An Old Fart Looks at 3E
Ralph Glatt
what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
impressed, but I wasn't.
Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
newbies.
Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
multiclass.
Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
world. A definite improvement.
Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
(I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
Ralph Glatt
Member, Old Farts Club
Brad Murray
RG> Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
RG> it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
RG> (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
Reviewing a game by reading the manual is sort of like reviewing a
movie by looking at the trailer. Play it and get back to us.
--
Brad Murray * And yet [love is] a source of anguish, of misery, of
Perl Geek * torment, of unhappiness, of conflict, madness, murder,
VSCA Founder * war. Half of wisdom is learning to tiptoe in the
Magnet Oper * presence of eros. -- Joseph Tussman
Neil Cerutti
<ce9c44dd.02081...@posting.google.com>, Ralph Glatt
wrote:
> A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook
> to see what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my
> obswervations and opinions about it. You don't have to like it,
> of course, but any flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear.
> ;-)
I try to keep my flames higher. ;-)
> The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical
> tome, they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year
> olds may be impressed, but I wasn't.
>
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the
> glossy pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy
> from the chips and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in
> any notes. (Yes, I did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise,
> the artwork looks like they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to
> impress the young and the newbies.
Good. You have now firmly established your "oldfartness" by
bashing the presentation for being new and slick.
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though.
Yes, I oft pine for the old term "Magic User". But then, I also
wax nostalgic about the terms: "Sword User", "Lockpick User" and
"Holy Symbol User". Oh, wait...
> I like the way they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then
> again ANY changes over the 1E Bard would be an improvement!)
> Ooooh, looky!! A class based on Charisma!! If someone would
> care to enlighten me on how leadership ability relates to
> spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Charisma no longer stands for attractiveness and leadership
ability. It's more like mental Strength. You can think of the
abilities as three congruent stats of physical and mental
ability. It is easist to understand the mental stats in terms of
the physical stats:
PHYSICAL MENTAL
Strength ~= Charisma
Dexterity ~= Intelligence
Constitution ~= Wisdom
They also snuck some important Charisma based abilities into many
of the other core classes. For example, the number of times a
Cleric can Turn Undead in a day is now affected by Charisma.
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the
> reason for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why
> someone would want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make
> it hard to abuse it.
They work better than the original rules, but they've gone too
far in correcting the imbalance of multiclassed spell casters,
which are now a weak choice compared to other combos.
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it
> helps to better define the character, but I got along fine
> without it. I don't like the idea of weapons specialization,
> though. In 1E, a fighter could pick up ANY weapon and be able
> to use it. (You'd think a properly trained fighter would be
> able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a way, I can see it though,
> because certain regions would teach you only the popular
> weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be a
> munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
Weapon Specialisation is much weaker than it was under 1e. It's
now just +2 to damage. You now have to take another Feat, Weapon
Focus, to get the old +1 to hit, and there is now no way to get
multiple attacks at first level short of Two Weapon Fighting,
which has been nerfed/balanced with crummy old two-handed-weapon
fighting, but costs 2 Feats more than two-handed-weapon fighting.
> Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE
> they were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them.
> (If I wanted that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.)
> The one thing that irritates me most about skills is that, even
> with the restrictions, it still allows players to make up
> characters that can do things that belong to another class. If
> you're going to do that, may as well multiclass.
If you observe the exclusive and class skills rules, then there
is still a good deal of difference in skills between the core
classes. The class skills only have a major impact on
high-level characters, though.
> Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL
> ORDER?? And here I thought people didn't do things that made
> sense in the real world. A definite improvement.
Unfortunately, it falls short when you gain a spell level and
want to read all your new spells right away. Trade-offs.
> Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E
> sucks, but it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on
> anything I've said here. (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
>
> Ralph Glatt
>
> Member, Old Farts Club
Is an Old Farts Club a two-handed weapon? ;-)
--
Neil Cerutti
cer...@trans-video.net
Bokman7757
Ron? Is that you?
>Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
>they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
>newbies.
So you're saying they should have used bad art?
>Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
>Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
>ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Personality, not leadership. I think of Sorcerers as the "artistic"
spellcasters, they do it by intuition, as opposed to the "scientific" Wizards.
>Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
>for having a nonhuman character.
Unless it fits with your concept or is beneficial to a particular class.
>Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
>were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them.
Well, these work much better.
> The one thing that
>irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
>still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
>belong to another class.
But they can't do the main, crucial things. And having a little more
flexibility is good, no?
Justisaur
Ralph Glatt wrote:
>
> A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
> what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
> opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
> flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
>
Interesting to hear opinions from a 1E player instead of most being
2E...
> The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
> they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> impressed, but I wasn't.
I thought the cover was cool, not as cool as the original 1E PHB, but
cooler than any of the others. I'm 32.
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> newbies.
I find the glossy pages highly annoying in that respect too (not being
able to pencil in stuff well). They seem to be far more durable than
the non-glossy kind though, a trade off I can live with seeing how much
use they get. Artwork is o.k. It's better than 2E's stuff. Not at
newbie either, been playing since '79 IIRC.
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
> they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Wizard in name seems better than M-U to me. Bard was fixed just fine in
2e, it's fine in 3e, Barbarian should have been left out IMHO like it
was in 2e. Beats me what cha has to do with spellcasting for sorcerers,
I would have made it Con based, if I weren't already inclined to remove
them altogeather. For Bards it seems pretty obvious what Cha has to do
with it...
>
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
>
Hard to abuse = good thing. This is one area I think they majorly
improved. The non humans still have things like low light vision, and
different stats to attract the munchkins, though I think the extra feat
of humans is pretty tempting.
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
> like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
> properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
> way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
> the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
> a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
>
Feats are no biggie, It does make creating NPCs on the fly a bit harder,
but PCs seem to like them.
> Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
> irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> multiclass.
Again It's not that big a deal, just makes creating NPCs on the fly
harder. Those things in the purvew of one class, are heavily penalized
for another to take them, with some of them being restricted
altogeather. So you could have a 20th lv fighter that can hide as well
as a 10th lv Rogue, big whooptie. He still doesn't have the skill
points (unless he's got a really high int) to do all the other things
rogues can do without penalties...
> Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
> And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
> world. A definite improvement.
I found it a major pain at first, too much to sift through. Say you've
just gotten 2 new 3rd level spells to choose, well instead of looking in
the 3rd level spell section, you have to look in the section that tells
you what spells are 3rd level for your class, then go look up each
individually hopping back and forth over half the book. I've gotten
used to it, I still prefer the old way.
> Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
> it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
Right you are!
- Justisaur -
"When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often,
that individual is crazy." - Dave Barry
Evan
On 17 Aug 2002 12:33:02 -0700, juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt)
wrote:
>A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
>what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
>opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
>flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
>The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
>they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
>impressed, but I wasn't.
>Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
>pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
>and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
>did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
>they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
>newbies.
Or maybe they just wanted the pages to be durable and look nice? There
is nothing wrong with nice art, IMHO. It certainly looks better than
the old books i've looked through. So far I havent found anything
that desparately needed pencilling in the margins....
>Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
>they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
>the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
>Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
>ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Charisma is "Force of Will." though FWIW im not really sure what that
is. Something like how strong your personality is or similar.
>Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
>for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
>want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
>
>Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
>better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
>like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
>could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
>properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
>way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
>the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
>a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
>
>Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
>were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
>that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
>irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
>still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
>belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
>multiclass.
That's the whole idea behind skills, the majority of them are things
that a person of any training could figure out. only a few (IE Use
Magic Device) are class specific
Bradd W. Szonye
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
> they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
There was a long, nasty thread on this recently. My take: Charisma now
includes stuff like force of personality, creative inspiration, stuff
like that. The sorcerer relies on Charisma because his magic depends on
inspiration and sheer force of will rather than knowledge or faith. It's
not perfect, but it does make sense; you just need to realize that the
ability scores are redefined slightly from AD&D.
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character.
There are plenty of reasons to play a nonhuman character already. In
AD&D, it always seemed like PC humans were rare, even though they were
supposed to be the majority race. D&D3 makes a humanocentric campaign
much more reasonable.
> I can understand why someone would want to do it, though, and the
> rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
Yep. In some cases, they've gone too far in the other direction.
Multiclassed spellcasters suck. If you played your AD&D fighter/wizard
as a "fighter with some spells," that still works in D&D3. If you were a
"wizard who's good with a sword," you'll feel nerfed.
There are some prestige classes that address this. For example, the
arcane trickster is much closer to an AD&D magic-user/thief.
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
> like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it.
I thought they were limited to something like four weapons. Was that an
optional rule in AD&D1? Anyway, D&D3 fighters *can* pick up just about
any weapon and use it. The only exceptions are exotic weapons, which are
outside the scope of ordinary fighter training.
> (You'd think a properly trained fighter would be able to do that,
> wouldn't you?)
In D&D3, he can. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization just mean that
you're a specialist with a particular weapon; you're even better with it
than you are with anything else.
If a cleric wields an axe, he fights at -4 because he's non-proficient.
A fighter wields the axe at no penalty; he's trained in martial weapons.
With Weapon Focus, he wields it at +1.
With Weapon Specialization, he also does +2 damage.
A weapon-specialized fighter doesn't fight any worse than normal with
other weapons. It's just that he's *even better* with his chosen weapon.
I think you misunderstood this feat.
> Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them.
That's understandable; AD&D NWPs sucked.
> (If I wanted that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.)
D&D3 skills don't add much detail, really; they give you more options.
They work a lot like the AD&D thief and ranger abilities, but with
standardized mechanics and more ability to customize them.
For example, instead of a thief with fixed percentages in Find/Remove
traps, you get a rogue with ranks in Search and Disable Device. Instead
of a ranger's special rules for surprise, he gets Spot, Listen, Hide,
and Move Silently as class skills.
This has two advantages: You don't need to mess with table look-ups or
different rules for each ability, and the rogue can choose to be a great
scout instead of a great trapfinder or a great athlete.
> The one thing that irritates me most about skills is that, even with
> the restrictions, it still allows players to make up characters that
> can do things that belong to another class. If you're going to do
> that, may as well multiclass.
In practice, you can't compete with another character's class skills.
For example, fighters are really bad at scouting. If you dump a lot of
ranks into the cross-class Spot skill, you'll be able to see ordinary
bandit ambushes, but you won't spot anybody who's actually good at
hiding. That's not all bad, and some players want that kind of
second-tier ability, but the serious scouts will play rogues or rangers
(or multiclass, as you suggest).
Cross-class skills are a way to get a minor ability if you *really* want
it. They're not a way to compete with the pros.
> Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
> And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
> world. A definite improvement.
Heh. It does have a couple of minor disadvantages, but on the whole it's
a much better choice.
> Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
> it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
You might want to take a second look at some of the things above; it
sounds like you misread a couple of things in ways that make them seem
broken, when they really work the way you (claim to) want them. Other
than those, your only major complaint seems to be with the art and
typography, which really isn't central to playing the game.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Cris
There is NO substitute for playing.
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please." --Mark Twain
Douglas Berry
juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
>they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
>impressed, but I wasn't.
It's servicible. The name is nice and large and the art doesn't suck.
>Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
>pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
>and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
>did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
>they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
>newbies.
I am neither young nor a newbie. I enjoyed the art. I do miss the
cartoons they scattered in the old 1E books.
>Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
>they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
>the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
>Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
>ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
The Gaming Police will *not* break down your door if you call the
Magic-Users.
Force of personality. Traditional sorcerors trade with powers to cast
their spells. This is a shortcut way to represent that. Also it
gives the three big spellcasting classes different primary attributes.
>Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
>for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
>want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
Nonhumans get enough bonuses in other ways. Early level multiclassing
is fun. Most of the elves I've seen multi-class as Wizards or
Sorcerors early on.
>Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
>better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
>like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
>could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
>properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
>way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
>the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
>a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
We all got along fine without it. We also got along with record
players and eight-track tapes. Having something better does not
negate what we used to have.
Feats do not just define a character, it molds them in a very real
way. In the campaign I will be playing in soon, there are two
fighters. One is a former leader of troops, and has the feats to
support that. The other is an Elvish fighter/sorceror, who has taken
all the bow-realted feats he can (we're starting at 5th level. He's a
3/2 split between f/s.) Two characters of the same class, but with
vwery different and complementary abilities.
>Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
>were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
>that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
>irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
>still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
>belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
>multiclass.
The difference between skills and NWPs is that we have a good mechanic
for using them in 3E. It does add breadth to the characters. Your
wizard knows leatherworking because his father was a tanner, and he
helped out before his mentor located him.
>Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
>And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
>world. A definite improvement.
Absolutely.
>Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
>it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
>(I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
Now game can please everyone. I do encourage you to give the new
mechanics a try. They world much better than 1st or 2nd editions.
>Ralph Glatt
>
>Member, Old Farts Club
Where do I get my membership card?
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Stephenls
> Where do I get my membership card?
I don't think you're actually /allowed/ to be a member of the Old Farts
Club if you play 3e.
--
Stephenls
Geek
So you've got a gang of armed thugs that you can influence. Big deal.
Who doesn't have armed thugs? -Graham Brown
NtlAcrobat
>multiple attacks at first level short of Two Weapon Fighting,
>which has been nerfed/balanced with crummy old two-handed-weapon
>fighting, but costs 2 Feats more than two-handed-weapon fighting
That's why you have your characters take a level of ranger.
"I was foul and tainted, devoid of faith wearing my death mask at birth
the hands of god, decrepit and thin, cold caress and then nothing"
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
>they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
>the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
>Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
>ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
3e Charisma isn't just leadership ability. It's force of personality.
I'll leave it as a test for the student how that can effect magic.
>
>Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
>for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
>want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
If your only reason for playing a nonhuman was to multiclass, I'd say
that's a problem right there. Nonhumans have their own benefits.
>
>Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
>better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
I can get along fine with a rock too, but a hammer is nice.
>like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
>could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
Except for exotics, he can in 3e too; he's just _better_ with the
specialized ones. Helps to really read the rules if you're going to
criticize them, Ralph.
>properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
In reality? Hell no. In the case of the fantasy combat polymaths D&D
fighters are, it's acceptable, but I'll give you bets there were long
time real-world warriors who had never fought with an axe in their
life and would have been clumsy as hell with one, if they spent most
of their lives with swords and spears.
>way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
>the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
>a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
It's nowhere near the ubertrick it was in 2e.
>
>Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
>were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
>that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
>irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
>still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
>belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
>multiclass.
Oh, please. Monomaniac class border protection was one of the
silliest tropes D&D ever carried around. The idea that the only
people who can hide _at all_ are thieves was one of the things that
chased me away from the game for more than a decade.
>Ralph Glatt
>
>Member, Old Farts Club
And for what it's worth, I played my first game of OD&D in August of
1975, so while I'm not an Old Fart in the sense of having slogged
through all the years of AD&D1 and 2, I'm not someone who just jumped
on board for the first time.
Justin Bacon
>Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
>it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
>(I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
You sure your name isn't Ron?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Christopher Adams
>> care to enlighten me on how leadership ability relates to
>> spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
>
> There was a long, nasty thread on this recently. My take:
> Charisma now includes stuff like force of personality, creative
> inspiration, stuff like that. The sorcerer relies on Charisma
> because his magic depends on inspiration and sheer force of
> will rather than knowledge or faith. It's not perfect, but it does
> make sense; you just need to realize that the ability scores are
> redefined slightly from AD&D.
As was said in another post to this thread, Charisma is the equivalent
of "mental Strength", Intelligence is the equivalent of "mental
Dexterity", and Wisdom is the equivalent of "mental Constitution".
Thus, Charisma is force of personality, Intelligence is agility of
thought, and Wisdom is resilience of the mind.
A sorcerer, therefore, is able to cast spells because his force of
will is so strong, he can tap into inner reservoirs of power and
unleash them upon the world as magic; and, if you want an explanation
for why this "inner power" manifests itself almost identically to
book-learned wizard spells, perhaps magic is codified by the gods or
the very nature of the thing.
--
- Kit -
Are you on the Global Frequency?
"A naked American man just stole my balloons."
Neosaurus
>pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
>and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
>did this with my 1E books.)
I haven't had any problems pencilling in notes in my 3e books.
>Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
>they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
>newbies.
And they look like the newer, more boring Magic cards, too... it would've been
nice if they'd used older M:tG artists like NeNe Thomas.
>Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though.
I never liked the names "Fighter" or "Magic User", myself--too dull.
>I like the way
>they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
>the 1E Bard would be an improvement!)
Yeah, as a DM I would actually allow a PC bard in a game now.
>Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
>Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
>ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
3e Charisma is externalized willpower and presence, which is why it applies to
things like sorcerers' innate spellcasting and clerics' turning undead.
>Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
>for having a nonhuman character.
Or, as I see it, it actually adds a statistical reason to play a human.
>The one thing that
>irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
>still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
>belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
>multiclass.
Of course, if someone is buying another class's skills, they'll be using that
skill very poorly.
--Sean Curtin
Loren Davis
"Ralph Glatt" wrote:
> A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
> what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
> opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
> flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
As the youngest member of my gaming group, I'm always glad to learn at
the feet of an old fart. I like to look at 3E as a new game, and take it on
its own merits. A lot has changed, which by itself is neither bad nor good.
> The cover - [snip] Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> impressed, but I wasn't.
There's a line about judging books by their covers, but you certainly
don't need me to remind you of it.
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! [snip]
> Eye candy to impress the young and the newbies.
Is that bad?
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though.
I still say priest more often than cleric. Nobody else minds. On the
other hand, I was overjoyed to see that I could play a rogue instead of a
thief.
> I like the way they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again
> ANY changes over the 1E Bard would be an improvement!)
Prestige classes will remind you a bit of the 1E bard. You'll either
love them or hate them, and you can play one or not.
> Ooooh, looky!! A class based on Charisma!! If someone would care to
> enlighten me on how leadership ability relates to spellcasting, I'd
> appreciate hearing from them.
More than one. Charisma is now actually useful to paladins, not just a
prerequisite, and it's important to bards and clerics as well. Charisma
isn't just leadership ability any more. Three of the things it represents
in 3E (this is on page 9, by the way) are force of personality, personal
magnetism and actual personal strength. For all that, it still gets short
shrift.
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
There are other reasons now to play a non-human character. More
important, there are other reasons now to play a human character. The new
multi-classing rules are much more flexible. Now that I've tried them, I'd
never go back.
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> better define the character, but I got along fine without it.
Give it a chance. You'll like it.
> I don't like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
> properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?)
He still can in 3E. Only rarely will there be a penalty involved. He's
proficient in all but a few "exotic" weapons, and he can learn to use any
of those proficiently with his feats. The feats which make him better with
one weapon don't make him any worse with other weapons. Specialization is
just something fighters can do better than anyone else.
> Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
> irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> multiclass.
The class system isn't as rigid in 3E as it was in AD&D anyway. Skills
and feats are how you make your fourth-level barbarian different from every
other fourth-level barbarian, and you'll appreciate that you can. Many of
the skills are very useful. The system still keeps PCs off each other's
territory, for the most part. All the classes have some unique ability, and
some classes can afford a feat or skill much more easily than others can.
> Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
> it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
Thanks. You're missing out if you don't at least give 3E a test drive,
I think. Play whatever game you want, and have fun.
Allen Wessels
juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) wrote:
> A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
> what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
> opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
> flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
You'll need it.
> The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
> they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> impressed, but I wasn't.
Then you don't qualify as a 12 year old. Although thinking that this
was their intent puts that notion into question.
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> newbies.
I guess you'd prefer the old Judge's Guild format of paper on the order
of newsprint. At least this paper will last longer than the 1E stuff
that many had to replace multiple times.
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
> they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Magic User - as opposed to whatever bards, druids, clerics et al, use.
"Charisma measures a character's force of personality..." - this is from
the 3E PH description.
This is a strong theme in 3E. You might consider reading the parts you
think you already understand. That might help you get a better handle
on 3E.
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
The reason to run a non-human character is roleplaying.
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
> like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
> properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
> way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
> the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
> a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
Do you have a point here?
> Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
> irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> multiclass.
Sounds like someone was really liking pigeonholing characters.
> Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
> it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
You shut your eyes, held your nose and touched the tip of your tongue to
3E. Not only do your comments not reflect the game, but you don't even
have a basis to judge the taste.
- Allen
Justisaur
Christopher Adams wrote:
>
> >> Ooooh, looky!! A class based on Charisma!! If someone would
> >> care to enlighten me on how leadership ability relates to
> >> spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
> >
> > There was a long, nasty thread on this recently. My take:
> > Charisma now includes stuff like force of personality, creative
> > inspiration, stuff like that. The sorcerer relies on Charisma
> > because his magic depends on inspiration and sheer force of
> > will rather than knowledge or faith. It's not perfect, but it does
> > make sense; you just need to realize that the ability scores are
> > redefined slightly from AD&D.
>
> As was said in another post to this thread, Charisma is the equivalent
> of "mental Strength", Intelligence is the equivalent of "mental
> Dexterity", and Wisdom is the equivalent of "mental Constitution".
>
> Thus, Charisma is force of personality, Intelligence is agility of
> thought, and Wisdom is resilience of the mind.
I was trying to see how wisdom fit in since it used to be Force of Mind
and thought it still was. This makes a bit more sense then, someone
with low wisdom and high int might be very prone to flights of fancy,
and the opposite would make for a dull but well grounded person...
Chris Basken
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
Yeah, well, it makes *sense* now. Elves, Dwarves, etc, were portrayed as
older and stodgier races than Humans, yet they had the versatility to
multiclass and were limited by class level limits. OTOH, the young-raced
adaptable Humans couldn't multiclass but had unlimited level limits. It was
backwards.
With 3e, they just chucked all that out the window and said everyone can
multiclass, but some races have class prefs. Works for me (I always opted
for multiclassing Humans in my 1e and 2e games, anyway).
As to reasons for having a nonhuman character, how about ability score
bonuses and racial abilities?
Chris Basken
> As was said in another post to this thread, Charisma is the equivalent
> of "mental Strength", Intelligence is the equivalent of "mental
> Dexterity", and Wisdom is the equivalent of "mental Constitution".
>
> Thus, Charisma is force of personality, Intelligence is agility of
> thought, and Wisdom is resilience of the mind.
Just like Mayfair Games' DC Heroes, which had nine stats that worked out to
a nice little matrix:
DEX-STR-BODY
INT-WILL-MIND
INFL-AURA-SPIRIT
INFL was "Influence." The first row was physical, the second mental, and
the third magical/mystical. The first column was "agility and flexibility,"
the second "strength and power," and the third "resilience and endurance."
It was easy, then, to deal with different types of attacks.
Getting punched? Use DEX to see if you get hit, and if you do, use STR to
determine damage and BODY to see how badly you're hurt.
Getting hit with a psionic blast? Use INT to see if you avoid getting
nailed, WILL to see how much damage you were delivered and MIND to see how
well you absorbed the shock.
Magic bolt? INFL for to-hit, AURA for damage, and SPIRIT for resistance.
You remained active as long as BODY, MIND, and SPIRIT all remained above 0.
The moment one of them hit 0, you were unconscious (BODY), mentally stunned
(MIND), or simply drained of energy (SPIRIT). If all three of them hit 0,
you were dead (or maybe it was -1 for each max point you had, I forget).
Bill_Leary
news:ce9c44dd.02081...@posting.google.com...
> A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook
Someone else has made the suggestion that you really need to play it to judge
it. There's a lot of merit in that.
I started into role playing with AD&D back in the last '70's. At the time
only the DMG & PHB were available. The MM came along just as we got our group
together and played our first game. We never did swtich to second edition. I
was DMing by then, and didn't see any dramatic differences or advantages.
When third came along, we waited until the DMG, PHB and MM were all available,
bought them, finsihed up our then current adventure, and dove in.
Truthfully, I think the system is too complex. But then, I think the same
thing about 1st ed., so you can take as you please. I recognize that part of
my favor towards 1st ed. is familiarity and nostalgia. We've played three
adventures in 3E, and it's becoming easier to work with. One of the mental
adjustments we all had to make was that this wasn't really just a new edition
of AD&D, but was more properly a new system with it's roots in AD&D. I know
others have played successfully without making that mental adjustment, but for
us things worked much better when we thought of it that way. And you can make
some very interesting characters with the numbers to support how they work.
In the past, we just "winged" this sort of thing. At this point, I'd
willingly DM a group in either system.
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> did this with my 1E books.)
I've found that if I write in these books I need to use ink. Pencil seems to
either dent the pages excessively or not really stick. I pretty quickly gave
up on either, though, and no use the smallest size post-it notes instead. The
thing that really annoyed me about the glossy paper was the need to have the
light strike the page at the proper angle to be able to read it. We often
game in poorly lit living rooms and these are harder to read than the older
ones.
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though.
We've just continued ti use the term. Wizard == Magic User, in our context
anyway.
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
We'd long since house-ruled multi-class to be a lot more flexable so this
didn't do anything for us.
> Feats - ah, something new has been added!
I don't like feats, and I haven't quite figured out why. On paper they seem
like a cool idea. In actual practice, they seem to be a pain. And maybe
that's the root of the problem. They're a pain to manage and use in play. I
suspect we're not doing it quite right, so we continue to tinker with them in
game play.
> Skills - something else to help better define characters.
These I like, but we still have some problems as with feats.
> Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
Yes, loved that. One of my 1E PHBs has, for each spell that references
another one, the page number where that spell can be found in both the PHB and
the DMG. Saved a pile of game time.
- Bill
Hunter
Or that the wizards are mimicing the sorcerors.
daci...@earthlink.net
I think of it that way, too.
IMC: First, there was no magic. Then the dragons came, and they had
magic. Then the sorcerors developed similar magical talent to the
dragons... Then the intelligent characters watched the dragons and
sorcerors, and codified what they saw... Thus the birth of wizardry...
Since Wizards don't have the innate power of sorcerors, they need to
concentrate to "charge" their capability to do what sorcerors do
innately... Thus spell preparation.
Though I like to refer to Sorcerors as "Innate Wizards", and I use the
Psion classes as "true" Sorcerors.
-- Nik ( Dacileva )
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will
seriously cramp his style." - Traditional, House of the Jhereg
Dave Scribner
juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) writes:
>Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
>pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
>and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes.
They have invented these new thngs called Gel-Pens that come in various and
interesting colors that work quite well on the new fangled paper. Fire up your
horseless carriage, point it in the direction of an Office Depot and see if the
shopkeep with trade you some for a few chickens.
Man Old timer you could have at least compared it more to 2E, but really,
comparing it to 1E! What's next- your thoughts on the benefits of oil lamps
vs light bulbs?
Dave
Bill_Leary
news:20020818074505...@mb-mg.aol.com...
> In article <ce9c44dd.02081...@posting.google.com>,
> juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) writes:
>
> >Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> >pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> >and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes.
>
> They have invented these new thngs called Gel-Pens that come in various
> and interesting colors that work quite well on the new fangled paper.
Aye. But I haven't found any erasable ones yet. And erasable ink, while it
does come off, leaves some damage behind. There are still things a pencil
used with a light touch are good for, but not on this paper.
> Fire up your horseless carriage, point it in the direction of an Office
Depot
> and see if the shopkeep with trade you some for a few chickens.
>
> Man Old timer you could have at least compared it more to 2E, but really,
> comparing it to 1E!
Quite a lot of people never moved to 2E, mostly because it's a clean up and
update of 1E. Not that much really new, and we'd already invested a lot in
the books. 3E is a whole new ball game. A lot of us who never bothered with
2E *ARE* bothring with 3E. It's worth the effort. 2E (IOP) wasn't.
> What's next- your thoughts on the benefits of oil lamps vs light bulbs?
I expect you could do it yourself. Still, here's a starter list...
1. An oil lamp (vs..home lighting bulbs) will work when the power is off.
2. An oil lamp (vs. home lighting bulbs) will work where the power cord
won't reach.
3. An oil lamp (vs. battery lighting bulbs) will tell you at-a-glance how
much longer it'll be running.
4. An oil lamp (vs. battery lighting bulbs) will operate at full intensity
until it quits.
5. With aromatic suplement choices, an oil lamp can also be a room air
freshiner.
6. With repellant suplement choices, an oil lamp can also keep insects away.
We could also go into the disadvantages, but you did only ask for benefits.
- Bill
DMiller
> A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
> what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
> opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
> flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
>
long>
>
> Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
> it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
>
>
> Ralph Glatt
>
> Member, Old Farts Club
I played my first game of 1E in 1981. I continued to play a minimum
of once a week for the next 7 years. When 2E came out, I skipped it
and stuck to 1E. In the 90's, I didn't get to play very often, and
missed out on a lot of the developments of 2E (thankfully...sorry 2E
fans). When 3E was coming out, a local game store owner asked me to
run a demo campaign in the store to help him sell books. I did that
for a year, and now I am sold on 3E. I don't think that it is
faultless, but it is a good system. I am concerned by the rumors of a
4E coming out so soon. Admittedly, it could fix broken rules and
such, but I only have so many $$ available for gaming purchases.
Someone on my gaming site NG suggested I just continue skipping all
even numbered editions and wait for 5E.
Now to the pertinent stuff:
The books are eye candy. They are supposed to be. The adults who
play the game aren't going to purchase or not based on appearance.
The "12 year olds" are. Simple marketing. The pages are difficult to
write on (my 1E books also have filled margins), but we now have
"Post-It" paper available, when we didn't "back then." We can also
easily start up MS Word or a similar program and create a document
containing all of our would-be margin notes.
The problem I have with the books is this:
My 1E books are still holding together after 21 years of HARD use. My
3E books are starting to become unbound after 2 years of much lighter
use.
Classes in 3E are great. I currently don't use Wizards, as I do not
like the "fire and forget" spell system, and Sorcerors give me a
chance to fix that (I fixed it with my own casting system in 1E as
well). Prestige Classes in the splatbooks can be quite "comic
bookish" though.
Having the spells all in one place is also great. My players do seem
to get confused about the spell summary list in there. Some think
that the little blurb there is the whole spell description, and they
never get to the real spell list until I guide them to it.
I like the feats and skills, though they do make the game more complex
than 1E.. That is okay, I like compexity. I also like the AC change
and BAB better than looking at lots of little tables.
The real difficulty for me has been learning all of the new stuff as
quickly as my players, who are mostly younger than I am. I am just so
used to 1E rules and terminology (it is hard to change everything
suddenly after 21 years of doing things that way).
I was a skeptic at first, but was happy that the game would see new
fans and a renaissance as a result of the new E so I was eager to test
it out. Give it a try. For real fun, get a whole group of old timers
together with a few younger players thrown in (2 or 3 old to each
younger gamer), and learn from the younger players. It is fun, and I
think you will be okay with it, even if you play some 1E as well in
your regular sessions. As for me, my 1E hardcover books are tucked
away in an antique wooden chest, waiting for the day I take them out
for some nostalgia (my adventures are still out on the shelf, since I
convert them). It will happen someday, but for now I play this
newfangled 3E game.
DM
The gaming store guy did not collect my OFC card when I bought my 3E
books.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
>what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
>opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
>flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
>
>The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
>they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
>impressed, but I wasn't.
Gee, cutting criticism of what's really important about the system...
>
>Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
>pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
>and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
>did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
>they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
>newbies.
More durable and you can always make notes in something else...
>
>Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though.
Wow, you really are hitting the essentials of the game there.
> I like the way
>they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
>the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
>Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
>ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Read the definition of the stats now.
>
>Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
>for having a nonhuman character.
Nope.
> I can understand why someone would
>want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
>
>Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
>better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
>like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
>could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it.
At a penalty yes, as is the case in 3rd ed..
In AD&D 1st ed weapon proficiencies were more limited for fighters
than in the current D&D game.
> (You'd think a
>properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?)
Please go and find anybody who could use all weapons effectively.
People generally do specialise.
> In a
>way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
>the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
>a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
You do realise that weapon specialisation was introduced in 1st ed
don't you?
>
>Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
>were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
>that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
>irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
>still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
>belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
>multiclass.
Bah.
>
>Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
>And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
>world. A definite improvement.
>
>Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
>it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
>(I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
You've focused on extremely minor issues and not even tried it.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com
Ralph Glatt
> Ralph Glatt <juli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> RG> Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
> RG> it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> RG> (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
>
> Reviewing a game by reading the manual is sort of like reviewing a
> movie by looking at the trailer. Play it and get back to us.
Good point. Matter of fact, I did play it at a convention. Didn't like
it, but I think that was mostly due to the fact that the whole
adventure played like a railroad job.
Ralph Glatt
Ralph Glatt
> On 17 Aug 2002 12:33:02 -0700 in
> <ce9c44dd.02081...@posting.google.com>, Ralph Glatt
> wrote:
> >
> > Ralph Glatt
> >
> > Member, Old Farts Club
>
Actually, it was banned by the Geneva Convention as being an unfair
biological weapon. ;-) Seriously, it's what we 1E people call
ourselves.
Ralph Glatt
> >From: juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt)
>
> Ron? Is that you?
Nah, Ron would have done much better. ;-)
>
> >Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> >they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> >newbies.
>
> So you're saying they should have used bad art?
That depends - do you consider the art from the 1E books to be bad?
> >Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> >Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> >ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
>
> Personality, not leadership. I think of Sorcerers as the "artistic"
> spellcasters, they do it by intuition, as opposed to the "scientific" Wizards.
Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> >Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> >for having a nonhuman character.
>
> Unless it fits with your concept or is beneficial to a particular class.
>
> >Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> >were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them.
>
> Well, these work much better.
>
> > The one thing that
> >irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> >still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> >belong to another class.
>
> But they can't do the main, crucial things. And having a little more
> flexibility is good, no?
I suppose. Guess I'm too used to the specialization of characters in 1E.
Ralph Glatt
> On 17 Aug 2002 12:33:02 -0700, a wanderer, known to us only as
> juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
> >they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> >impressed, but I wasn't.
>
> It's servicible. The name is nice and large and the art doesn't suck.
I like the name art, but the fake jewels seem so tacky!!
>
> >Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> >pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> >and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> >did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> >they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> >newbies.
>
> I am neither young nor a newbie. I enjoyed the art. I do miss the
> cartoons they scattered in the old 1E books.
Yeah, guess I'm just too used to the line art we had back in 1E.
>
> >Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
> >they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> >the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> >Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> >ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
>
> The Gaming Police will *not* break down your door if you call the
> Magic-Users.
You mean, the same way they won't break down my door if I don't play
3E like most everyone else? ;-)
>
> >Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> >were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> >that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
> >irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> >still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> >belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> >multiclass.
>
> The difference between skills and NWPs is that we have a good mechanic
> for using them in 3E. It does add breadth to the characters. Your
> wizard knows leatherworking because his father was a tanner, and he
> helped out before his mentor located him.
I thought the mechanics were basically the same - roll d20 and try to
make the target number. Only real difference was that you had to roll
low in 1/2E.
> >
> >Member, Old Farts Club
>
> Where do I get my membership card?
Anyone who prefers 1E can join. When I can get off my dead butt and
learn to put up a webpage, I'm going to have an Old Farts Club
website. That way, all you'd have to do to join would be to put your
name in the guestbook. (The real trick is going to be finding a
guestbook where the people entering their names won't get spammed. ;-)
Ralph Glatt
> Douglas Berry wrote:
>
> > Where do I get my membership card?
>
> I don't think you're actually /allowed/ to be a member of the Old Farts
> Club if you play 3e.
Well, there is our one and ONLY rule for membership - no use of any
books later than Unearthed Arcana. There are two exceptions to this -
the Rules Cyclopedia, which is just a compilation of the Basic D&D
rules, and the Monster Manual 2, which has some monsters in it from
earlier modules.
Ralph Glatt
Ralph Glatt
> Ralph Glatt wrote:
> >Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
> >it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> >(I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
>
> You sure your name isn't Ron?
Oh, come on!! Ron can do better than that!!!
Ralph Glatt
Justisaur
> I've found that if I write in these books I need to use ink. Pencil seems to
> either dent the pages excessively or not really stick. I pretty quickly gave
> up on either, though, and no use the smallest size post-it notes instead. The
> thing that really annoyed me about the glossy paper was the need to have the
> light strike the page at the proper angle to be able to read it. We often
> game in poorly lit living rooms and these are harder to read than the older
> ones.
>
After looking at one of my 1e books for a question on another thread
it's not just the glossy paper that makes it hard to read it's the
fancier type style, and fact they have slight background shading.
> > Feats - ah, something new has been added!
>
> I don't like feats, and I haven't quite figured out why. On paper they seem
> like a cool idea. In actual practice, they seem to be a pain. And maybe
> that's the root of the problem. They're a pain to manage and use in play. I
> suspect we're not doing it quite right, so we continue to tinker with them in
> game play.
I like them, but I agree they can be a pain, In the game I've been
playing my wizard has 2 unused feats, because I couldn't figure out what
to do with them, and once you've got them that's it. Strange thing is I
don't have any problem assigning them when I make NPCs as a DM, perhaps
because I'm detached from the character.
NtlAcrobat
>>could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it.
>
>At a penalty yes, as is the case in 3rd ed..
>In AD&D 1st ed weapon proficiencies were more limited for fighters
Uh, as I remember it correctly, a fighter is proficient in 3E in all weapons
that are not exotic, which does mean that a 3E fighter can use about any weapon
available if I am not mistaken. How is there a penalty applied to this?
Malachias Invictus
"Justisaur" <rpil...@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:3D5EB863...@rcsis.com...
> The non humans still have things like low light vision, and
> different stats to attract the munchkins,
To attract the munchkins?
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Douglas Berry
daci...@earthlink.net warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>IMC: First, there was no magic. Then the dragons came, and they had
>magic. Then the sorcerors developed similar magical talent to the
>dragons... Then the intelligent characters watched the dragons and
>sorcerors, and codified what they saw... Thus the birth of wizardry...
>Since Wizards don't have the innate power of sorcerors, they need to
>concentrate to "charge" their capability to do what sorcerors do
>innately... Thus spell preparation.
Which is why I changed the prefered class for elves to sorceror.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Dave Scribner
<Aye. But I haven't found any erasable ones yet. >
I am glad to inform you that the Mercantile now offers Erasable Gel pens made
by Pilot available at your finer General Stores and Trading posts, and they
won't cost you too many beaver pelts. Pick some up next time you make it into
Sleepy Eye.
There is an illusion that "quite a lot" never moved to 2E, but if there are
really that many they are better at hiding than Bin Laden, I have not met one
in probably a decade.
As for oil lamps- even though you enumarate many advantages, I bet you
upgraded when the light bulb was made available did'nt you?
Dave
Bokman7757
>> The difference between skills and NWPs is that we have a good mechanic
>> for using them in 3E. It does add breadth to the characters. Your
>> wizard knows leatherworking because his father was a tanner, and he
>> helped out before his mentor located him.
>
>I thought the mechanics were basically the same - roll d20 and try to
>make the target number. Only real difference was that you had to roll
>low in 1/2E.
The other differences are that you can improve your skills in 3E. Also, NWPs in
2E were gained at an obscenely low rate, and were far more limited in what you
could learn.
Certic
> what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
> opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
> flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
>
> they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> impressed, but I wasn't.
I didn't like it much either.
-------
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> newbies.
This is my main, and just about only, gripe with 3rd edition - the artwork's
spikes and giant shoulder pads, and determination to make the monsters look
like giant insects whenever possible.
-------
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though.
No, this is a good thing - the term "Magic User" is clumsy and
unimaginative.
-------
> I like the way
> they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Bards and Barbies and good. Don't much care for Sabrina the Teenage
Sorcerer. I like the idea of magic not necessarily relying on perusing big
thick books, but I don't like the inherent powers take on this class.
-------
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
>
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
> properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
> way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
> the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
> a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
>
> were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
> irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> multiclass.
>
> And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
> world. A definite improvement.
>
> it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> (I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
Again, apart from the artwork, I think 3rd ed. is an improvement (and with
25 years hindsight, I suppose it damn well should be!) ... if only they'd
had the courage to make some of these changes with 2nd edition, but I
suppose it needed a new team of designers less attached to the old game.
--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
"No-one ever suddenly became depraved"
- Juvenal, Satires
--
Certic
Bill_Leary <Bill_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:g9G79.159274$sA3.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> "Ralph Glatt" <juli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ce9c44dd.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook
> > ((..omitted..))
>
> Someone else has made the suggestion that you really need to play it to
judge
> it. There's a lot of merit in that.
>
> I started into role playing with AD&D back in the last '70's. At the time
> only the DMG & PHB were available. The MM came along just as we got our
group
> together and played our first game. We never did swtich to second
edition. I
> was DMing by then, and didn't see any dramatic differences or advantages.
> When third came along, we waited until the DMG, PHB and MM were all
available,
> bought them, finsihed up our then current adventure, and dove in.
The Monster Manual was actually published first - that's why some of the
alignments in it look a bit weird. Mustn't have been stocked wherever you
live for some reason.
Bokman7757
>The Monster Manual was actually published first - that's why some of the
>alignments in it look a bit weird.
Nope. In the US, at least, it was the PHB in August 2000, the DMG in September,
the MM in October. Wasn't just in my area as I bought the latter two online.
David Sulger
> they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> impressed, but I wasn't.
>
> pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> newbies.
I'm not big on some of the "looks" of 3e either, but I just tend to
ignore what I don't like. In general, I prefer the art from around
early 2e, which is about where I started.
I suspect that a lot of D&D players tend to like the visual style of
the game from the days when they started; this would explain why a lot
of older gamers from 1e and earlier tend to drool over Otis' and
Trampier's art, etc.
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
> they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
I always though that "wizard" or even "mage" sounded better than
"magic-user". Although I have used the term "magic-user" myself in
the past, it sounds pretty generic, and doesn't have the same flavor
as "wizard". As for the sorcerer, I suspect the designers wanted 3e
to have an actual use for Charisma, instead of being the stat where
everyone just dumps their crappiest score.
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
The dual-class rules of 2e were just stupid, period. I don't know how
multi-classing was handled prior to to 2e. Besides, it never made a
lot of sense why non-humans could multi-class and humans couldn't.
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
> like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
> properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
> way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
> the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
> a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
Feats add an interesting new dimension to the game. Since feats tend
to be focused more strongly on fighters, it also helps to add variety
to the class. In 3e fighters are trained to use most weapons, only in
the use of exotic weapons do they lack proficiency. Note this doesn't
prevent them from using the weapons completely; they can still pick up
an exotic weapon the don't know and wield it, they'll just take hit
penalties because of it. Weapon specialization isn't munckined out
like it could tend to be in 2e, also, a fighter can't take it until at
least 4th level.
> Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
> irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> multiclass.
The NWP proficiency system was another weak aspect of 2e, although it
was improved in the Player's Option books. The 3e skill system is a
vast improvemen on the older proficiencies.
> Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
> And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
> world. A definite improvement.
I take this to mean that you like the 3e approach to the spell lists.
Deathdog The Assassin
>>The Monster Manual was actually published first - that's why some of the
>>alignments in it look a bit weird.
>
> Nope. In the US, at least, it was the PHB in August 2000, the DMG in September,
> the MM in October. Wasn't just in my area as I bought the latter two online.
I think he's refering to the 1st edition AD&D. MM was released in 1977,
PHB in 1978, DMG in 1979. This is why the DMG has the complete listing of
the MM in the appendix.
The original poster who said he played 1st edition without no access to
the MM is either 1) delusional, or 2) lying. I remember as a kid around
1980 walking through Toys R Us...you couldn't go two feet without tripping
over a hardcover AD&D book.
--
Brad Everman aka Deathdog
http://www.digladio.org
"Thursday, May 16th: Downloading of pornography on the internet drops
by over fifty percent as millions flock to see the new Star Wars film"
Click this link so I can become immortal:
http://www.alexchiu.com/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=deathdog
Wayne Shaw
>My 1E books are still holding together after 21 years of HARD use. My
>3E books are starting to become unbound after 2 years of much lighter
>use.
This vararies considerably. I've been using mine for the same length
of time and am only middlin' gentle to them at best, and they seem to
be holding up fairly well. Better than the general run of hardcover
game books, at least.
>>well). Prestige Classes in the splatbooks can be quite "comic
>bookish" though.
>
D&D has always had a lot of over-the-top elements. It suits some, it
doesn't suit others, and which ones bother someone varies from person
to person.
Bradd W. Szonye
> A sorcerer, therefore, is able to cast spells because his force of
> will is so strong, he can tap into inner reservoirs of power and
> unleash them upon the world as magic; and, if you want an explanation
> for why this "inner power" manifests itself almost identically to
> book-learned wizard spells, perhaps magic is codified by the gods or
> the very nature of the thing.
Here's my take on the wizardry vs sorcery thing: Sorcerers came first.
Wizards emulate sorcerers. They use ritual and study to do the same
things sorcerers can do naturally, without needing incredible Charisma
to do it well. (Of course, they need incredible Intelligence instead.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> ... if you want an explanation for why this "inner power" manifests
>>> itself almost identically to book-learned wizard spells, perhaps
>>> magic is codified by the gods or the very nature of the thing.
> cypher...@netscape.net (Hunter) wrote:
>> Or that the wizards are mimicing the sorcerors.
daci...@earthlink.net <daci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think of it that way, too. IMC: First, there was no magic. Then
> the dragons came, and they had magic. Then the sorcerors developed
> similar magical talent to the dragons... Then the intelligent
> characters watched the dragons and sorcerors, and codified what they
> saw... Thus the birth of wizardry... Since Wizards don't have the
> innate power of sorcerors, they need to concentrate to "charge" their
> capability to do what sorcerors do innately... Thus spell
> preparation.
Yep -- that's roughly how it works in my campaign too. FWIW, elves can
choose sorcerer or wizard as a favored class; they're familiar with both
kinds of magic.
daci...@earthlink.net
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 05:59:09 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> daci...@earthlink.net warmed at our fire and told this tale:
> >IMC: First, there was no magic. Then the dragons came, and they had
> >magic. Then the sorcerors developed similar magical talent to the
> >dragons... Then the intelligent characters watched the dragons and
> >sorcerors, and codified what they saw... Thus the birth of wizardry...
> >Since Wizards don't have the innate power of sorcerors, they need to
> >concentrate to "charge" their capability to do what sorcerors do
> >innately... Thus spell preparation.
>
> Which is why I changed the prefered class for elves to sorceror.
I did, too... I must have forgotten to write that back into my post,
heh.
Though my SO has an interesting idea for her game... She wants to give
each race the PC's choice of two preferred classes. To balance, she's
thinking of giving Humans and Half-Elves their choice of preferred
class, at any level... We haven't playtested it, so we're not sure if
it'd work.
Her main reason was that Gnomes get shafted on their preferred class.
Clangador
Those were the days. =)
~Clangador
==========================
http://clangador.com/index.html
==========================
Obligatory Quote: "I'll give up gaming when you pry my dice from my cold, dead
hands."
Clangador
>1980 walking through Toys R Us...you couldn't go two feet without tripping
>over a hardcover AD&D book.
Those were the days. =)
Clangador
>>>alignments in it look a bit weird.
Yep. Another odd thing, there were three in our group, and each of our Monster
Manuals were slightly different. Mine had a red interior cover, another guy had
a slightly different art layout on the cover, and the other guy didn't have the
yellow corner band on his. I guess they were all from different printings.
Dave Scribner
the_rea...@hotmail.com (David Sulger) writes:
>In general, I prefer the art from around
>early 2e, which is about where I started.
It's the Nipples right? Went back and looked at all me 1E and 2E books for
the art- it has to be the nipples on the women that make people all nostalgic
becasue that stuff was crap.
I did have a good laugh at the jokes though- the is a real knee-slapper in
the MM about talking to the Lynx...ha ha..oh my sides. Oh yeah, the Mind
Flayer blasting the guys in his living room is hilarious too.
And wait...the DMG, where the guys are wearing Micky Mouse ears and fake
noses to sneek into the Rat Temple...a really belly laugh i have to tell you.
So, with gems like these to compare, it has to be the nipples.
Remember our motto
"If there ain't no nipples, it ain't D&D".
Dave
Chris Basken
> (David Sulger) writes:
> >In general, I prefer the art from around
> >early 2e, which is about where I started.
>
> It's the Nipples right? Went back and looked at all me 1E and 2E
books for
> the art- it has to be the nipples on the women that make people all
nostalgic
> becasue that stuff was crap.
Back in, hm, 1982 (I think) we had a teacher take away my friend's 1e
Deities & Demigods because of the pic of that female warrior creature from
the Melnibonean Mythos. What were they called?
I imagine she wasn't any happier when she thumbed through it later on. I
never found out if my friend got it back.
Mad Hamish
>> In 1E, a fighter
>>>could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it.
>>
>>At a penalty yes, as is the case in 3rd ed..
>>In AD&D 1st ed weapon proficiencies were more limited for fighters
>
>Uh, as I remember it correctly, a fighter is proficient in 3E in all weapons
>that are not exotic, which does mean that a 3E fighter can use about any weapon
>available if I am not mistaken. How is there a penalty applied to this?
>
A 3rd ed character can pick up a weapon he's not proficient in and use
it at a penalty. For a warrior that's exotics (and possibly house
rules for a few others). The same was the case in 1st ed AD&D but the
fighter was proficient in less weapons and had a lower penalty.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com
Sean Cover
Please explain to me the terms 1e, 2e 3e? e as in edition? Cool! I was
just trying to find out what has happened to D&D since greyhawk. I am
pleased that it has survived.
Sean Cleary
Member, Older Farts Club
Got my name in the inner page of one of the 1st edition manuals --
just massive correspondence with GG on the problems of existing
spells: for instance the east coast vs west coast interpetetion of
fireball. After it came out, the two sides found several different
ways to disagree anyway. But that was '83 or before.
Varl
> The other differences are that you can improve your skills in 3E. Also, NWPs in
> 2E were gained at an obscenely low rate, and were far more limited in what you
> could learn.
This is exactly why I've revamped the NWP system for my game to take
into account character growth in NWPs. The base NWP system is bad in
regards to character growth, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed.
I've applied greater penalties at the start of a character's career and
the choices they make for NWPs, and it's going to work great. No more
+4 base modifiers to a NWP at 1st level. Character growth in any NWPs
they take will no longer stagnate as they gain levels. The tradeoff is
while they will suck at low levels in most NWPs, they'll be able to
improve themselves as levels are gained.
--
"Trials of Ascension- it's not just point and click anymore!"
Varl
> Back in, hm, 1982 (I think) we had a teacher take away my friend's 1e
> Deities & Demigods because of the pic of that female warrior creature from
> the Melnibonean Mythos. What were they called?
Elenoin. Female Horn of Valhalla warriors, kind of, only naked for some
reason. Maybe they didn't have good armor artists back then.
> I imagine she wasn't any happier when she thumbed through it later on. I
> never found out if my friend got it back.
Was it a theology class? Heh.
Ralph Glatt
> In article <ce9c44dd.02081...@posting.google.com>,
> juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) writes:
>
> >Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> >pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> >and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes.
>
> interesting colors that work quite well on the new fangled paper. Fire up your
> horseless carriage, point it in the direction of an Office Depot and see if the
> shopkeep with trade you some for a few chickens.
Use INK on my books??? Never!! ;-)
>
> Man Old timer you could have at least compared it more to 2E, but really,
> comparing it to 1E! What's next- your thoughts on the benefits of oil lamps
> vs light bulbs?
Oh, didn't you know? I come from Pennsylvania. I'm Amish. ;-)
Ralph Glatt
Douglas Bailey
> Chris Basken wrote:
> > Back in, hm, 1982 (I think) we had a teacher take away my friend's 1e
> > Deities & Demigods because of the pic of that female warrior creature
> > from the Melnibonean Mythos. What were they called?
>
> Elenoin. Female Horn of Valhalla warriors, kind of, only naked for some
> reason. Maybe they didn't have good armor artists back then.
Well, they *were* inhuman demons with vicious fangs and greatswords, so
maybe they just didn't feel any need for armor. :-)
doug
--
---------------douglas bailey (trys...@world.std.com)---------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Ralph Glatt
> On 17 Aug 2002 12:33:02 -0700, juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt)
> wrote:
>
> >A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
> >what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
> >opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
> >flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
> >
> >they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> >impressed, but I wasn't.
>
> >
> >Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> >pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> >did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> >they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> >newbies.
>
Durable, huh? I seem to recall another post in this thread where
someone mentioned his 3E books were starting to fall apart long before
his 1E books. ;-)
> >
> >Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though.
>
> Wow, you really are hitting the essentials of the game there.
>
> > I like the way
> >they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> >the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> >Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> >ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
>
> Read the definition of the stats now.
I've had several people explain the differences to me. I understand,
now.
> >
> >Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> >for having a nonhuman character.
>
> Nope.
>
> > I can understand why someone would
> >want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
> >
> >Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> >better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
> >like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
> >could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it.
>
> At a penalty yes, as is the case in 3rd ed..
> In AD&D 1st ed weapon proficiencies were more limited for fighters
> than in the current D&D game.
Um, exsqueeze me, there really wasn't anything about weapon
proficiencies until Unearthed Arcana, which I never really used. But
yeah, if you use UA, you would be right.
>
> > (You'd think a
> >properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?)
>
> Please go and find anybody who could use all weapons effectively.
> People generally do specialise.
That's why I added the next part, sunshine. ;-)
>
> > In a
> >way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
> >the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
> >a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
>
> You do realise that weapon specialisation was introduced in 1st ed
> don't you?
Yes, in the Unearthed Arcana, which I said I didn't use. Shame on me
for not mentioning this little detail.
> >
> >Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> >were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> >that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
> >irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> >still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> >belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> >multiclass.
>
> Bah.
Your sheep impersonation does not impress me. ;-)
> >
> >Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
> >And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
> >world. A definite improvement.
> >
> >Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
> >it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
> >(I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
>
> You've focused on extremely minor issues and not even tried it.
Ah, another thing I forgot to mention. I did try it. Didn't like it,
but as I said, it was probably because the adventure was poorly
written.
Ralph Glatt
Member, Old Farts Club
Christopher Adams
>> agility of thought, and Wisdom is resilience of the mind.
>
> I was trying to see how wisdom fit in since it used to be
> Force of Mind and thought it still was. This makes a bit
> more sense then, someone with low wisdom and high int
> might be very prone to flights of fancy, and the opposite
> would make for a dull but well grounded person...
Exactly. High Intelligence and low Wisdom = scatterbrained genius or
reckless whiz-kid. High Wisdom and low Intelligence = simple but
insightful person.
If Wisdom is akin to resilience of the mind, then the explanation for
clerics' having high Wisdom scores would seem to be that their
powerful faith lends them an inner strength.
--
- Kit -
Are you on the Global Frequency?
"A naked American man just stole my balloons."
Bokman7757
>> > Back in, hm, 1982 (I think) we had a teacher take away my friend's 1e
>> > Deities & Demigods because of the pic of that female warrior creature
>> > from the Melnibonean Mythos. What were they called?
>>
>> Elenoin. Female Horn of Valhalla warriors, kind of, only naked for some
>
>> reason. Maybe they didn't have good armor artists back then.
>
>Well, they *were* inhuman demons with vicious fangs and greatswords, so
>
>maybe they just didn't feel any need for armor. :-)
Maybe they rolled "Armor type: naked".
Douglas Bailey
> h_l...@bigpond.com (Mad Hamish) wrote...
> > More durable and you can always make notes in something else...
>
> Durable, huh? I seem to recall another post in this thread where
> someone mentioned his 3E books were starting to fall apart long before
> his 1E books. ;-)
I've heard this from other posters here. I wonder if perhaps there was a
a single bad binding run or something: my 3e books -- each bought on the
first day of release -- see constant use and are in fine shape apart
from the usual scuffing on the covers. None of my friends' copies seem
to be falling apart, either.
It's my *2e* _PHB_ and _DMG_ -- the original versions, not the revised
editions -- that are feeling a bit loose in the binding.
> > In AD&D 1st ed weapon proficiencies were more limited for fighters
> > than in the current D&D game.
>
> Um, exsqueeze me, there really wasn't anything about weapon
> proficiencies until Unearthed Arcana, which I never really used. But
> yeah, if you use UA, you would be right.
Not so. Take a look at your 1e _PHB_, bottom right of p. 36, under the
"WEAPONS" header:
"Weapon Proficiency
"At the start, your character will be able to employ but a limited
number of weapons....If proficiency with any given weapon is not held by
the character it is used at a penalty as shown on the table which
follows."
The table -- Weapon Proficiency Table, p. 37 -- indicates that (e.g.)
fighters get 4 initial weapon proficiencies, gain an additional
proficiency every 3 levels (at 4th, 7th, 10th, etc.) and suffer a -2
penalty when using weapons with which they aren't proficient.
Weapon *specialisation* wasn't introduced until _UA_, and non-weapon
proficiencies didn't come into play until _Oriental Adventures_, but
weapon proficiency has always been a part of AD&D. (I should know:
that's where I, as a nine-year-old, learned the meaning of the word
"proficiency.")
HADSIL
>A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
>what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
>opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
>flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
Then why flame in the first place? It's ok to not like the game, but the words
you chose were flammable.
>
>The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
>they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
>impressed, but I wasn't.
<shrug>
>
>Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
>pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
>and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
>did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
>they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
>newbies.
Awe, poor baby.
>
>Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
>they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
>the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
>Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
>ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
A GM can justify it any way he wants for his game world. It's still a good
idea to have Charisma no longer be the dump your poor roll ability score.
>
>Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
>for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
>want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
>
Before 3E there was never any reason to want to play a human unless you really,
really wanted to play a Paladin.
>
>Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
>better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
>like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
>could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
>properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?) In a
>way, I can see it though, because certain regions would teach you only
>the popular weapons of the region. Still, I remember how it used to be
>a munchkin trick to squeeze out a few more plusses in 2E.
>
How horrible for a fighter to want to be able to deal more damage or heaven
forbid swing his weapon more than once in a round.
>
>Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
>were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
>that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
>irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
>still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
>belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
>multiclass.
>
That much detail in *your* game. Oh well. Still, I suppose it is unfair for a
fighter to want to be able to do something besides swing his weapon. It's bad
enough he has "plusses".
>Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
>And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
>world. A definite improvement.
>
He likes it! Hey Mikey!
>
>Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks,
wink, wink
but
>it's not to my taste.
Oh well.
>
>Ralph Glatt
Gerald Katz
I Love New York!
Varl
>>Elenoin. Female Horn of Valhalla warriors, kind of, only naked for some
>>reason. Maybe they didn't have good armor artists back then.
>>
>
> Well, they *were* inhuman demons with vicious fangs and greatswords, so
> maybe they just didn't feel any need for armor. :-)
Heh, and superior slayers of chaste and easily embarrassed paladins. ;)
Bokman7757
>I've heard this from other posters here. I wonder if perhaps there was a
>
>a single bad binding run or something: my 3e books -- each bought on the
>
>first day of release -- see constant use and are in fine shape apart
>from the usual scuffing on the covers.
There *are* a number of copies of the PHB (apparently including mine,
unfortunately) which suffer from a weird binding mistake, though mine hasn't
started to come apart or anything. Haven't heard about similar problems with
the other two core books, though.
Khendon (Jason A Williams)
> Use INK on my books??? Never!! ;-)
A good sharp HB pencil seems to work fine on my 3e books...
FWIW, I would have preferred a less glossy finish so that it was easier to
read in direct light.
--
This sig intentionally blank. Nearly.
khe...@khendon.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
Jeff Heikkinen
foretold that on 18 Aug 2002 08:34:07 -0700, Ralph Glatt would say...
> Stephenls <step...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3D5EEFC1...@shaw.ca>...
> > Douglas Berry wrote:
> >
> > > Where do I get my membership card?
> >
> > I don't think you're actually /allowed/ to be a member of the Old Farts
> > Club if you play 3e.
>
> Well, there is our one and ONLY rule for membership - no use of any
> books later than Unearthed Arcana. There are two exceptions to this -
> the Rules Cyclopedia, which is just a compilation of the Basic D&D
> rules, and the Monster Manual 2, which has some monsters in it from
> earlier modules.
IMPOSTER! A real Old Fart would know that MM2 *predates* UA! :-)
Douglas
> >>>The Monster Manual was actually published first - that's why some of the
> >>>alignments in it look a bit weird.
>
> Yep. Another odd thing, there were three in our group, and each of our Monster
> Manuals were slightly different. Mine had a red interior cover, another guy had
> a slightly different art layout on the cover, and the other guy didn't have the
> yellow corner band on his. I guess they were all from different printings.
>
efreet, was upside-down. Anyone else have one of those?
Cheers
Douglas
Sean Stewart
>Well, I've rambled on long enough. I'm not saying that 3E sucks, but
>it's not to my taste. Feel free to comment on anything I've said here.
>(I know you'll do that, anyway! ;-)
>
>
>
>Member, Old Farts Club
dont play it then., cheers!!
Neil Cerutti
That jibes with my experience, too. I, and 4 of my local gaming
friends have bought the 3 core 3E books, and my PH is the only
one that is falling apart.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@trans-video.net>
Gordon Emore
Evan wrote:
> As i havent played anythin pre 3e ill comment where i am qualified to
>
> On 17 Aug 2002 12:33:02 -0700, juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt)
> wrote:
> >Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
> >they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> >the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> >Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> >ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
>
> Charisma is "Force of Will." though FWIW im not really sure what that
> is. Something like how strong your personality is or similar.
Well, I once heard shamanic magic defined as the art of "persuading" the
universe to do what you want... The candle will light because
_you_are_Skeeve_.
Gordon
Tim Fitzmaurice
> The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
> they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> impressed, but I wasn't.
Weeell, this is a demographics thing...1st ed is a setup for long term
campaigns with the balancing and gains/losses evened out over that long
term setup. 3E is designed for a more accessible approach,
more flexible to the pick up game without having to sort out the
balancing..or at least make it faster. This fits a wider demographic. This
approach has its own downsides, sure, but the idea I feel it that the
popularist look of the book is designed to attract new players, or
possibly those who come from the competing realms of the Storyteller
system etc (that 1st Ed never had to contend with). Established
roleplayers are not their target for the cover.....
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> newbies.
Eye candy on its own isnt a problem...eye candy at the expense of the
game mechanics and content as is all too common in computer games, fine
thats a problem. However I dont think thats happened here.
I've never liked the Planescape style artworks and there's a fair chunk of
that in 3E...but thats personal taste. What I dont like is the shading,
and the layout of the artwork and the design from that perspective.
Detracts too much from getting info out of the books. And I agree with the
pencil issue....having house rules in the right place is just too
useful...again thats not a 3E problem though..2E had some of those
hassles.
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
> they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
Leadership requires a level of creativity, a level of force of
personality, a level of perception to be enacted. My 1e (later 1/2e
hybrid..or rather 1e with 2e tack ons), used Cha as a measure of
perception based on me reading what the stats signified in1e and
going from there.....all the above would be useful for the manipulation of
arcane forces. Also I believe CHA has been explicitly redefined....not
sure if I like the way its been done myself but in that context, it works.
> > Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
I think if anything its become very easy to abuse in some other respects.
Theres a fair degree of front loading in a lot of the classes and grabbing
one level in a second class is extremely useful....overall I view this is
reflecting the change of philosophy over how and when class balance is
done...this solves many problems and raises some others...ie its a change
not a loss or gain inherently.
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
> like the idea of weapons specialization, though.
Yes, new...we saw the beginnings of it in 2E (as a declared OlD Fart Im
not sure how familiar you are with 2E)....and certainly weapon profs and
NWPs that have now edged to feats. Not entirely new in concept but theyve
taken several systems and resorted them to several new ones...dont think
they necessarily work better but there certainly isnt a evolving/tacked on
feel to them anymore. Specialisation seems perfectly reasonable to
me...some people are just specialists...with a High Fantasy accumulative
skill with levels system I always thought it fit...and its not quite as
easy to get these days either.....so it requires advancement IIRC. Not
sure I necessarily like that as a 1E fighter going for specialisation from
UA needed a lot of slots and was quite focussed in taking that
specialisation...so its definitely changed.
> In 1E, a fighter
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
> properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?)
Er no they couldnt....they could pick up 4...if they picked up an
unfamiliar weapon they were still worse using it than a 1st MU who was
proficient. 3E gives a massive grasp of weapons to Fighters...probably
thats a plus to 3E (though I personally would go for all simples and a
selection of martials (maybe one group) for personal preference.
> Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
I was always OK with NWPs as a concept....as there are simply too many
things that aint class specific that need a dice roll..its handy to have
them codified to some extent. Didnt like the grouping system of 2E myself
since any class related skills should be class related IMO. And they were
too restrictive in their numbers and advancement potential in 1E stuff.
> irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> multiclass.
The core skills that arent class related could be stripped out and the
exclusive skills and and class/non-class divide reinforced easily...I view
it more as they spotted a nice skillsystem for the non class stuff and
shoehorned the class stuff on top, with exclusive class skills onto the
same system. The fairly heavy spread of class skills I dont know if I like
or not....but fighters are pretty focussed, and the rogue is fairly broad
which feels right....however your way could be reinforced by making class
skills class skills and no access to anything that aint general if you
wanted. The binary feel of 1e could be put in there with only a little
work.
> Spells - what's this? Each spell listed ONCE, in ALPHABETICAL ORDER??
> And here I thought people didn't do things that made sense in the real
> world. A definite improvement.
Ah yes....no more 'refer to Cleric lvl1 section'. no more 'is that a UA or
PHB spell'. As supplements come out though this will break down a little.
Its handy to have a table by level as well as thats how you fill the
spell slots thats kept up to date in any significant magic supplement
though.
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Chris Basken
> Chris Basken wrote:
> > Back in, hm, 1982 (I think) we had a teacher take away my friend's 1e
> > Deities & Demigods because of the pic of that female warrior creature
from
> > the Melnibonean Mythos. What were they called?
>
> Elenoin. Female Horn of Valhalla warriors, kind of, only naked for some
> reason. Maybe they didn't have good armor artists back then.
My theory is that they were more fun to draw that way. ;)
> > I imagine she wasn't any happier when she thumbed through it later on.
I
> > never found out if my friend got it back.
>
> Was it a theology class? Heh.
Nah, 20th Century American History, I think. I can't quite remember; it was
7th grade and I've blocked out a lot of those times (deliberately).
David Sulger
> In article <3ac4908.02081...@posting.google.com>,
> the_rea...@hotmail.com (David Sulger) writes:
>
> >In general, I prefer the art from around
> >early 2e, which is about where I started.
>
> It's the Nipples right? Went back and looked at all me 1E and 2E books for
> the art- it has to be the nipples on the women that make people all nostalgic
> becasue that stuff was crap.
Eh? If I'm not mistaken, the entire period of 2e was covered by the
infamous Nipple Ban.
Douglas Bailey
> > > Back in, hm, 1982 (I think) we had a teacher take away my friend's 1e
> > > Deities & Demigods because of the pic of that female warrior creature
> > > from the Melnibonean Mythos. What were they called?
> >
> > Elenoin. Female Horn of Valhalla warriors, kind of, only naked for some
> > reason. Maybe they didn't have good armor artists back then.
>
> My theory is that they were more fun to draw that way. ;)
Sorry to disappoint, but they were naked in the story: the artist just
drew what the page said. :-)
Robert
>
> The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
> they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> impressed, but I wasn't.
>
I think the cover is fine. I think it looks good. But I can't say I
wasn't a bit disappointed when I first saw it.
I've purchased lots of versions of D&D over the years: D&D Basic Set, D&D
Expert Set, AD&D Players Handbook, AD&D 2nd Edition Players Handbook, and
the new D&D Players Handbook (3e). (Just listing the PH and not every
book from every edition.) Of all of them, the original AD&D PH had the
most interesting cover art. Sure, the publisher can afford much higher
quality art today, but for sheer make-you-want-to-play imagery, it
worked. Of course, the original AD&D DMG was very similar.
And I certainly don't think the original PH & DMG covers were the best
make-you-want-to-play covers that could be created. Imagine what one of
today's professional RPG artists could have done given the commission to
create a make-you-want-to-play cover instead of a looks-like-a-magic-book
cover.
>
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> newbies.
>
I have no problem with the artwork. And I love some of the captions.
I HATE that stuff around the edges of the page, though.
And I don't care how subtle anyone may think it is, an image behind text
is a bad idea.
All that said, I love 3e. I don't really care if it were typewritten
pages stapled together with no artwork or what we actually have. As long
as the artwork doesn't get in the way too much, I'm OK with it.
Hida Bukkorosu
> really wanted to play a Paladin.
Level limits. Only humans could reach levels in the teens and 20s in anything
other than Thief.
Jasin Zujovic
Did anyone actually use those rules? What happened when the elf fighter
reached his level limit? The player just kept on playing the same
character with no room for advancement, ever?
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Bradd W. Szonye
>> The other differences are that you can improve your skills in 3E.
>> Also, NWPs in 2E were gained at an obscenely low rate, and were far
>> more limited in what you could learn.
Varl <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
> This is exactly why I've revamped the NWP system for my game to take
> into account character growth in NWPs. The base NWP system is bad in
> regards to character growth, but that doesn't mean it can't be
> changed. I've applied greater penalties at the start of a character's
> career and the choices they make for NWPs, and it's going to work
> great. No more +4 base modifiers to a NWP at 1st level. Character
> growth in any NWPs they take will no longer stagnate as they gain
> levels. The tradeoff is while they will suck at low levels in most
> NWPs, they'll be able to improve themselves as levels are gained.
It sounds like you're re-implementing the skill system from D&D3 (or
maybe the one from PO: Skills & Powers, which is very similar).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Ralph Glatt
Aw, man, you are so lucky!!! That thing is probably rare as Hell!!
sNOm...@sonic.net
: "Justisaur" <rpil...@rcsis.com> wrote :
:> The non humans still have things like low light vision, and
:> different stats to attract the munchkins,
:
: To attract the munchkins?
Well, how -I- read that was, "so someone who wants to do the dex-geek
thing takes a Dex-max'ed race, someone who wants Big Hit Points takes
a Con-max'ed race, etc etc etc".
You know: the minimax approach to character-building. IMHO it's not
quite the same as munchkinism, but IMHO it's a kissin' cousin. ;-)
--
Steve Saunders
to de-spam me, de-capitalize me
Kershek
@aol.comSPAM says...
> Maybe they rolled "Armor type: naked".
Artist's roll for armor:
01-98: Naked
99-00: Crap, gotta put something on 'em.
Certic
Ralph Glatt <juli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce9c44dd.02081...@posting.google.com...
If it's in good condition, it might be valuable - I know a good Deities and
Demigods with the Cthulhu and Melnibonean stuff in it is worth a modest
sum...
--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
"No-one ever suddenly became depraved"
- Juvenal, Satires
--
Certic
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote in message
news:MPG.17cb6419c...@news.iskon.hr...
Yes. We suffered for our Elves in those days.
sNOm...@sonic.net
:> Charisma is "Force of Will." though FWIW im not really sure what that
:> is. Something like how strong your personality is or similar.
:-)
Though I rather like 3E, when I hear Charisma defined this way I always
have to squelch the impulse to put on a fatuous smile and say:
Ahhh! Thanks, *NOW* I understand! Force of WILL: Charisma
modifies WILL saves!
: Well, I once heard shamanic magic defined as the art of "persuading"
: the universe to do what you want... The candle will light because
: _you_are_Skeeve_.
Well, if you are Skeeve, the candle is more likely to burn your ass
after you give up and turn away in disgust...
But yeah, otherwise I think you've got it right. ;-)
Justisaur
"Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> Christopher Adams <mhacde...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> > A sorcerer, therefore, is able to cast spells because his force of
> > will is so strong, he can tap into inner reservoirs of power and
> > unleash them upon the world as magic; and, if you want an explanation
> > for why this "inner power" manifests itself almost identically to
> > book-learned wizard spells, perhaps magic is codified by the gods or
> > the very nature of the thing.
>
> Here's my take on the wizardry vs sorcery thing: Sorcerers came first.
> Wizards emulate sorcerers. They use ritual and study to do the same
> things sorcerers can do naturally, without needing incredible Charisma
> to do it well. (Of course, they need incredible Intelligence instead.)
That's fine for explaining it in your own campain. However none of the
standard campains had it this way, there were no sorcerers then suddenly
*poof* you've got them. Through some totally unbelievable D.E.M.
Phillip Ames
>
>> Did anyone actually use those rules? What happened when the elf fighter
>> reached his level limit? The player just kept on playing the same
>> character with no room for advancement, ever?
>------
>Yes. We suffered for our Elves in those days.
>
Really? Cause most of the time, where I played, if the DM _did_ enforce those
level limits, they did things like allowing the non-human pc to use a wish to
increase their level limit by one. How this was reconciled in-game, I don't
know, but I saw it several times.
Phil
Kershek
P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk says...
> > Did anyone actually use those rules? What happened when the elf fighter
> > reached his level limit? The player just kept on playing the same
> > character with no room for advancement, ever?
> ------
> Yes. We suffered for our Elves in those days.
I never knew anyone who paid attention to the level limit rule.
Justisaur
> >Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> >for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> >want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
> >
>
> really wanted to play a Paladin.
>
Well there was always the Dual Classing Rules to Abuse...
- Justisaur -
"When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often,
that individual is crazy." - Dave Barry
NtlAcrobat
Yeah, but my house rules going all the way back to 1E in 1980 were as follows:
All races could multiclass
There were no level limits
No race restrictions on classes
It has been my experience, with the various groups that I have run for the last
20 years or so, with 1E, 2E, and now 3E, that the players I have had, always
seemed to want to play the same race, regardless of rules.
We have the people who always play humans, no matter what; we have the dwarf
and elf bunch, and the people who always play half elves. It doesn't seem to
matter about anything. These people just like what they like. I can almost
always guess what I am going to get at character generation time.
"I was foul and tainted, devoid of faith wearing my death mask at birth
the hands of god, decrepit and thin, cold caress and then nothing"
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>h_l...@bigpond.com (Mad Hamish) wrote in message news:<3d5facc3...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>> On 17 Aug 2002 12:33:02 -0700, juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
>> >pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
>> >and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
>> >did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
>> >they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
>> >newbies.
>>
>> More durable and you can always make notes in something else...
>
>Durable, huh? I seem to recall another post in this thread where
>someone mentioned his 3E books were starting to fall apart long before
>his 1E books. ;-)
Binding faults have happened to some percentage of any books.
Gloss paper is likely to be more resistant to general wear than
non-glossy.
>> >
>> >Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
>> >better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
>> >like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
>> >could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it.
>>
>> At a penalty yes, as is the case in 3rd ed..
>> In AD&D 1st ed weapon proficiencies were more limited for fighters
>> than in the current D&D game.
>
>Um, exsqueeze me, there really wasn't anything about weapon
>proficiencies until Unearthed Arcana, which I never really used. But
>yeah, if you use UA, you would be right.
1st Ed players handbook page 37 Weapon Proficiency Table
have a look at it.
>
>>
>> > (You'd think a
>> >properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?)
>>
>> Please go and find anybody who could use all weapons effectively.
>> People generally do specialise.
>
>That's why I added the next part, sunshine. ;-)
>
Exactly what real world person has ever been able to use all weapons
well?
>> >
>> >Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
>> >were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
>> >that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
>> >irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
>> >still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
>> >belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
>> >multiclass.
>>
>> Bah.
>
>Your sheep impersonation does not impress me. ;-)
Please explain the exact problems you have with the skills and why
somebody without a particular class shouldn't be able to do them.
>
>Ah, another thing I forgot to mention. I did try it. Didn't like it,
>but as I said, it was probably because the adventure was poorly
>written.
a one off convention game....wow.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com
JDJarvis
> what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
> opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
> flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
> In 1E, a fighter
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
> properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?)
You don't sound like much of an old timer wiht that comment.
1e most certainly had Weapon Profficiencies before any of the later
expansion books came out.
Justisaur
I never gamed with anyone who actually used those rules, except at a
convention. Most campains didn't last that long anway, as leveling took
much longer. IIRC there was a rule about higher stats allowing higher
levels, so if you started to get close to those limits, you could
frantically search for ways to increase your stats. Thief was unlimited
as well for most races, so many would take theif so they could continue
gaining levels. In 2e they introduced the idea that you could penalize
non-human races 3x xp after getting to the higher levels instead of a
cap, I used that, not that many ever reached that level...
Bill_Leary
news:cd243c10.02081...@posting.google.com...
Technically true, but I've never met a DM who actually paid any attention to
that particular rule. *
- Bill
---------
* Line up on the left, single file.
Stephenls
> Ahhh! Thanks, *NOW* I understand! Force of WILL: Charisma
> modifies WILL saves!
Charisma is offensive willpower, whereas Wisdom is defensive. There may
indeed be circumstances where it would be appropriate to use your
charisma modifier rather than your wisdom for your Will save.
--
Stephenls
Geek
So you've got a gang of armed thugs that you can influence. Big deal.
Who doesn't have armed thugs? -Graham Brown
Sea Wasp
>
> A while back I broke down and bought the 3E Player's Handbook to see
> what all the fuss was about. Here are some of my obswervations and
> opinions about it. You don't have to like it, of course, but any
> flames will be ignored. (Asbestos underwear. ;-)
Does you no good against magical fire sufficient to vaporize diamonds,
Young One.
>
> The cover - if they sought to make the book look like a magical tome,
> they failed. Harry Potter and a bunch of other 12 year olds may be
> impressed, but I wasn't.
*shrug* it's cool enough. Reminded me of The Arcanum. Which remains one
of the coolest RPG supplement/systems ever made.
>
> Inside - oooh, looky!! Fancy art and glossy pages!! Well, the glossy
> pages might come in handy if you're hands are greasy from the chips
> and pizza, but it doesn't allow you to pencil in any notes. (Yes, I
> did this with my 1E books.)Suprise, suprise, the artwork looks like
> they came from Magic cards. Eye candy to impress the young and the
> newbies.
Given that this is the target, you should then say "good job".
Those who are ALREADY gamers won't care about production values,
they'll actually look at the game first. But if you want to sell the
game to those who AREN'T gamers yet, you need to keep their attention.
Also, having been in the game myself since D&D was three stapled
pamphlets, I much prefer the 3e approach. The only part I didn't like
was the colored paper/lines combo, which was a bit busy for my taste.
>
> Classes - not bad. I miss the term Magic User, though. I like the way
> they improved the Barbarian and the Bard. (Then again ANY changes over
> the 1E Bard would be an improvement!) Ooooh, looky!! A class based on
> Charisma!! If someone would care to enlighten me on how leadership
> ability relates to spellcasting, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
You might actually try reading the 11 dozen threads on that subject.
Put shortly and sweetly, Charisma isn't "leadership ability". It's
"force of personality", which HELPS in leadership. If your very soul is
more forceful, this is where you can derive power for instinctual magic.
This was part of the design idea, and works very well, since Charisma
then can be applied to people who (like the iconic examples of Hitler
and Napoleon) were NOT good-looking yet could influence people around
them. It gives personality a mystical dimension, fitting in a magical
world, and allows use of that dimension.
>
> Multiclass - now anyone can multiclass. Kind of takes away the reason
> for having a nonhuman character. I can understand why someone would
> want to do it, though, and the rules seem to make it hard to abuse it.
The reason for having a nonhuman character?
The reason *I* knew about was that you wanted to PLAY one.
>
> Feats - ah, something new has been added! Yeah, I suppose it helps to
> better define the character, but I got along fine without it. I don't
> like the idea of weapons specialization, though. In 1E, a fighter
> could pick up ANY weapon and be able to use it. (You'd think a
> properly trained fighter would be able to do that, wouldn't you?)
No, actually, I wouldn't. Hand a fighter from Western Europe a
Kusari-gama and he'll just stare at it, and possibly kill himself with
it if he tries using it. A classically trained Samurai handed a flail
might maim himself with that, too.
The feats do many things, not the least of which allowing you to define
characters which in the old editions were perfectly good CONCEPTS, but
were suicidal in game mechanic terms; Finesse, for instance, so you can
finally play that not-very-strong but still hideously deadly swordsman
(since he can use his 18 dex for attack bonuses).
> Skills - something else to help better define characters. In OE they
> were called Non-weapon Proficiencies. Never liked them. (If I wanted
> that much detail in my game, I'd just use GURPS.) The one thing that
> irritates me most about skills is that, even with the restrictions, it
> still allows players to make up characters that can do things that
> belong to another class. If you're going to do that, may as well
> multiclass.
There's things that should be restricted, and things that shouldn't.
The ability to use a SKILL isn't something that should be restricted.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Joe Wells
> Ralph Glatt <juli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>h_l...@bigpond.com (Mad Hamish) wrote...
>
>
>>>More durable and you can always make notes in something else...
>>
>>Durable, huh? I seem to recall another post in this thread where
>>someone mentioned his 3E books were starting to fall apart long before
>>his 1E books. ;-)
>
>
> a single bad binding run or something: my 3e books -- each bought on the
> first day of release -- see constant use and are in fine shape apart
> from the usual scuffing on the covers. None of my friends' copies seem
> to be falling apart, either.
>
> It's my *2e* _PHB_ and _DMG_ -- the original versions, not the revised
> editions -- that are feeling a bit loose in the binding.
Among the books I own (a good chunk of 1,2 and 3e) and the books of
other players, Unearthed Arcana has to be the most poorly bound book of
the lot. It's the only one I've seen that has pages falling out of the
spine, and I've seen it on several copies.
--
Hello, my name is Joe Wells, and I am a munchkin.
-MA meeting 4/11/93
Varl
Yes, I did use those rules when I first started DMing, but only because
I didn't know any better. It didn't take me long to notice that bug in
the software and remove level limits altogether.
--
"Trials of Ascension- it's not just point and click anymore!"
Varl
> Yeah, but my house rules going all the way back to 1E in 1980 were as follows:
>
> All races could multiclass
> There were no level limits
> No race restrictions on classes
>
> It has been my experience, with the various groups that I have run for the last
> 20 years or so, with 1E, 2E, and now 3E, that the players I have had, always
> seemed to want to play the same race, regardless of rules.
>
> We have the people who always play humans, no matter what; we have the dwarf
> and elf bunch, and the people who always play half elves. It doesn't seem to
> matter about anything. These people just like what they like. I can almost
> always guess what I am going to get at character generation time.
I've noticed the same tendencies with my players and with myself. One
player prefers dwarves, another plays virtually nothing but elves or
halflings, another prefers humans, and I've always preferred gnomes. So
much for the racial/player biases theory. ;)