. But personally as a DM, there
> > simply isn't enough there to overcome the cost and time to learn the
> new
> > rules.
>
> Well, eventually you and your group will cross over or not. I just
hope
> that you do that within 10 years or you'll find yourself having face
> with a new edition of the rules (not unlike other RPG who keep dishing
> out new edition after 5 or less years).
>
>
--
john v verkuilen
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:10:17 -0500, "Hari the Monk"
><bb...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Except you can't count on 'common sense' to be common at all. DMs, if they
>>don't have rules, *will* cheat in favor of themselves/thier monsters. It's
>>all about fair and consistent application of rules in this instance.
>Funny. IME, the DMs would cheat for the PCs.
Yeah I was a bit puzzled by this one, too. I guess I'd really like a bit
simpler rules but the basic idea isn't a bad one. Dragon had some horrible
diagram of AoO cases a bit back. The damn thing looked awful. It seems
kind of inconsistent to force egregious detail in one area--Attack of
Opportunity--and blow it off in another--facing--but I guess it was their
new toy....
john v verkuilen
>> 5) The Rogue: Why does every Rogue know how to sneak attack? There are
>> rogues in fantasy novels that do not know how to sneak attack. I would
>have
>> preferred Rogue's getting their own lists of class feats.
>Just my $.02 here, but a 'rogue' who doesn't know how to sneak attack would
>be an 'expert' from the DMG's NPC classes. Similar skill points(6/level,
>but get to pick any 10 as 'class skills'), similar saves and attack
>progressions. None of the 'baggage' of the rogue class.
Except that, pound for pound, the Expert is worse than the Rogue. Should have
made things a bit more modular and you wouldn't even need those goddamn <spits>
NPC classes.
Al (Just Al)
wrote:
>Playing 3rd edition will make you more attractive to women.
Well, that's all you had to say....
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Alan Kohler" <hawkw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:951du7$r35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <euOc6.22202$_8.63...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
> > Hiya.
> >
> > "Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:t7721sa...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > (Hari, you make this soooo easy for me...;-)
> >
> > > Classes are fairly well balanced.
> >
> > Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
>
> No, they weren't. In 2e, there was almost no reason to play a fighter if
> you could play a paladin or ranger, or were multiclass (or played PO).
> There was almost no reason to play a thief unless you were multiclass.
Ok, my bad. I should have been a bit more specific...
"Yes. Then again, so is 1e. 2e also looks fairly balanced, Core-Rules
wise."
:-)
> >
> > > AoOs.
> >
> > Ugh. Definitly not a good point. Shouldn't be a rule(s).
>
> This is a constant point of debate, and this won't be the last of them.
> However, let me add: as in any situation that you ajudicate by "common
> sense", it is rarely quite that easy. Inconsistancies and illogic creep
> in. It is far better to have a sensible, well considered, codified
> system if the concept is usable to you at all.
I disagree, but hey, everyone enjoys what they enjoy. I've never had a
problem with players getting so annoyed with a ruling for such a thing.
Maybe I've just been unbelievably luck over the last two decades.
I think AoO's could have been addresed, but not quite so specific
"...enter within threat range provokes an AoO".
I agree with the "...debate, and this won't be the last of them.". ;-)
> > >Removal of race/class restrictions.
> >
> > <Mr.Horse>
> > Hmmmm.... No sir. I dont' like it.
> > </Mr.Horse>
> >
>
> I think its pretty hard to object to this sort of thing. Its merely a
> change in the baseline. If an individual campaign desires such limits,
> it is easy to do so.
The key thing is "...individual campaign...limits.". I would have liked
to see level limits addressed as something that should be expected, but not
guaranteed. Something like "Levels in the core ruels are 'unlimited'.
However, individual DM's may choose to tailor race/class combinations and
level limits to suit the flavour of his campaign. Players should check with
their DM for specifics in this regard". That's all it would take. As it is,
new (and old) players are going to expect unlimited class/race combinations
with unlimited advancement...and when a DM says "No, halflings are limited
to 8th level as warriors", the perception will be that the DM is 'just being
an asshole'.
> > >Removal of hard
> > > stat requirements.
> Again, I disagree. Just because a low strength makes you a crappy
> fighter doesn't mean that crappy fighters shouldn't exist. Further,
> things like weapon finesse make it perfectly possible that someone with
> a low strength might be a very good fighter indeed. It's hard to offhand
> dismiss something that broadens the spectrum of character types
> available.
Fighters are your best example; but what about a wizard with a 5
intelligence? IMHO, they shouldn't even have the brain power to grasp even
the most basic of magical concepts. They would have trouble with basic
math...8+(2x5)/3. There is a reason why there arn't Doctors of Medicine with
IQ's of 70.
Fighters, I can see no requierments. Thieves, maybe. Clerics..depends on
the deity. Wizards, definitly need them. Sorcerers, probably. Barbarians,
likely. Monks, definitly. Bards, oh yeah.
> > >Removal of racial level limits.
> >
> > Another mistake...
>
> Again, totally cannot agree. Level limits were pretty difficult to
> justify.
I've never had a problem "justifying" them. It isnt' any harder to
justify level limits as it is to justify why a wizard can't cast spells
while wearing full plate. Yes, I know in 3e they could (right?), but with
some heafty penalties. Then again, you can equate that to level limits with
simply needing more XP to advance after than limit is reached.
> > > Unified skill system(d20).
> >
> > I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring game
> > mechanics" side of it.
>
> Sheesh... how anyone cannot see this as an absolute positive, I don't
> know. Even in the waning days of my 2e experience, I had players who had
> to ask "is this roll high or low..."
To which I always replied..."Just roll." ;-) The beauty of 1e/2e was
that when the DM said "Roll a d20", the player didn't know 100% if he wanted
high or low. This allowed the DM to "fudge" results to favour certain
situations. Now, let me just say that I'm not a very "fudge-able" DM...I
pretty much let the dice stand everytime....but it is nice to know that I
could use the system to favour one particular outcome or another and not
raise the suspecion of the player(s).
As a side note, I think the prefolation of bonuses and the "...no two
bonuses of the same type can stack..." thing is going to make cheating for
players rather easy. (too many bonuses/penalties...which can change quite
offen).
> > >Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
> > > figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
> >
> > I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however.
> For the
> > most part I think monsters should be monsters.
>
> I completely and totally disagree. This was the greatest selling point
> of 3e to me. The whole environment of the campaign became much richer
> from this, allowing the DM to add lavish detail to all inhabitants of
> the setting, not just those arbitrarily labeled "PC races." It also
> makes for the tools to make some very interesting challenges. So whether
> you are role-playing heavy or action heavy, this is nothing but a boon.
Really? "The whole environment of the campaign became much richer from
this, allowing the DM to add lavish detail to all inhabitants of the
setting,...". I actually find this rather strange. Hmm. Guess it's just one
of those things we (me and my group(s)) always assumed (that a kobold could
be a 5th level fighter, or a hill giant could be a 7th level cleric....never
a common thing in our games, but it did pop up every now and then).
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
news:951n3c$au5$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:euOc6.22202>
> Denakhan's objections are bizarre. It's important to point this out.
>
> -Michael
Thanks Mikey. I knew I could count on you. ;-)
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Barry Smith
> I've used AoO rules from C&T. I assume it all boils down to the same
> thing in 3e - if you do something stupid in a fight (like turn your back
> on an unarmed opponent or try to walk past a guy with a sword) he gets a
> chance to cut you. Its never really confused me, and doesn't lead to
> overattacking. It actually makes the players more cautious in a fight.
>
> I remember the first time I used C&T, the group was clearing out a
> kobold hole. The got into the main chamber and saw the chieftan, his
> guards, and a bunch of tribesmen. He charged the chieftan. I explained
> the rules. He shrugged and said "I've got an AC of 2, they're just
> kobolds" and ran in. Well, each of the tribesmen he ran past, all the
> guards, and the chieftan got AoO on him. They dropped him before he
> even got to the chief.
>
> Lesson - AoO means stupid will get you killed
Excellent. In those types of situations, I can see where they'd (AoO's)
would be perfect in enhancing the danger of a large group of creatures,
even "lowly kobolds". It would tend to make tanks think twice about
charging through a pack of creatures to get to the leader, regardless of
the AC or protections of the person. Thanks.
--
Long live 2e.
Sir Bob
> "Sir Bob" <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
> news:3a743...@news.newsdudes.com...
>
> > Realistically, you might be able to get more *hits* in with a
> > dagger than a longsword,
>
> Only if you presume that the contest is one of seeing how
many times one
> can hit a post in a given time, where you have a target that
does not move,
> does not strike back, and against which you have a complete
choice of range
> and can just hack away.
<snip>
At no point did I say dagger vs. sword was realistically
*survivable* for the guy with the dagger; I just meant he could
probably get in a couple of extra pinpricks before getting his
arms cut off.
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
Michael Scott Brown
news:21830-3A...@storefull-125.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>5) The cleric. I prefer 2e specialty priests.
>3E has something similiar in the domain system. Perhaps not as detailed
>as 2E's SP's, but much cleaner and easier to remember IMO.
The domain system is actually the specialty priest idea used in the FR
religious supplement, spruced up, polished, and made flexible. If you look
through most of the priesthoods in Faiths and Avatars, you'll see a steady
acquisition of "and can use spell X 1/day", these were gained at 1st, 3rd,
5th, 7th . . . thus giving the priest access to a Relevant Bonus Spell of
each casting level winds up duplicating this in a robust and
impossible-to-screw-up way.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
to
> :)>character customizaiton without unbalancing much-fest kit silliness.
The
> :)>"kit" idea could be retained for 3E in the sense that one might take
the
> :)>time to suggest typical feat and skill combinations that would
*reflect* a
> :)>certain theme of character - I'm surprised that this wasn't actually
done
> :)>somewhere in the Core books, actualy.
>
> I could have sworn it was suggested in the DMG...
I'm sure it was suggested somewhere; but I don't recall actual lists in
this regard.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > ?? How hard could it be? Just use the C&T idea - in 3E, this
amounts to
> > replacing your AC with your attack roll for one attack.
>
> thac0 of the attacker. Roll an attack roll against that as an armor
> class. If you hit, you block thier weapon. I liked it because its
> quick, simple, and accurately reflects what you are trying to do.
No accounting for the effectiveness of their particular attack? One
might argue that it's a lot harder to block a strike that's going to be a
critical hit than one that is just barely getting through your armor, and
that if you're going to take the trouble to be rolling at all, you may as
well account for current conditions. Plus, going this route allows you to
figure out their Thaco, since you'll know how well they attack once you
block one of your own . . this may not be desireable.
> On furthur thought, I could take the attacker's plus to hit, add ten to
> it and use that as an attack roll. Guess I can do it.
Exactly. The flipped vector makes no difference to this approach.
However, isn't the setting you have ben using too easy? Blocking a low level
character's attack winds up being easier than hitting them, since BAB+10
runs 10-15 while ACs run 15-20 (the probabilities are the same using
inverted Thaco but it's *far* clearer to see in this format).
> I guess my real conclusion on 3e is that IMO, 2e(with PO) isn't broken.
3E has all the best ideas of 2E+PO, but streamlined and integrated.
> It isn't unbalanced the way I play - except maybe bards. Do bards suck
> ass as bad in 3e? All other classes are equally represented.
Bards are versatile and balanced well - their spellcasting is finally
done right, IMO.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> At no point did I say dagger vs. sword was realistically
> *survivable* for the guy with the dagger; I just meant he could
> probably get in a couple of extra pinpricks before getting his
> arms cut off.
But this argument is *STILL WRONG* "realistically". The user of a
dagger who evades the guard of a sword, cuts in to close range, and tries to
make a stabbing attack won't have the luxury of making more than one strike
as his foe is reacting, moving, and bringing his own weapon down across his
head or arms to smash him senseless. This idea you have of being able to go
"poke poke poke poke" during your window of attack because the weapon is
light is just plain goofy.
-Michael
Hari the Monk
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:pF1d6.27281$_8.8...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
> "Alan Kohler" <hawkw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:951du7$r35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <euOc6.22202$_8.63...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> > "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Hiya.
> > >
> > > "Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > > news:t7721sa...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > (Hari, you make this soooo easy for me...;-)
> > >
> > > > Classes are fairly well balanced.
> > >
> > > Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
> >
> > No, they weren't. In 2e, there was almost no reason to play a fighter if
> > you could play a paladin or ranger, or were multiclass (or played PO).
> > There was almost no reason to play a thief unless you were multiclass.
>
> Ok, my bad. I should have been a bit more specific...
> "Yes. Then again, so is 1e. 2e also looks fairly balanced, Core-Rules
> wise."
>
Gufaw. 1e was just as bad in this regard as 2e. Core Rules wise.
> :-)
>
> > >
> > > > AoOs.
> > >
> > > Ugh. Definitly not a good point. Shouldn't be a rule(s).
> >
> > This is a constant point of debate, and this won't be the last of them.
> > However, let me add: as in any situation that you ajudicate by "common
> > sense", it is rarely quite that easy. Inconsistancies and illogic creep
> > in. It is far better to have a sensible, well considered, codified
> > system if the concept is usable to you at all.
>
> I disagree, but hey, everyone enjoys what they enjoy. I've never had a
> problem with players getting so annoyed with a ruling for such a thing.
> Maybe I've just been unbelievably luck over the last two decades.
> I think AoO's could have been addresed, but not quite so specific
> "...enter within threat range provokes an AoO".
> I agree with the "...debate, and this won't be the last of them.".
;-)
Without specificity, you get DM fiat. I hate DM fiat wrt things that should
be consistent and fair(like what provokes an AoO).
>
>
> > > >Removal of race/class restrictions.
> > >
> > > <Mr.Horse>
> > > Hmmmm.... No sir. I dont' like it.
> > > </Mr.Horse>
> > >
> >
> > I think its pretty hard to object to this sort of thing. Its merely a
> > change in the baseline. If an individual campaign desires such limits,
> > it is easy to do so.
>
> The key thing is "...individual campaign...limits.". I would have
liked
> to see level limits addressed as something that should be expected, but
not
> guaranteed. Something like "Levels in the core ruels are 'unlimited'.
> However, individual DM's may choose to tailor race/class combinations and
> level limits to suit the flavour of his campaign. Players should check
with
> their DM for specifics in this regard". That's all it would take. As it
is,
> new (and old) players are going to expect unlimited class/race
combinations
> with unlimited advancement...and when a DM says "No, halflings are limited
> to 8th level as warriors", the perception will be that the DM is 'just
being
> an asshole'.
>
So? There is a rule, it's called Rule 0, and it lets you put in these
arbitary limitations at your whim. Because that's all it really is,
your(the DM) whim. If your whims can't stand up to a little 'dm asshole
criticism', then maybe those whims should be looked at more closely. But
the rule is there, before anything else you do, rules-wise.
>
> > > >Removal of hard
> > > > stat requirements.
>
> > Again, I disagree. Just because a low strength makes you a crappy
> > fighter doesn't mean that crappy fighters shouldn't exist. Further,
> > things like weapon finesse make it perfectly possible that someone with
> > a low strength might be a very good fighter indeed. It's hard to offhand
> > dismiss something that broadens the spectrum of character types
> > available.
>
> Fighters are your best example; but what about a wizard with a 5
> intelligence? IMHO, they shouldn't even have the brain power to grasp even
> the most basic of magical concepts. They would have trouble with basic
> math...8+(2x5)/3. There is a reason why there arn't Doctors of Medicine
with
> IQ's of 70.
> Fighters, I can see no requierments. Thieves, maybe. Clerics..depends
on
> the deity. Wizards, definitly need them. Sorcerers, probably. Barbarians,
> likely. Monks, definitly. Bards, oh yeah.
You seemed to have missed the 'practical' requirements of the classes you
mentioned(the spellcasting ones, anyway). Wizard: Needs a 10+spell level
Int to even cast that spell level(11 for 1st level, 12 for 2nd, etc.).
Cleric/Druid: 10+spell level Wis. Bard/Sorcerer: 10+spell level Cha.
Paladin/Ranger: 10+spell level Wis. These are the only things that make
sense wrt ability limits: Practicality.
>
>
> > > >Removal of racial level limits.
> > >
> > > Another mistake...
> >
> > Again, totally cannot agree. Level limits were pretty difficult to
> > justify.
>
> I've never had a problem "justifying" them. It isnt' any harder to
> justify level limits as it is to justify why a wizard can't cast spells
> while wearing full plate. Yes, I know in 3e they could (right?), but with
> some heafty penalties. Then again, you can equate that to level limits
with
> simply needing more XP to advance after than limit is reached.
No penalties, per se. They have a straight % chance of
arcane(bard/sorceror/Wizard) spell failure based on the armor worn. This
makes sense. It isn't arbitrary, unlike the racial level limits for 1e/2e.
There *was/is* no justificiation provided for them in 1e/2e. There is a
justification for spell failure % chance when wearing armor in 3e. Huge
difference.
>
>
> > > > Unified skill system(d20).
> > >
> > > I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring game
> > > mechanics" side of it.
> >
> > Sheesh... how anyone cannot see this as an absolute positive, I don't
> > know. Even in the waning days of my 2e experience, I had players who had
> > to ask "is this roll high or low..."
>
> To which I always replied..."Just roll." ;-) The beauty of 1e/2e was
> that when the DM said "Roll a d20", the player didn't know 100% if he
wanted
> high or low.
This is a beauty? I call it a pain.
This allowed the DM to "fudge" results to favour certain
> situations.
Ahh, I see. It let you cheat the players. I'm totally against that.
Unless you allow the players to cheat as well.
Now, let me just say that I'm not a very "fudge-able" DM...I
> pretty much let the dice stand everytime....but it is nice to know that I
> could use the system to favour one particular outcome or another and not
> raise the suspecion of the player(s).
Again, cheating the players. Totally against that.
> As a side note, I think the prefolation of bonuses and the "...no two
> bonuses of the same type can stack..." thing is going to make cheating for
> players rather easy. (too many bonuses/penalties...which can change quite
> offen).
>
Hah. Give me an example here. I think you're full of it.
>
> > > >Monsters with actual stats(which allow you to
> > > > figure out stat bonuses for possible characters).
> > >
> > > I can understand this...I think it's totally pointless, however.
> > For the
> > > most part I think monsters should be monsters.
> >
> > I completely and totally disagree. This was the greatest selling point
> > of 3e to me. The whole environment of the campaign became much richer
> > from this, allowing the DM to add lavish detail to all inhabitants of
> > the setting, not just those arbitrarily labeled "PC races." It also
> > makes for the tools to make some very interesting challenges. So whether
> > you are role-playing heavy or action heavy, this is nothing but a boon.
>
> Really? "The whole environment of the campaign became much richer from
> this, allowing the DM to add lavish detail to all inhabitants of the
> setting,...". I actually find this rather strange. Hmm. Guess it's just
one
> of those things we (me and my group(s)) always assumed (that a kobold
could
> be a 5th level fighter, or a hill giant could be a 7th level
cleric....never
> a common thing in our games, but it did pop up every now and then).
But before, with just the *Core Rules* (those being the DMG, MM and PHB),
you didn't know what a Kobold's Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha, or Con was(or what
bonuses they had to the base rolls). Now, you do. Take the Ray of
feebleness spell in 2e(or whatever it was called, the Str reduction spell).
In 2e, it had some nebulous effect on 'monsters'. In 3e, it has a defined
effect that effects all character *and* creatures equally(that being, it
lowers Str by 1d6). This is *infinitely* more useful than 2e/1e.
Hari the Monk
Allister Huggins
>
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:37:41 GMT, see_my_rep...@bellsouth.net
> (Cerberus AOD) wrote:
>
> >On 28 Jan 2001 15:07:17 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was quite
> >moldy, Agamemnon, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
> >:)>
> >:)> Somehow, I for one am sure that the specialty priests will make a comeback
> >:)>in some sourcebook or another. A company like WOTC likes to milk the
> >:)>fanbase for all it's worth. I play MtG, I should know. :-)
> >
> >Heh. They will, they will. The 2E core books DID NOT HAVE SPECIALTY PRIESTS, in
> >case people don't realize it.
>
> specific mythos." That's where the concept was made official, and
> rules were included for constructing other specialty priests.
That's not true. The 2E book gave an example of a priest designed for a
specific mythos but there was nothing concrete behind the creation until
the "Complete Priest's Handbook". However, that book is widely regarded
as the weakest of the complete handbooks and didn't cause this
fascination with specialty priests.
If Living City is anything to go by, the REAL reason why many people
think highly of specialty priests is because of one book. Faith &
Avatars. No other book in 2E has caused such a drastic change in how
people view a AD&D 2E concept. Frankly, it is perhaps the best book EVER
produced for 2E.
Allister H.
Hari the Monk
"john v verkuilen" <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:C71d6.331$L8....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> "Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> writes:
>
> >> 5) The Rogue: Why does every Rogue know how to sneak attack? There are
> >> rogues in fantasy novels that do not know how to sneak attack. I would
> >have
> >> preferred Rogue's getting their own lists of class feats.
>
> >Just my $.02 here, but a 'rogue' who doesn't know how to sneak attack
would
> >be an 'expert' from the DMG's NPC classes. Similar skill points(6/level,
> >but get to pick any 10 as 'class skills'), similar saves and attack
> >progressions. None of the 'baggage' of the rogue class.
>
> Except that, pound for pound, the Expert is worse than the Rogue. Should
have
> made things a bit more modular and you wouldn't even need those goddamn
<spits>
> NPC classes.
BAH. (stolen from MSB).
You asked for a stripped down rogue, and I provided one. And what does the
expert lose? Sneak attack, evasion, and all the things that some folks have
problems believing that *all* rogues know universally. If you want a
'rogue' who doesn't know how to do any of that stuff, you take the Expert.
Easy enough. And, they make pretty good Trackers to tack onto a Fighter
class. But that's just my opinion.
Hari the Monk
Michael Scott Brown
news:3A74F5C8...@home.com...
> > >Heh. They will, they will. The 2E core books DID NOT HAVE SPECIALTY
PRIESTS, in
> > >case people don't realize it.
> >
> > Per the PHB2: "The druid is an example of a priest designed for
a
> > specific mythos." That's where the concept was made official, and
> > rules were included for constructing other specialty priests.
>
> That's not true.
*BAH*.
Someone needs to RTFM.
> The 2E book gave an example of a priest designed for a
> specific mythos but there was nothing concrete behind the creation until
> the "Complete Priest's Handbook".
Ahem. There were special power and weapon selection suggestions.
> If Living City is anything to go by, the REAL reason why many people
> think highly of specialty priests is because of one book. Faith &
> Avatars. No other book in 2E has caused such a drastic change in how
> people view a AD&D 2E concept. Frankly, it is perhaps the best book EVER
> produced for 2E.
PO might trump it IMO, but F&A was damnned good; huge amount of
information for the price, lots of neat ideas - even if you didn't use FR
you could pore through it and steal ideas for priests. Only problem - *no*
sense of balance (as usual).
-Michael
Chad Lubrecht
<mi...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
><madd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9524s2$dga$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> My house rule for blocks is this. Subtract ten from the calculated
>> thac0 of the attacker. Roll an attack roll against that as an armor
>> class. If you hit, you block thier weapon. I liked it because its
>> quick, simple, and accurately reflects what you are trying to do.
>
> No accounting for the effectiveness of their particular attack? One
>might argue that it's a lot harder to block a strike that's going to be a
>critical hit than one that is just barely getting through your armor, and
>that if you're going to take the trouble to be rolling at all, you may as
>well account for current conditions. Plus, going this route allows you to
>figure out their Thaco, since you'll know how well they attack once you
>block one of your own . . this may not be desireable.
A suggestion might be, roll an attack roll BAB + Str,
if that beats your opponents attack roll you've got a block.
So your attack roll replaces your AC if its higher. This is the
same way as the Mounted Combat lets you block for your mount.
madd...@my-deja.com
> No accounting for the effectiveness of their particular attack?
One
> might argue that it's a lot harder to block a strike that's going to
be a
> critical hit than one that is just barely getting through your armor,
and
> that if you're going to take the trouble to be rolling at all, you may
as
> well account for current conditions. Plus, going this route allows
you to
> figure out their Thaco, since you'll know how well they attack once
you
> block one of your own . . this may not be desireable.
>
I've considered taking critical hits into account, but don't want to
encumber the rule. Maybe -4 to the roll if its a critical hit? Then
that leads to what if you roll a critical on the block attempt? Maybe
the block gets upgraded to a disarm?
The combination of this rule with the PO combat rules had finally given
my players a choice between shield an two-weapon style. After the
FIghter's handbook came out (along with novels about a certain drow elf)
EVERY fighter and rouge took two weapon style as a matter of course.
Using a shield was ludicras. Giving up an attack per round just to drop
you AC by one point? With weapon and shield style and shield
proficiency, a medium shield drops AC by three points and you can block
with it without losing the bonus (with a +2 to the roll)
Its true that you learn the creature's thac0, but I hardly consider that
a big problem. Generally, it works out that if a creature has a
reasonable chance to hit the pcs, they won't be able to block him
easily. It also rewards smart fighters who balance offense and defense,
rather than just see how much damage they can accumulate in a round.
My monsters use blocks all the time too, if they are intelligent or
natually aggresive.
hehe - the look on their faces when that red dragon blocked the 20
rolled with a frostbrand >:)
madd...@my-deja.com
Disagree. Not because F&A isn't a great book, it is. But IMHO, the
best 2e book out there is The Complete Book of Villians. Its mostly
generic information, so if you don't have it nearly all the info would
be useful to 3e players (or any other rpg, just about). Good info on
creating villians that will have the players jumping out of thier seats
when they 'finally killed that bastard!'
Foxarchipelago
>> > > stat requirements.
>
>> Again, I disagree. Just because a low strength makes you a crappy
>> fighter doesn't mean that crappy fighters shouldn't exist. Further,
>> things like weapon finesse make it perfectly possible that someone with
>> a low strength might be a very
>good fighter indeed. It's hard to offhand
>> dismiss something that broadens the spectrum of character types available.
> Fighters are your best example; but what about a wizard with a 5
>intelligence? IMHO, they shouldn't even have the brain power to grasp
>even the most basic of magical concepts. They would have trouble with basic
>math...8+(2x5)/3. There is a reason why there arn't Doctors of Medicine with
>IQ's of 70.
I thought that was why you needed an Intelligence of 10 + the spell level to be
able to cast it.
Denakhan opens his mouth and inserts his foot once again.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Michael Scott Brown" <mi...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:9521di$ccm$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> "Cerberus AOD" <see_my_rep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > :)>> AoOs.
> >
> > You have to admit the PHB didn't explain it the best. The d20 document
was
> what
> > finally got me figuring out AoOs.
>
> The PhB explained them just fine. Drop your guard, get thwacked.
> Instances where we consider people to be dropping their guard are: moving
> past someone non-carefully, trying to use a bow in melee, trying to cast
> spells, rummaging through packs in melee, etc. - it's *completely* common
> sense derivation from the principle.
>
> > :)>> Somewhat agree. It does have a nice initial taste...but the
> aftertaste
> > :)>> is a tad bitter. I think it weakened multi-classers just a bit
much.
> > :)>
> > :)> Bah.
> >
> > You could have at least shown how all but cleric/wizards are better in
> 3e...
>
> The arch-mage thinks that munchkin megapower is desireable; given that
> he likes the old mutliclassing rules, therefore, his concept of "too much
> weakening" is what the rest of us consider *fairness*.
Just like to point out that I didn't say that I think "munchkin
megapower" is desierable (that sounds like a Pokemon yell, doesn't it? ;-)
As a matter of fact, my games tend to be really low-power....REALLY low.
Probably my favorite home-brew world was "Eisla"; 0-level was common; the
captain of one of the largest cities was 5th level; the best-known hero in
the land was a knight [cavalier] of 7th level; the highest level mage in the
country was only 8th; magic-items were virtually non-existant, and when they
did show up they had names, histories, advantages/drawbacks, etc. that
'normal AD&D' itmes simply don't have; stats were rolled on 3d6;
etc..etc..etc... Hardly "munchkin megapower".
I have played in another world where power levels were quite the
opposite; using the Skills/Powers/Magic/Spells/Combat/Tactics books. The
world I use those rules for is Kingdoms of Kalamar (great world; I'm quite
sad to see it being sucked in to the black-hole that is 3e...oh well, at
least others will get a chance to explore it; even if it is with 3e rules).
In that world magic is fairly common place, and leveled NPC's aren't very
rare at all (sergents of the guard 3-5th, captain 5-7th; thieves guild
master, 14th, etc). But, overall, I think I like low-power more.
IME, multi-classed characters have always been about the same power
level as their single-classed buddies. *shrug* If you percieve 3e as
"fixing" this, all the more power to you.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Part Time Knight
"Al (Just Al)" <jus...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3a7380a...@news.ne.mediaone.net...
> Ok, we just started a campaign (characters are 2nd/3rd level) playing
> second edition. I have a ton of money invested in 2nd edition stuff
> but third edition looks kinda cool and maybe when this campaign ends I
> might want to run third edition especially since the new suppliments
> and modules are all being published for third edition and with a full
> time job and an impending marrige I can use all the outside help I can
> get instead of doing everything myself.
>
> Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
> minor complaints.
>
> or.....
>
> Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
> it.
>
>
> Thanks....
Ok I am not going to repeat all the arguments that rage back and forth about
1e,2e,3e etcetc. There will always be arguments about which is the better
system just like there have been arguments between the 2e and 1e players
since 2e came about.
What I will say is that 3e has brought new players to the game. It has also
brought back old players who gave away the game for various reasons. Now
this has to be good for the industry and gamers as a whole.
Now these new (and some old) players want to play the game they have seen in
shops and advertised. They want to play the game that is supported by WOTC.
They didn't come along to play a game they can't buy new or doesn't have new
supplements etc produced by WOTC.
Now we can argue for ages about the rights and wrongs done by
TSR/WOTC/Hasbro. At the end of the day we will all still play our games our
way and our argueing about the manufacturer wont do a damn thing.
So having said all that I believe if you have a group of 1e or 2e gamers and
they are happy then don't change. The down side here is you will lose some
of the oportunity to get new gamers into your group. Thats only a down side
though if your group is shrinking so it may not be a problem.
If you have a new group or a group that wants to swap then by all means swap
to 3e. The good thing is all those new players (and old ones returning)
will want to join you if you have a good game.
At the end of the day there is no bad system here. Just different systems.
For me it is simply a matter of there being only one system supported by new
material with which to suplement my campaign. So for me I use 3E.
Cheers PTK
Kevin Lowe
the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
> "Alan Kohler" <hawkw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:951du7$r35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <euOc6.22202$_8.63...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> > "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Hiya.
> > >
> > > "Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > > news:t7721sa...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > (Hari, you make this soooo easy for me...;-)
> > >
> > > > Classes are fairly well balanced.
> > >
> > > Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
> >
> > No, they weren't. In 2e, there was almost no reason to play a fighter
> > if you could play a paladin or ranger, or were multiclass (or played PO).
> > There was almost no reason to play a thief unless you were multiclass.
>
> Ok, my bad. I should have been a bit more specific...
> "Yes. Then again, so is 1e. 2e also looks fairly balanced, Core-Rules
> wise."
Gack! Choke! You're saying that the 1e fighter (Core Rules) was a
viable choice compared to the 1e ranger or paladin? That's nutty. He
got no special powers. He was just a vanilla biffer who levelled very
slightly earlier than the better fighting classes.
The 1e thief was a pretty rotten class, too, but that's just MHO.
2e was much closer to being balanced, in that the ranger and paladin
were weak sisters to the fighter in combat but Real Roleplayers played
them anyway because they thought they were cool. 2e also made thieves a
bit less dodgy by letting them stack their skill points where they
wanted to.
3e looks pretty balanced. Currently the Cleric is the newsgroup's
whipping boy ("Clerics are way overpowered!"), but someone has to be.
It was the monk that everyone said was too powerful first, then it was
the fighter, and then the rogue. As soon as sorcerors or wizards get a
turn, we'll have covered the whole set and we can start over.
Kevin Lowe,
Brisbane, Australia.
Allister Huggins
>
> "Allister Huggins" <alhu...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A74F5C8...@home.com...
> > > >Heh. They will, they will. The 2E core books DID NOT HAVE SPECIALTY
> PRIESTS, in
> > > >case people don't realize it.
> > >
> > > Per the PHB2: "The druid is an example of a priest designed for
> a
> > > specific mythos." That's where the concept was made official, and
> > > rules were included for constructing other specialty priests.
> >
> > That's not true.
>
> *BAH*.
>
> Someone needs to RTFM.
Could you build the druid using the construction guidelines outlined in
the PHB2?
> > The 2E book gave an example of a priest designed for a
> > specific mythos but there was nothing concrete behind the creation until
> > the "Complete Priest's Handbook".
>
> Ahem. There were special power and weapon selection suggestions.
Note the term "concrete". IMHO, the rules presented in the PHB2 were
basically crap. Using the rules presented in the 2E PHB, did anyone
ever bother to actually construct a specialty priest?
> > If Living City is anything to go by, the REAL reason why many people
> > think highly of specialty priests is because of one book. Faith &
> > Avatars. No other book in 2E has caused such a drastic change in how
> > people view a AD&D 2E concept. Frankly, it is perhaps the best book EVER
> > produced for 2E.
>
> PO might trump it IMO, but F&A was damnned good; huge amount of
> information for the price, lots of neat ideas - even if you didn't use FR
> you could pore through it and steal ideas for priests. Only problem - *no*
> sense of balance (as usual).
Exactly like PO:S&P. One advantage of observing Living City is that you
get to see what elements of 2E were flawed. When the majority of PCs are
Mystra's SP, then you got to realize something is not quite right.
Allister H.
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:17:53 -0800, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Michael Scott Brown, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
his antennae:
:)>"Cerberus AOD" <see_my_rep...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
:)>> :)> True; the feat rules go a long way towards applying some structure
:)>to
:)>> :)>character customizaiton without unbalancing much-fest kit silliness.
:)>The
:)>> :)>"kit" idea could be retained for 3E in the sense that one might take
:)>the
:)>> :)>time to suggest typical feat and skill combinations that would
:)>*reflect* a
:)>> :)>certain theme of character - I'm surprised that this wasn't actually
:)>done
:)>> :)>somewhere in the Core books, actualy.
:)>>
:)>> I could have sworn it was suggested in the DMG...
:)>
:)> I'm sure it was suggested somewhere; but I don't recall actual lists in
:)>this regard.
:)>
:)>-Michael
:)>
Oh no, of course not. The DM is the final arbiter. Mainly, the classes _as-is_
are considered balanced. change the feats around, _especially_ with 3rd-party
feats (netbook of feats anyone?), it could be as bad as some kits turned out to
be in 2e. To keep off of that, the best way is to suggest it rather than put it
in the PHB. I am personally hoping to see a good class variant (kit) design
system for 3e at some point. The main this is feats and skills would have to
have a way of being individually weighted for such a thing.
------------------
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
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:34:10 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, john v verkuilen, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>"Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> writes:
:)>
:)>>> 5) The Rogue: Why does every Rogue know how to sneak attack? There are
:)>>> rogues in fantasy novels that do not know how to sneak attack. I would
:)>>have
:)>>> preferred Rogue's getting their own lists of class feats.
:)>
:)>>Just my $.02 here, but a 'rogue' who doesn't know how to sneak attack would
:)>>be an 'expert' from the DMG's NPC classes. Similar skill points(6/level,
:)>>but get to pick any 10 as 'class skills'), similar saves and attack
:)>>progressions. None of the 'baggage' of the rogue class.
:)>
:)>Except that, pound for pound, the Expert is worse than the Rogue. Should have
:)>made things a bit more modular and you wouldn't even need those goddamn <spits>
:)>NPC classes.
Yes. I think what I will allow are experts that can get one benefit of another
class (favored enemies, sneak attacks, etc.). Other than that the only thing the
expert has going for him is he can have as class skills the few cross-class
rogue skills there are. The NPC classes ruined Level X = Level X balance thing.
Beef them up to the PC class power, and it gets fixed (Warriors with 1d10 HD,
extra feat, and better skills, FI). It is a VERY good thing they were not in the
PHB.
:)>Jay
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:48:44 -0500, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Hari the Monk, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>
:)>"john v verkuilen" <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
:)>news:C71d6.331$L8....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
:)>> "Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> writes:
:)>>
:)>> >> 5) The Rogue: Why does every Rogue know how to sneak attack? There are
:)>> >> rogues in fantasy novels that do not know how to sneak attack. I would
:)>> >have
:)>> >> preferred Rogue's getting their own lists of class feats.
:)>>
:)>> >Just my $.02 here, but a 'rogue' who doesn't know how to sneak attack
:)>would
:)>> >be an 'expert' from the DMG's NPC classes. Similar skill points(6/level,
:)>> >but get to pick any 10 as 'class skills'), similar saves and attack
:)>> >progressions. None of the 'baggage' of the rogue class.
:)>>
:)>> Except that, pound for pound, the Expert is worse than the Rogue. Should
:)>have
:)>> made things a bit more modular and you wouldn't even need those goddamn
:)><spits>
:)>> NPC classes.
:)>
:)>BAH. (stolen from MSB).
:)>
:)>You asked for a stripped down rogue, and I provided one. And what does the
:)>expert lose? Sneak attack, evasion, and all the things that some folks have
:)>problems believing that *all* rogues know universally. If you want a
:)>'rogue' who doesn't know how to do any of that stuff, you take the Expert.
:)>Easy enough. And, they make pretty good Trackers to tack onto a Fighter
:)>class. But that's just my opinion.
They are good, but not as good as any PC class.
:)>Hari the Monk
:)>
:)>
:)>
:)>>
:)>> Jay
:)>> --
:)>> J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
:)>> "It will kill you faster than a bullet." --Claude LaMont
:)>
no name
>
> Ok, we just started a campaign (characters are 2nd/3rd level) playing
> second edition. I have a ton of money invested in 2nd edition stuff
> but third edition looks kinda cool and maybe when this campaign ends I
> might want to run third edition especially since the new suppliments
> and modules are all being published for third edition and with a full
> time job and an impending marrige I can use all the outside help I can
> get instead of doing everything myself.
>
> Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
> minor complaints.
>
> or.....
>
> Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
> it.
>
> Thanks....
I like what I see so far, although I have played it very little. I
never played 2nd
edition (2E was a kinder, gentler, politically correct ADD to appease
MADD and SADD;
when the edge was gone, so was our interest),so I can't compare it to
2E.
It compares favorably to 1E IMO. Characters are more flexible, the
system is a
combination of a class and a skill-based system. The percentage crap on
the stats is
gone. The classes appear to be better balanced. The edition of levels
for the mobs
is long overdue.
Right now the two complaints I have are:
1. The economy, still fucked, but not as bad as in 1E. 40 lbs of steel
armor doesn't
cost 40lbs of gold like 1E, but 2000gp still hires 200 labors for 100
days.
2. The layout of the information in the books and the text printing.
The illustrations
are good, an order of magnitude better than the 1E illustrations, but
the layout of the
text and it's printing is amateurish. For example, The lines under the
text?? What the
hell is that? Printing text on a non-uniform background makes it harder
to read. Yet, TSR
and now WOC, just keep on doing it.
Another example, the most important information about each class can
usually be written
in half a page. Instead of grouping the really critical info(like BAB,
saves, skill points
per level, HD, no. of spells per level) into one area under each class
descriptioin, it is
spread out all through the ancillary text.
Cerberus AOD
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:21:00 +0800, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Kevin Lowe, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>In article <pF1d6.27281$_8.80...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, "Denakhan
:)>the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
:)>
:)>> "Alan Kohler" <hawkw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
:)>> news:951du7$r35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
:)>> > In article <euOc6.22202$_8.63...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
:)>> > "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
:)>> > > Hiya.
:)>> > >
:)>> > > "Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote in message
:)>> > > news:t7721sa...@corp.supernews.com...
:)>> > >
:)>> > > (Hari, you make this soooo easy for me...;-)
:)>> > >
:)>> > > > Classes are fairly well balanced.
:)>> > >
:)>> > > Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
:)>> >
:)>> > No, they weren't. In 2e, there was almost no reason to play a fighter
:)>> > if you could play a paladin or ranger, or were multiclass (or played PO).
:)>> > There was almost no reason to play a thief unless you were multiclass.
:)>>
:)>> Ok, my bad. I should have been a bit more specific...
:)>> "Yes. Then again, so is 1e. 2e also looks fairly balanced, Core-Rules
:)>> wise."
:)>
:)>Gack! Choke! You're saying that the 1e fighter (Core Rules) was a
:)>viable choice compared to the 1e ranger or paladin? That's nutty. He
:)>got no special powers. He was just a vanilla biffer who levelled very
:)>slightly earlier than the better fighting classes.
:)>
:)>The 1e thief was a pretty rotten class, too, but that's just MHO.
:)>
:)>2e was much closer to being balanced, in that the ranger and paladin
:)>were weak sisters to the fighter in combat but Real Roleplayers played
:)>them anyway because they thought they were cool. 2e also made thieves a
:)>bit less dodgy by letting them stack their skill points where they
:)>wanted to.
:)>
:)>3e looks pretty balanced. Currently the Cleric is the newsgroup's
:)>whipping boy ("Clerics are way overpowered!"), but someone has to be.
:)>It was the monk that everyone said was too powerful first, then it was
:)>the fighter, and then the rogue. As soon as sorcerors or wizards get a
:)>turn, we'll have covered the whole set and we can start over.
Yeah, except the cleric actually is. :)
Really, if he is used for a healing battery or does mostly inflict wounds, he
needs what he has. If he takes spells that are generally useful, he gets the
slots around a sorcerer, a better HD, and better skills. it is the class here
not being the stereoypical one actually gives more power. :)
:)>Kevin Lowe,
:)>Brisbane, Australia.
Bradd W. Szonye
>The game also has never had *any* rule for full-defense fighting styles
>- so the inclusion of one at all is only an improvement.
AD&D2e had one, but it was *really* sucky. I think you could get a bonus
to your AC equal to half your level rounded down, plus one if you're a
fighter (or subclass). It just wasn't worth it until high levels.
(Admittedly, it does give you a bigger bonus than D&D does at high
levels.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
Alan Kohler
"Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote:
>
> "Alan Kohler" <hawkw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > In article <euOc6.22202$_8.63...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> > > > Classes are fairly well balanced.
> > >
> > > Yes. Then again, so is 1e/2e.
> >
> > No, they weren't. In 2e, there was almost no reason to play a
fighter if
> > you could play a paladin or ranger, or were multiclass (or played
PO).
> > There was almost no reason to play a thief unless you were
multiclass.
>
> Ok, my bad. I should have been a bit more specific...
> "Yes. Then again, so is 1e. 2e also looks fairly balanced,
Core-Rules
> wise."
Not only are you wrong, you have apparently misread my statement.
It is after PO that playing fighters became viable, since they could
have considerable abilities that rangers and paladins could not fully
access. In core rules, fighters are rather tepid compared to rangers and
paladins.
> > > >Removal of race/class restrictions.
> > >
> > > <Mr.Horse>
> > > Hmmmm.... No sir. I dont' like it.
> > > </Mr.Horse>
> > >
> >
> > I think its pretty hard to object to this sort of thing. Its merely
a
> > change in the baseline. If an individual campaign desires such
limits,
> > it is easy to do so.
>
> The key thing is "...individual campaign...limits.". I would have
liked
> to see level limits addressed as something that should be expected,
Er, were we talking about level limits at all here? I thought this point
was just race/class combinations.
but not
> guaranteed. Something like "Levels in the core ruels are 'unlimited'.
> However, individual DM's may choose to tailor race/class combinations
and
> level limits to suit the flavour of his campaign. Players should check
with
> their DM for specifics in this regard". That's all it would take.
Hmph? To what purpose? To prime the players on what they should already
know, that the DM can impose his own limits on the game?
> As
it is,
> new (and old) players are going to expect unlimited class/race
combinations
> with unlimited advancement...and when a DM says "No, halflings are
limited
> to 8th level as warriors", the perception will be that the DM is 'just
being
> an asshole'.
That's definitely a possibility, I must admit. But then, I hardly think
that is a problem unique to this particular ruling. I made a ruling IMC
(since softened a little) that all sorcerers must select a spirit patron
per the variant rule on learning spells in the DMG. It didn't matter
that the impetus was in the DMG, one player was very disgruntled
(happily, 3 sorcerers played since then liked the concept.)
However, I really can see why a player sees imposition of level limits
as a problem: it is so arbitrary.
>
> > > >Removal of hard
> > > > stat requirements.
>
> > Again, I disagree. Just because a low strength makes you a crappy
> > fighter doesn't mean that crappy fighters shouldn't exist. Further,
> > things like weapon finesse make it perfectly possible that someone
with
> > a low strength might be a very good fighter indeed. It's hard to
offhand
> > dismiss something that broadens the spectrum of character types
> > available.
>
> Fighters are your best example; but what about a wizard with a 5
> intelligence?
Such a character cannot cast spells. I think the limit is virtually
there in that case.
> > > >Removal of racial level limits.
> > >
> > > Another mistake...
> >
> > Again, totally cannot agree. Level limits were pretty difficult to
> > justify.
>
> I've never had a problem "justifying" them. It isnt' any harder
to
> justify level limits as it is to justify why a wizard can't cast
spells
> while wearing full plate.
To a certain extent, I agree. I always assumed that it was just the
nature of the magic. (As I said, I never liked the "physical"
explaination for casting limitations in 3e.)
However, saying (for example) a dwarf could not be as good a warrior as
a human, or an elf as good a wizard, was nigh ludicrous. It was a meagar
balancing mechanic with little justification in game terms (though I
came up with some of my own, it never really struck me right). Towards
the end of my 2e days, I went to an XP penalty mechanic and the whole
thing seemed much more justifiable.
There is no good reason for level limits.
> > > > Unified skill system(d20).
> > >
> > > I'm still a bit undecided, but leaning towards the "boring
game
> > > mechanics" side of it.
> >
> > Sheesh... how anyone cannot see this as an absolute positive, I
don't
> > know. Even in the waning days of my 2e experience, I had players who
had
> > to ask "is this roll high or low..."
>
> To which I always replied..."Just roll." ;-) The beauty of 1e/2e
was
> that when the DM said "Roll a d20", the player didn't know 100% if he
wanted
> high or low.
a - that's not the point. The point is player confusion. One rule makes
everything self consistent, and means that the same menagareie of
inconsistant methods don't have to be learned/remembered.
b - The "it lets me hide the results" dodge sounds similar to the one so
frequently used by GMs of games with difficult to ajudicate dice pool
system. And its just as weak. If you want to hide the result, hide the
result. No reason to tolerate a menagarie of dice methods to accomodate
that.
c - as for "allowing you to fudge" -- I'll put aside for the moment that
I totally loathe the concept of "fudging" and reserve it for only the
most extreme of circtumstances. If you are going to cheat the players,
there is certainly no reason to resort to a dodgy illogical set of
unrelated dice mechanics to do it. You can alter difficulties on the fly
or simply rule on whim. Which you might as well do, since that is what
you are doing anyways.
That's the point. You certainly could do it, if you had the out of print
book or did your own footwork. But you did it so rarely either because
it wasn't convenient to do so or you were locked into the "not a PC
race" mentality.
And that it was so rare speaks to another failing of the 2e approach to
monsters: once you are past the level of X creatures, they could no
longer present a sufficient challenge, which ruled out certain foes as
credible challenge to PCs. But now if you want to make the PCs have to
grapple with goblins, gnolls, or what have you, you can do it at almost
any level you feel is appropriate.
In 3e, in my own adventures and the ones I have seen written by others,
the overall utility of this tool in adding fresh angles to the
campaign is fantastic. And it stands to make the game less
humanocentric, less stuck on the "humans good, monsters dumb grunts" rut
that characterizes 1e/2e.
--
Alan D. Kohler - http://members.tripod.com/~hawk_wind/homepage.html
"Look into my face and you will know I am a man possessed by DEMONS!
Polite demons... demons that would open a door for a lady carrying too
many parcels... but demons nonetheless!" - from KITH
Alan Kohler
> > Yeah...
> > I just scare my players by doing neither. I try to balance the
encounter,
> and
> > from there it is me trying to kill them. The dice and decisions made
will
> decide
> > what happens.
In article <t78npqe...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Hari the Monk" <bb...@charter.net> wrote:
> This is what I prefer. This way, you know that, if your character
survives,
> it's due to how you played your character, and not the DM being nice
to you.
> As for the 'too random' aspect some folks abhor, I realize that
sometimes,
> some things just happen. Some times, the Dragon just eats the party.
> *shrug*.
>
Yep. Best way IMO. A game is not a story. I find players get jaded if
there is no bona fide risk in the game and you always bail them out, or
OTOH, if you decide that X player must die. The dynamic element of the
game can be bolstered by the fine art of being able to manage a dynamic
campaign.
I find the idea of fudging silly. Why roll a dice if you have already
made up your mind that you are not going abide by the result. Yes, it is
important to make sure the dice don't take too much control and wreck
the game. But usually, you can help nudge the results by assistance and
availability of healing or other sorts of capabilities. If you never
allow there to be a time when the players are genuinely at risk, then
what's the point of using dice at all?
Michael Scott Brown
> IME, multi-classed characters have always been about the same power
> level as their single-classed buddies.
This perception requires a crack habit.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:slrn97a15j...@ogre.localdomain...
> Michael Scott Brown <mi...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >The game also has never had *any* rule for full-defense fighting styles
> >- so the inclusion of one at all is only an improvement.
>
> AD&D2e had one, but it was *really* sucky. I think you could get a bonus
> to your AC equal to half your level rounded down, plus one if you're a
> fighter (or subclass). It just wasn't worth it until high levels.
> (Admittedly, it does give you a bigger bonus than D&D does at high
> levels.)
<Thwacks forehead>
Can't believe I forgot that.
Would someone please cast a Power Word Bah at that post?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> I've considered taking critical hits into account, but don't want to
> encumber the rule. Maybe -4 to the roll if its a critical hit? Then
> that leads to what if you roll a critical on the block attempt? Maybe
> the block gets upgraded to a disarm?
Notice how much *easier* it is to simply make it a game of "beat the
attack roll", rather than figuring some general AC for every single one of a
person's attacks and applying special cases for certain attack conditions .
. .
-Michael
Alan Kohler
Jimmy Kerl <j...@icok.net> wrote:
> Al (Just Al) wrote:
>
> > Why do you like 3rd edition? If you like 3rd edition, what are your
> > minor complaints.
> > or.....
> > Why don't you like 3rd edition. Is there anything you do like about
> > it.
>
> pro-3e-brain-dead-it-must-be-good-its-the-newest-thing-from-tsr
> outnumber us by far to high a ratio lately. I should say that
> there's many reasonable supporters of 3e though too.
>
Let me say (again) I was personally reluctant at first. But after I ran
it for a while, I was hooked. I would suggest that you try it for long
enough to actually overcome a little of the learning curve. THEN decide
what is better to you.
And let's be perfectly fair and point out that the irrational 1e/2e
diehards like djraiden far outweigh the rational ones like Barry. Let's
not use ad hominem to make your decisions. Listen to what is being said
and try it for yourself.
> ok here goes for me: i play basic d&d plus quite a few house
> rules/mods so all comparisions are to that system
>
> don't like:
>
> d20 system; i LIKE rolling all the different sized dice!
> they have such neat shapes. :)
You still roll them for damage, HP rolls, tables, and other random
determinations. Just go/no go contests use them. So who cares if you
don't roll d6 to find secret doors anymore? Sheesh.
>
> classes/races and multiclassing too open
>
As a default. It is trivial to draw your own boundaries. Far better to
build the system with all the possibilities build in, and make your own
limitations from there, than to have to break new ground that the rules
didn't cover.
> clerics WAY WAY overpowered and out of balance with other classes.
>
I fail to see how. My personal problem with clerics is the level of
customization compared to PO, though borrowing & making new domains has
helped.
> rangers: WHAT happened? where's the class? or is this just
> another fighter with an excuse to throw around an extra weapon?
>
?
I see the ranger as having taken on its own life as a wilderness master
than being a souped up fighter.
> AoO: my God! i still havent taken the time to understand these rules
>
Will leave that one sit. Let's just say, I, like others, don't think its
all that complicated.
> feats & skills: completly inferior to the nice variety of skills
found
> in the RC which i use (might be comparable to 1e or 2e but doesnt hold
a
> candle aginst the bd&d skills.)
>
(shrug) Maybe. It appears that the skills in 3e are intended to be
broader, which is nice because it contributes to non-proliferation of
skills and new stuff comes out -- and it lets the DM grapple with more
different situations. Other than that, it's just a taste thing.
> prestige classes: (the ones presented not the idea) ok theres a LOT of
> classes in the 3e PHB, along with allowing any multi-class combo,
there's
> just no need for this many different classes.
To a certain extent I agree. However, I consider prestige classes
extension of a basic concept, not JUST the concept. A low level assassin
can be someone with so fighter and rogue levels. And since the class
system is flexible, this sort of thing can happen a lot.
>
> do like:
>
> multiclassing rules: 3e is the only edition that does this right;
other
> editions are uncomparable.
>
Hmph. I think they went a little overboaed, espeically where
spellcasters were concerned. It just doesn't pay to distract yourself
with other classes if you are professing to be a spellcaster.
> sorcerers: i'd really like these but there underpowered. they need a
d6 hp;
> and either more spells/day 1-2 more each spell level AND/or more spell
selection
Disagree. I fail to see how being able to pump out at least 3 spells of
every level they can cast per day is underpowered.
>
> arcane spell failure: another very good 3e idea.
>
(shrug) I don't especially like that they linked arcane failure to
physical mobility. Would have rather they made it an effect of the
magic.
No. It won't touch the thoroughly reprehensible and off topic "who are
the gamers voting for" thread.
Chuck Capko
It's different than your house rule, but the DMG has a variant rule
that makes AC based on a random d20 roll, rather than the base 10.
And if that does not suit you make a few additions to this rule such
as you might say that if you give up your attack you get part of your
base attack bonus added to the AC beacuse of your active attempt to
block your attackers weapon.
Third edition is clean and streamlined, while still being open to a
great deal of customisation. It's not good enough to make everyone who
is happy with their existing 1st or 2nd edition game switch, but when
you current campaing ends give it a try, I don't think you'll be
dissapointed.
Asking whether D&D3e is good enough to switch from earlyer editions
for, is like asking if Warhammer FRP is good enough to leave your
current campaign of Role Master for. Others will dissagree, of course.
Later,
-Chuck.
--------------------------------------
Http://www.Geocities.com/Wormspeaker/
Tremble you weaklings, cower in fear.
I am you ruler land, sea, and air.
Immense in my girth, erect I stand tall.
I am a nuclear murderer, I am Polaris.
-Rust in Peace...Polaris, Megadeath