Are you going to make the switch to 3e?
mage...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
are what I am hoping for then I'll switch. Odds are , from what I have read
about so far, I will. I am excited abpout the new changes and hope thqat
TSR pulls this one off.
Mike Clark wrote:
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
> As for myself, I'm still up in the air. I'm sure I'll buy the PHB and
> DMG and take a look at them, then make my final decision. There's a
> pretty good chance I'll make the switch, as I already use some things
> from 3rd Ed. (I allow any race/class/multi-class combo with no level
> limits, etc)
> One thing I'd really like to see in monster descriptions is a breakdown
> of how they achieve thier AC. How much of thier AC is derived from
> quickness/size/etc, and how much is from tough hides etc, as I use an AV
> system, and it's sometimes tough to determine what a monsters AV and AC
> should be.
>
> -Mike
Mike Clark
Barry Smith
>
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
Partially, at best. I will probably buy the core books (as the merchants
get perturbed if you stand there and read for too long) and evaluate
whether it's for me. There are a lot of rules that I've heard mentioned
here and from public knowledge that I know I won't be using from 3rd
edition. Chances are, 3rd edition will end up being a revision of my 2nd
edition game system, a modification of some existing systems, rather
than a wholesale conversion IMC.
Don
Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:389B5E9F...@earthlink.net...
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
I will most likely buy the 3 core books. From what I've heard, 3e is fixing
up a lot of problems.
- Don
Dave Brohman
Will I switch...
I honestly don't know, but probably. OR at least I will adapt stuff
from 3e into my games (especailly since much of what I have read of 3e
seems to address MANY problems I have had with the D&D rules over the
years).
I will, certainly, pick up the core books (or, owing to the fortuitous
release date, ask for them for my birthday :)
--
What is an Orc?
An orc is a fire plug of fighting machine made of muscle, hide, talon
and tusk, with a villainous disposition and a mean sense of humour.
And, of course, an orc is a poor dumb grunt - the much abused foot
soldier in the Evil Horde of Darkness.
-- From the jacket notes of "GRUNTS" by Mary Gentle
JTWombat
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
> <snip>
>
> -Mike
In a word - yep.
In many more words - I've been trying to get my house rules handbook hammered out
ever since I decided to "switch back" to AD&D from GURPS some 6 months ago. At first I
ignored 3rd Ed postings, because I figured it was going to be like the 1st to 2nd change -
recompilation, reprinting, occasional useful stuff - but the more I see, the more I'm
convinced the WoTC gnomes stole my house rule handbook, pureed it with some creative stuff
from other folk's house rules, and is making a great game that will emphasize the stuff
I've been trying ot get right for a couple of years. I will still use a few House rules
I'm sure - one or two things I've worked up are too radical to be covered by even the
widest variant I've seen so far - but overall I think D&D3 will be a highly flexible,
easily adaptable system with all the good stuff of the previous incarnations, but with
style all it's own.
Either that, or the WoTC gnomes are pumping mind control gas from their store into
mine next store when I'm not looking.
Either way, I can't wait for the 3rd age to start.
JW
john v verkuilen
in to the melange of rules from 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, Basic, and House I
currently use. This depends heavily on the group I game with in the future
though. For my current group I see no value to changing because we're all
fairly used to and settled on our mix of rules, but this could change.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
A legal King Crimson bootleg from the Aug. 2-4, 1996, Mexico City shows:
http://drm.goestoeleven.com/wm/dgm/default.htm.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Mike Clark wrote:
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
> As for myself, I'm still up in the air. I'm sure I'll buy the PHB and
> DMG and take a look at them, then make my final decision. There's a
> pretty good chance I'll make the switch, as I already use some things
> from 3rd Ed. (I allow any race/class/multi-class combo with no level
> limits, etc)
> One thing I'd really like to see in monster descriptions is a breakdown
> of how they achieve thier AC. How much of thier AC is derived from
> quickness/size/etc, and how much is from tough hides etc,
You'll like the 3E D&D MM.
--
Sean K Reynolds - game designer, computer artist, web guy, bigmouth
Want a self-contained tropical campaign setting with savages,
ancient empires, slavers, xenophobes, and yuan-ti?
Try THE SCARLET BROTHERHOOD, an accessory written by yours truly;
follow the "My Published Game Products" link on my web page:
http://www.seankreynolds.com
Coik
>There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
I suppose I'll have to give the stand answer and say, "It depends."
I know, at the very least, I'll play at least two camapigns using the rules.
The DM of the camapign that I'm playing in at the moment and I have to come to
a little consensus: We're going to use our regular group as guniea pigs.
We're going to freeze our regular game for the time and play a pure 3e game.
At the same time, I'm going to be running another game, on a different night,
so we both get to see how the rules work from both sides of the DMG. ((I
origionally DMed games, but hung up the shield a few years ago because I had
gotten sick of the frustrations involved. So it's not just a case of a
power-obsessed player. :) Lately, it's been calling to me again...))
For the most part, I'm neutral on all the changes being presented, as I wait to
be able to make an informed decision. However, there are a few things that
stick out in my mind as negatives...monks, assassins, barbarians, the magic
item creation system, the initative system...
Not to say I'm not going to give them a far shake, though. That just means I'm
going to be watching those elements more carefully than other things.
>as I use an AV
>system
All right, I'll bite...what's an AV system? I've never heard that terminology
before.
---------------------------
Coik
Coik's Rants & Reviews page
http://members.aol.com/dmcoik/rant.htm
Last updated 12/19/99: Why 3e Concept Art Could be Fun
Mark Horning
Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
implement a handfull of usefull changes to my 1st/2nd mix games.
Mark E. Horning "You can not enslave a free man. The most
Physicist you can do is kill him."
Phoenix AZ --Robert A. Heinlein-- (Free Men)
DungeonMasterDM
>There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out and ask
the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
Not me. I play too many systems to bother with buying and learning another one.
I'm not putting it down but all my players like 2 ed. I refuse to switch to the
new Marvel Saga rules too. It's not that I won't but that I already own too
many books to thrash them all just to go by a new system.
Nostromo
>There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
You betcha! A change is as good (or better!) than a holiday, sometimes! :-)
>As for myself, I'm still up in the air. I'm sure I'll buy the PHB and
>DMG and take a look at them, then make my final decision. There's a
>pretty good chance I'll make the switch, as I already use some things
>from 3rd Ed. (I allow any race/class/multi-class combo with no level
>limits, etc)
>One thing I'd really like to see in monster descriptions is a breakdown
>of how they achieve thier AC. How much of thier AC is derived from
>quickness/size/etc, and how much is from tough hides etc, as I use an AV
>system, and it's sometimes tough to determine what a monsters AV and AC
>should be.
As Sean has already replied, this & many, many other changes have made it
almost a 'must buy' in my mind. I've already pre-ordered with Amazon (God
knows with Aussie distributors being the lazy, useless pricks that they
are, I probably won't get it till 2001 if I wait for the books to be
available locally >:-)...
--
To reply via e-mail *when solicited* and given *express permission* to do so,
please replace 'spamfree' with...ahhh f#$k it! Don't even bother (if you must,
post a request & I'll mail you)...
Titanic/Shite-anic; "Starship Troopers" - the greatest love story of the decade!!!
Avalon_
>In article <389B5E9F...@earthlink.net>,
>Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>>and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>>
>No. I shall do what most rational people will do. Buy the books and
>implement a handfull of usefull changes to my 1st/2nd mix games.
Exactly. Personally, I already use quite a bit (Okay,, tons) of
different rules so I will pick and choose from the new material.
Unless they happen to hit on a mana and combat and HPs systems
etc.etc. that I like. Unlikely!
I don't know if I have ever seen a campaign that runs only by the core
books or even including all official material.
Later
Avalon_
Larry Mead
: Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: news:389B5E9F...@earthlink.net...
:> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
:> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
: I will most likely buy the 3 core books. From what I've heard, 3e is fixing
: up a lot of problems.
And creating a host of others. Unlike the switch from 1e to 2e where at
least the game was recongnizable, this will indeed be a wholly new game if
the descriptions here are accurate.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Jamie Devall
at $20 vs. $30(2e).
I don't really bother with the non-weapon proficiencies that much, so I
might just look at my friends' copies of 3e to check it out for myself.
I've already got 1e and most of 2e hardcovers. I don't know if I can
justify investing $60 more dollars into it. I am happy that they are making
some changes and bringing back some of the good things about 1e. i.e.
monks, assassins, etc.
Are Barbarians coming back?
-Jamie
Nostromo <nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote in message
news:677n9s8sd6a04kb69...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 23:22:06 GMT, Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
> >There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> >and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
Jamie Devall
think they work well. Why get rid of them?
NtlAcrobat
informed them that if we switch to 3E that it is 3E all the way. We currently
run a campaign that is a mix of 1st and 2nd edition with a few house rules. I
have told them that there will be no intermingling of the systems. Also,
someone is also going to have to buy a few books to help out.
Allister Huggins
>
> One more thing. i don't like how they're doing away with saving throws. I
> think they work well. Why get rid of them?
Probably because Fortitude, Reflex and Will are easier to understand.
The number of saves inherent in the 1st/2nd ed system leaves me
scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
Allister H.
john v verkuilen
+1 on the save, actually. Why this isn't a "Breath" save I'm not sure, but
the entire difference between Rod/Staff/Wand and Spell is that the former
is one point better than the latter.
My own save system has four basic categories: Fortitude (Petrify/Polymorph/
Poison--which I moved from Will), Reflex (Breath), Will (Death Magic/
Paralysis), and Craft (Spell). Seems they went down to three.
john v verkuilen
>Don <?@?.?> wrote:
>: Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>: news:389B5E9F...@earthlink.net...
>:> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>:> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>: I will most likely buy the 3 core books. From what I've heard, 3e is fixing
>: up a lot of problems.
>And creating a host of others. Unlike the switch from 1e to 2e where at
>least the game was recongnizable, this will indeed be a wholly new game if
>the descriptions here are accurate.
Wait, I thought you were the one who's long said that 2nd Edition was a
"substantial revision?" (Just yanking your purist chain.)
Allister Huggins
>
> Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> writes:
<snip>
> >scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
> >released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
>
> +1 on the save, actually. Why this isn't a "Breath" save I'm not sure, but
> the entire difference between Rod/Staff/Wand and Spell is that the former
> is one point better than the latter.
Ok, but why is it better? What's the reasoning behind having the
Rod/Staff/Wand categorization?. A fireball released from a wand of
fireballs acts the same as a 6th level fireball from a spellcaster.
Hell, to even place charges into the wand, you need to use fireball
spells.
> My own save system has four basic categories: Fortitude (Petrify/Polymorph/
> Poison--which I moved from Will), Reflex (Breath), Will (Death Magic/
> Paralysis), and Craft (Spell). Seems they went down to three.
Seems like you will have an easy time converting your own house rules
if you choose to pick up the 3ed books. Why the "Craft" category though?
What does a PC check first when they are attacked by a fireball lobbing
wizard, reflex or craft? Also, what spells don't actually fall under one
of the three previous headings?
Allister H.
Jason Hatter
(Allister Huggins) proclaimed <389D08F7...@home.com>:
> Ok, but why is it better? What's the reasoning behind having
> the
>Rod/Staff/Wand categorization?. A fireball released from a wand of
>fireballs acts the same as a 6th level fireball from a
>spellcaster. Hell, to even place charges into the wand, you need
>to use fireball spells.
Source. It's not a living, breathing mind that's generating that
spell, it's a (more or less) mechanical generation. IMC, I've thrown
Scrolls into that category, and more or less think of it as "Devices"
--
Jason
ICQ#24332701
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Trainz
>
> Honestly, I don't know. It will be nice to have a monstrous manual priced
> at $20 vs. $30(2e).
> I don't really bother with the non-weapon proficiencies that much, so I
> might just look at my friends' copies of 3e to check it out for myself.
> I've already got 1e and most of 2e hardcovers. I don't know if I can
> justify investing $60 more dollars into it.
I got most 1st, most 2nd, and I'll get all 3rd Ed.
I am happy that they are making
> some changes and bringing back some of the good things about 1e. i.e.
> monks, assassins, etc.
Indeed.
> Are Barbarians coming back?
Yyyyyup !
But they are a bit toned down (i.e. UA).
For all info on 3rd Ed, see that little GW-Basic code...
10 CLB; rem "Clear Brain"
20 GOTO http://www.mailbag.com/users/ericnoah/dandd3e.htm
30 ASCII; rem "Absolutely Stunning 'Cause Insanely Incredible!"
--
______________________________
/| Trainz |
| |
| Music composer |
| You may download my songs at|
| http://www.e-mtl.com/trainz |
/ /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Viper
> Mike Clark wrote:
> > One thing I'd really like to see in monster descriptions is a breakdown
> > of how they achieve thier AC. How much of thier AC is derived from
> > quickness/size/etc, and how much is from tough hides etc,
>
<Raises eyebrow>
Re-heh-heaaaaalyy!?
Neat!
--
The Viper
My e-mail isn't really WARMmail.com you know, I'm much hotter than that!
Randolpho The Great
Mike Clark wrote:
>
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
Well, I'll just forego the hemming and hawing that others have done, and
answer you with just two words: "Hell, yeah1"
--
Randolpho The Great, Greatest Magician Ever to Have Lived.
(or is that 21 words?)
"Elminster? Bah!"
- Randolpho
"The BlackStaff?? Pbbbttt!!"
- Randolpho
Randolpho The Great
Randolpho The Great wrote:
> answer you with just two words: "Hell, yeah1"
^
Sorry, that was supposed to be an exclamation point!
--
Randolpho The Great, Greatest Magician Ever to Have Lived.
"Elminster? Bah!"
Larry Mead
: Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> writes:
:>Don <?@?.?> wrote:
:>: Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:>: news:389B5E9F...@earthlink.net...
:>:> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
:>:> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
:>: I will most likely buy the 3 core books. From what I've heard, 3e is fixing
:>: up a lot of problems.
:>And creating a host of others. Unlike the switch from 1e to 2e where at
:>least the game was recongnizable, this will indeed be a wholly new game if
:>the descriptions here are accurate.
: Wait, I thought you were the one who's long said that 2nd Edition was a
: "substantial revision?" (Just yanking your purist chain.)
It depends on whether or not you thought UA was "official" . ;)
Larry Mead
: One more thing. i don't like how they're doing away with saving throws. I
: think they work well. Why get rid of them?
[snip]
How do you know that they are eliminating saves? I have never seen anyone
here say that yet.
Larry Mead
: Jamie Devall wrote:
:>
:> One more thing. i don't like how they're doing away with saving throws. I
:> think they work well. Why get rid of them?
: Probably because Fortitude, Reflex and Will are easier to understand.
: The number of saves inherent in the 1st/2nd ed system leaves me
: scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
: released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
Power level; wands are sixth level effect (six dice) the caster is his own
level.
DMGorgon
Allister Huggins
>
> Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> : scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
> : released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
>
> Power level; wands are sixth level effect (six dice) the caster is his own
> level.
Which beggars the question. What's the difference between the fireball
thrown from a wand a fireball thrown by a sixth level wizard?
Allister H.
Allister Huggins
>
> Jamie Devall <debal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> : One more thing. i don't like how they're doing away with saving throws. I
<snip>
> How do you know that they are eliminating saves? I have never seen anyone
> here say that yet.
They aren't. They simply are moving to a "3 types of save" system.
Fortitude, Reflex and Will are the names of the three save categories.
Allister H.
Barry Smith
> > : scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
> > : released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
> >
> > Power level; wands are sixth level effect (six dice) the caster is his own
> > level.
>
> Which beggars the question. What's the difference between the fireball
> thrown from a wand a fireball thrown by a sixth level wizard?
Nothing. They're identical in power, volume, and explosive composition.
What I'm curious about is has anyone ever considered why charged magic
items are considered set at a certain power level, and why there isn't a
Wand of Fire that is powered at 9th level? I've always wondered why 6th
level was the arbitrary level for this, and if anyone has ever changed
it. Thanks.
john v verkuilen
>Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote:
>: Jamie Devall wrote:
>:>
>:> One more thing. i don't like how they're doing away with saving throws. I
>:> think they work well. Why get rid of them?
>: Probably because Fortitude, Reflex and Will are easier to understand.
>: The number of saves inherent in the 1st/2nd ed system leaves me
>: scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
>: released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
>Power level; wands are sixth level effect (six dice) the caster is his own
>level.
But power level doesn't have anything to do with it. If I had a Wand of
Charm Person I would roll vs. RSW to save. If I had the spell cast by a
1st level neophyte, I'd roll vs. Spell to save, in effect giving a -1 penalty
since Spell saves are all one point lower than RSW. So this can't be it.
john v verkuilen
[snip]
>Nothing. They're identical in power, volume, and explosive composition.
>What I'm curious about is has anyone ever considered why charged magic
>items are considered set at a certain power level, and why there isn't a
>Wand of Fire that is powered at 9th level? I've always wondered why 6th
>level was the arbitrary level for this, and if anyone has ever changed
>it. Thanks.
Well it probably came about because at one point someone needed to decide
how effective these devices were and I wouldn't be shocked if they noticed
that 6d6 was picked for several, so they ran with it.
I use 6th level for Wands, 8th level for Staves, and 10th level for Rods, if
it ever is relevant. (Rods rarely duplicate existing spell effects, however.)
Some items might differ, however, like the offensive Wand of Force that was
found once, which was fairly nasty and effectively higher level than 6th.
john v verkuilen
>john v verkuilen wrote:
>>
>> Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> writes:
><snip>
>> >scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
>> >released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
>>
>> +1 on the save, actually. Why this isn't a "Breath" save I'm not sure, but
>> the entire difference between Rod/Staff/Wand and Spell is that the former
>> is one point better than the latter.
> Ok, but why is it better? What's the reasoning behind having the
>Rod/Staff/Wand categorization?. A fireball released from a wand of
>fireballs acts the same as a 6th level fireball from a spellcaster.
>Hell, to even place charges into the wand, you need to use fireball
>spells.
No clue. Actually a fireball from a Wand of Fire is *better* than a caster's
fireball, since it counts 1's as 2's.
>> My own save system has four basic categories: Fortitude (Petrify/Polymorph/
>> Poison--which I moved from Will), Reflex (Breath), Will (Death Magic/
>> Paralysis), and Craft (Spell). Seems they went down to three.
> Seems like you will have an easy time converting your own house rules
>if you choose to pick up the 3ed books. Why the "Craft" category though?
Well fighters are good at Fortitude, Thieves are good at Reflex, Priests
are good at Will, and Mages are good at Craft (thanks to Talisman for the
name :).
>What does a PC check first when they are attacked by a fireball lobbing
>wizard, reflex or craft?
Reflex.
Also, what spells don't actually fall under one
>of the three previous headings?
Fortitude: any petrification, polymorph, poisoning, or other gross alteration
of the body.
Reflex: anything avoided by getting out of the way.
Will: anything that you get a Wisdom bonus for (though I might need to look
that over again), Death Magic, any direct attack on the Will.
Craft: anything for which the cunning/intelligence of the target is important,
including illusions, some enchantment/charms, or anything that doesn't
*specifically* fit in the above categories, like saving vs. being teleported
or the like or saving vs. fire shield.
I think I need to go through the spell lists specifically....
Staffan Johansson
> : released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
>
> level.
But why should that affect the saving throw? If you're hit with a
fireball from a wand, you roll a save vs. wands but if you're hit by a
fireball that's cast "live" you roll a save vs. spells. The save vs.
wands is basically a save vs. spells with a +1 bonus, so why should it
be easier to save against fireball from a wand?
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
"There was always something that needed transferring from A to B or, of
course, to the bottom of the C."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather.
john v verkuilen
>: Wait, I thought you were the one who's long said that 2nd Edition was a
>: "substantial revision?" (Just yanking your purist chain.)
>It depends on whether or not you thought UA was "official" . ;)
Based on Gygax, et al's statements at the time it came out and the stuff
that was published in various products subsequently, yes. (This just proves
that "official" isn't necessarily "good," but the same could be said about
the Magic Missile spell.)
Joanie @ Kuma-Tsuru Pageworks
> Not me. I play too many systems to bother with buying and learning another one.
> I'm not putting it down but all my players like 2 ed. I refuse to switch to the
> new Marvel Saga rules too. It's not that I won't but that I already own too
> many books to thrash them all just to go by a new system.
I'm a game collector, not just a player or DM. The 3rd Edition will
likely be an important chapter in the history of D&D, and as the first
version to be published without the TSR logo, it stands as worthy of at
least buying the PHB and DMG.
- Joanie @ Kuma-Tsuru Pageworks
Dragonscroll
" Joanie @ Kuma-Tsuru Pageworks" <kur...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'm a game collector, not just a player or DM. The 3rd Edition will
> likely be an important chapter in the history of D&D, and as the first
> version to be published without the TSR logo, it stands as worthy of
> at least buying the PHB and DMG.
Have you checked out a book called the "Fantasy Role Playing Gamer's
Bible"? We got a promotional copy here a while back and it is still
making its rounds around the office, so I haven't had the chance to read
it. However, it apparently covers the history of the RPG industry, all
the way up to last year, and is a great read from what I hear.
James
Dragonscroll.com
--
Dragonscroll is your source for fantasy, sci fi and RPGs at 20-50% off!
http://www.dragonscroll.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dragonscroll
"Jamie Devall" <debal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> One more thing. i don't like how they're doing away with saving
> throws. I think they work well. Why get rid of them?
Personally, I never cared for saving throws. The system seems logical,
but the saving throws are designed to be missed unless you're high
level. I don't imagine that will change much with 3E.
James
Dragonscroll.com
--
Pre-order your Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition now at 20-30% off!
Dragonscroll
Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
I'm definitely considering it. We've been looking for a new system for
a while - 2E is fine, but everyone in our group knows the system so well
that we are practically min/maxing subconsciously. Plus, a few of our
friends have expressed interest in running D&D games, but they have
relatively little knowledge of the system, which is always a disaster in
my experience.
Normally, I would say that I'll be buying all the core rulebooks and
judging from there. However, with the PHB coming out a full month
before the DMG, and the MM another month after, I'll probably judge the
game based on the PHB, and see if it's worth getting the later books
based on that.
Larry Mead
: <snip>
:> : scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
:> : released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
:>
:> Power level; wands are sixth level effect (six dice) the caster is his own
:> level.
: Which beggars the question. What's the difference between the fireball
: thrown from a wand a fireball thrown by a sixth level wizard?
None: both are sixth level. There is a difference when the mage is 7th or
higher though illustrating the "principle" that spells are cast at the
level of the caster; in one case a person, in the other a device of fixed
capability.
DMgorgon
Larry Mead
[snip]
: Nothing. They're identical in power, volume, and explosive composition.
: What I'm curious about is has anyone ever considered why charged magic
: items are considered set at a certain power level, and why there isn't a
: Wand of Fire that is powered at 9th level? I've always wondered why 6th
: level was the arbitrary level for this, and if anyone has ever changed
: it. Thanks.
IMC one can built wands/staves/rods at higher level than standard.
However, the means to do so must also be researched which takes time
and money.
Larry Mead
: Larry Mead wrote:
:>
:> Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote:
:> : scratching my head. Exactly what's the difference between a fireball
:> : released from a wand and one released from a spellcaster?
:>
:> Power level; wands are sixth level effect (six dice) the caster is his own
:> level.
: But why should that affect the saving throw? If you're hit with a
: fireball from a wand, you roll a save vs. wands but if you're hit by a
: fireball that's cast "live" you roll a save vs. spells. The save vs.
: wands is basically a save vs. spells with a +1 bonus, so why should it
: be easier to save against fireball from a wand?
The fireball from a person has more "oomph" behind it: there is an
intelligence driving the magic not just an unconsious trigger?
Larry Mead
:> : One more thing. i don't like how they're doing away with saving throws. I
: <snip>
:> How do you know that they are eliminating saves? I have never seen anyone
:> here say that yet.
: They aren't. They simply are moving to a "3 types of save" system.
: Fortitude, Reflex and Will are the names of the three save categories.
: Allister H.
Can you give more details?
Allister Huggins
>
> Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
<snip>
> : But why should that affect the saving throw? If you're hit with a
> : fireball from a wand, you roll a save vs. wands but if you're hit by a
> : fireball that's cast "live" you roll a save vs. spells. The save vs.
> : wands is basically a save vs. spells with a +1 bonus, so why should it
> : be easier to save against fireball from a wand?
>
> The fireball from a person has more "oomph" behind it: there is an
> intelligence driving the magic not just an unconsious trigger?
Nice idea, but one problem. This implies that a PC with a 25 INT should
have a fireball that is much deadlier than a PC with a 18 INT of the
same level and class.
Allister H.
pira...@my-deja.com
> One thing I'd really like to see in monster descriptions is a
breakdown
> of how they achieve thier AC. How much of thier AC is derived from
> quickness/size/etc, and how much is from tough hides etc, as I use an
AV
> system, and it's sometimes tough to determine what a monsters AV and
AC
> should be.
>
> -Mike
>
Good news: that info is in there, broken down by dex, natural armor,
etc. Makes it much easier to see the true AC when you've got that dragon
held, and you STILL can't penetrate its hide! : )
We've been playtesting 3E all year, and I wouldn't go back for anything.
When I play 2E at cons, now, I sometimes get frustrated by the
(relatively clunky, IMO) combat and proficiency systems.
- Piratecat
Dave Brohman
" Joanie @ Kuma-Tsuru Pageworks" wrote:
>
> DungeonMasterDM wrote:
>
> > Not me. I play too many systems to bother with buying and learning another one.
> > I'm not putting it down but all my players like 2 ed. I refuse to switch to the
> > new Marvel Saga rules too. It's not that I won't but that I already own too
> > many books to thrash them all just to go by a new system.
>
> I'm a game collector, not just a player or DM. The 3rd Edition will
> likely be an important chapter in the history of D&D, and as the first
> version to be published without the TSR logo, it stands as worthy of at
> least buying the PHB and DMG.
Why will it not feature the TSR logo? TSR still exists, as a company
owned by WotC/Habro, just a Kenner is also owned by Hasbro. The TSR
will, I am sure, appear on all 3e products, along with WotC and
Hasbro.
--
"Because, as we all know, the path that leads straight to hell
is paved with lead miniatures and polyhedral dice!"
- from the "MST3K Dark Dungeons" Parody
pira...@my-deja.com
Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
> : They aren't. They simply are moving to a "3 types of save"
system.
> : Fortitude, Reflex and Will are the names of the three save
categories.
> : Allister H.
>
> Can you give more details?
>
> DMgorgon
Sure.. this has all been revealed elsewhere, so no big surprises.
Fortitude saves apply to threats that affect your body
(petrification, poison), Reflex saves apply to dodgeable attacks
(fireballs, dragon breath), and Will saves apply to mind effects (charm
person). Fairly straightforward, and very clear in actual usage. As you
can imagine, some classes are better in some saves than other classes.
Allister Huggins
>
> Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote:
> : They aren't. They simply are moving to a "3 types of save" system.
> : Fortitude, Reflex and Will are the names of the three save categories.
> Can you give more details?
Here's the long version
http://www.mailbag.com/users/ericnoah/3ecombat.htm#saves and the short
version is the following.
There will be 3 save categories instead of the current 6 and the method
is slightly changed. There will be a target number (Difficulty class)
and a PC gets a bonus as listed from his class and level from the
appropriate saving throw when that PC rolls a d20. Thus, instead of a
lvl 5 cleric needing to roll a 13 or more when subjected to the effect
of a wand, she would roll a d20 and add the requisite bonus to the roll.
If she got above the DC, she would succeed. The categories are as
follows,
Fortitude saves are saves that require you to have physically resisted
an effect. If the saving throw is against a spell that (for instance)
turns your bones into jelly, a fortitude save is probably appropriate.
But the fortitude save is not a general license for you to resist
damage. The PP and the poison categories would be covered by Fortitude
is my guess.
If the save is for half damage, or a save indicates that you've dodged
or partially dodged an effect (or a trap, or whatever), a Reflex is
called for. Ray spells and other things like lightning bolt would fall
under this category. Most of the breath weapons would fall under this
category. The exceptions would be things like the chlorine gas attack
which probably goes under Fortitude.
If the save requires mental resistance (certain old saves vs. PPD, or
saves vs. spells which applied the character's wisdom modifier), a Will
save is appropriate.
It should be easy to figure out what category one uses.
Allister H.
Staffan Johansson
>
> Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote:
> : They aren't. They simply are moving to a "3 types of save" system.
> : Fortitude, Reflex and Will are the names of the three save categories.
>
> Can you give more details?
As I understand it, Fortitude affects bodily saves (against
polymorphing, poison, petrification and stuff like that) and is affected
by Constitution, Reflex is for the effects you can "avoid" (fireball,
disintegrate [the save against this spell is for dodging the ray],
probably most damaging spells, in fact) and is aided by Dexterity and
finally Will resists mind-affecting spells (Charm Person, Dominate,
Suggestion, Hold Person...) and is modified by Wisdom.
To me, this sounds like a more logical division of saving throws than
"direct bodily harm" (paralyzation/poison/death), "devices", "direct
bodily transformation" (petrification/polymorph), breath weapon and
"everything else". It's more logical to have the chance of evasion of an
effect be related to how you evade that effect than the source of the
effect.
>From one point of view, you could see the 3e saves as splitting up
Spells into Reflex and Will, and then splicing PPD and PP into
Fortitude. RSW is removed (it's already pretty redundant) and Breath
Weapon probably uses whichever is most appropriate to the type of damage
(Fortitude against the chlorine gas cloud of green dragons, and Reflex
for dodging the acid jet of a black dragon or the lightning bolt of a
blue).
Drosson
>owned by WotC/Habro, just a Kenner is also owned by Hasbro. The TSR
>will, I am sure, appear on all 3e products, along with WotC and
>Hasbro.
The most recent products to come out have only the WotC logo. I spent 5
minutes searching one of them for any mention of TSR and found nothing. It
left me stunned for a while afterwords, but then I muttered something about
stranger eons and headed out of the store. Barring the issue of tradition,
I think its probably good for the new system to abandon the old company
logo: It helps it shake the baggage generated during the years by some of
the misteps of the old corp.
Eric Christian Berg
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Mike Clark wrote:
> One thing I'd really like to see in monster descriptions is a breakdown
> of how they achieve thier AC. How much of thier AC is derived from
> quickness/size/etc, and how much is from tough hides etc, as I use an AV
> system, and it's sometimes tough to determine what a monsters AV and AC
> should be.
I would imagine, since monsters are going to have attributes, this will be
more clear. If the creature has an AC of 14 and a Dex of 14 (+2 bonus),
you can deduce fairly easily that its hide is somewhat tougher than a
humans (base AC 12) and that it is relatively agile (from the Dex). This
is all just a guess on my part, though.
--
Eric Christian Berg
Journeyman System Administrator, Comptek Amherst Systems
(716) 631-0088 ext. 199
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/S d- s+:+ a- C++(+++)$ ULIOS++++$ P+++$ L+++ E--- W++ N+ o w--- M- V--
PS+ PE++ Y+ t+@ 5+ X- R++ tv+ b++ DI+ D--- G e+*>++++ h r++ y**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Eric Christian Berg
On 5 Feb 2000, Larry Mead wrote:
> And creating a host of others. Unlike the switch from 1e to 2e where at
> least the game was recongnizable, this will indeed be a wholly new game if
> the descriptions here are accurate.
Honestly, what has been said doesn't make it any more radical than the
shift from D&D to AD&D. All of the game concepts seem intact, even where
the system mechanics have been tweaked. There are still attributes (and
the same basic six, at that), still savings throws, still armor class, all
of the monsters and character classes are there with the same basic
capabilities. It is nothing more than a series of adjustments to the
mechanics and some cleaning up of the rules to clear up imbalances,
contradictions, and chaff from outdated systems, by all accounts.
Or, to put it another way, the fighters still kick ass, the magicians
still memorize their spells, and the dragons are still nestled away in
their lairs. Seems like the same game to me.
Eric Christian Berg
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Dragonscroll wrote:
> In article <87hkom$70a$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Jamie Devall" <debal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > One more thing. i don't like how they're doing away with saving
> > throws. I think they work well. Why get rid of them?
>
> Personally, I never cared for saving throws. The system seems logical,
> but the saving throws are designed to be missed unless you're high
> level. I don't imagine that will change much with 3E.
I think that the revision on saving throws is considerably more intuitive
and logical than the former. Fortitude, Will, and Reflex are much easier
to grasp, in terms of what they cover and why, and the new system mechanic
makes them scale much better for higher level characters. When dealing
with higher level or tougher stuff, the Difficulty Class goes up, so even
though your master thief has an incredible Reflex modifier, he still has
to break a sweat against the tough stuff.
Joanie @ Kuma-Tsuru Pageworks
>
> > " Joanie @ Kuma-Tsuru Pageworks" wrote:
> > I'm a game collector, not just a player or DM. The 3rd Edition will
> > likely be an important chapter in the history of D&D, and as the first
> > version to be published without the TSR logo, it stands as worthy of at
> > least buying the PHB and DMG.
>
> owned by WotC/Habro, just a Kenner is also owned by Hasbro. The TSR
> will, I am sure, appear on all 3e products, along with WotC and
> Hasbro.
on. The message goes into quite a bit of detail about the topic, so I
assumed that it is correct. If you visit the D&D webpage, there is no
mention of TSR. The tsrinc.com address is defunct. The last published
game product, The Vortex of Madness, also has no TSR logo on it. TSR,
Inc. as an entity has ceased to exist.
Expunged.
Such is life.
Joanie @ K-T Pageworks
----- Original Message -----From: Ryan S. Dancey <snip>
To: <DN...@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Friday, 29 October, 1999 12:09 PM
Subject: [DND] TSR logos and brand identity
: 1. There really is no "TSR" company left. The executive managers
of
: the old company are gone - they didn't come with the business to
WotC. The
: creative people (the writers, editors and artists) are a part of the
: overall Wizards R&D and Art teams - segregating them into "just" TSR
: would be a disservice to them both personally and professionally. The
: various non-game
: related parts of TSR (GenCon, the book department, licensing) have
been
: either established as new businesses within Wizards (like the book
: department) or have been integrated into an existing line of business
: (GenCon and Licensing). Nobody at the company "works" for TSR at this
: point. Nobody has a "TSR" business card. Nobody receives a "TSR"
: paycheck.
: There is, in fact, no "TSR" company to work >for<, nor has there been
: since
: the acquisition was complete and the staff moved here to Seattle from
: Wisconsin.
:
: 2. There is a tremendous amount of negative brand perception
attached
: to
: the TSR logo. TSR acted in ways that could be charitably described as
: "autocratic" and it persistently failed to have a customer-centric
: approach
: to its actions. The continuing prevalence of terms like "T$R" on the
'net
: is just a symptom of a much deeper problem. In the mass market, for
: example, the legacy of TSR's mismanagement of inventory and misdeeds
with
: regards to marketing promises broken and strategies abandoned poisons
the
: well to some degree towards D&D products - the TSR name is a
hindrance,
: rather than a benefit. That problem is endemic in many other markets
as
: well. TSR was not a very popular company to its channel partners when
it
: self-destructed. But then, healthy, popular companies rarely
: self-destruct.
:
: 3. I don't believe in the concept of intermediate logos. Wizards
is
: the
: company that makes the goods, and Wizards is the company that should
: represent them and stand behind them. Putting the TSR logo on the
goods
: tends to create the artificial and false impression that there is some
: mythical "TSR" group who are the good guys and some faceless bunch of
: suits
: at "Wizards" oppress them and thwart the plans of the "TSR" people.
: Furthermore, having an intermediate logo detracts from the growth of
the
: overall Wizards brand equity. When Wizards is successful, the D&D
brand
: should benefit. When D&D is successful, the Wizards brand should
benefit.
: TSR just "gets in the way" in both directions.
:
: 4. The Wizards brand is going to be the pre-eminent brand in hobby
: gaming
: in just a few short years, if it is not already. Between the massive
: success of Magic and Pokemon, and the rapidly expanding Wizards
branded
: retail stores, more people will be exposed to hobby gaming via Wizards
: products than the entire rest of the hobby game companies combined.
There
: is a tremendous value to the company in having products with Wizards
logos
: being sold at Wizards stores. Furthermore, there's a tremendous value
in
: having Wizards logoed products being sold outside our stores, because
that
: expands the number of people familiar with the company thus increasing
the
: likelihood that the Wizards stores will be successful in new
geographical
: areas. "Wizards stores" mean more than just opportunistic retail
outlets.
: It also implies a level of organized play, introduction and
acquisition
: activity, and direct company-consumer communication that we believe is
: vital
: to growing a successful hobby game business in today's
hypercompetitive
: market.
:
: 5. Wizards has an incredibly positive brand image. Not only is it
one
: of the fastest growing companies in the world, but it has recently
been
: acquired by a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. Connecting our
products
: to both the Wizards brand and the Hasbro brand will enhance the value
of
: those
: products in the minds of the consumers we're selling products to
today.
: Consumers are more likely to "trust" a product from a company like
Wizards
: than they are from a company like TSR. TSR is associated in the minds
of
: some people with dangerous behavior, occult activities, and the
various
: negative stereotypes of the 70's era of hobby gaming. Wizards on the
: other hand, is relative free of these issues.
:
: 6. The individual game brand of Dungeons & Dragons is far more
: important
: to the success of that line than the company name attached to it. We
are
: not selling "TSR's D&D 3rd Edition" - we're just selling "D&D 3rd
Edition"
: (and once the initial "upgrade" hoopla has passed, we'll just be
selling
: "D&D".) The decision to buy or not buy a hobby product by our
existing
: consumer base will be made on the basis of familiarity and perceived
: quality - not on the basis of the company logo on the spine.
:
: 7. Yesterday's customers don't factor into tomorrow's plans. In
other
: words, the vast majority of the people who are familiar with the "TSR"
: brand
: don't (and won't) be buying products from the company in the future.
Most
: of the sales of 3rd Edition (and our other RPG products) will be to
: consumers who are either new to the market, or are currently making
gaming
: purchases in the market and are thus familiar with the Wizards brand
as
: well. Retaining brand equity among a population of lapsed consumers
would
: be worthwhile only if we thought that doing so was a key factor in
getting
: those lapsed consumers to begin a new purchasing pattern. Our data
: indicates that it is the D&D brand, not the TSR brand, that is likely
to
: accomplish that objective.
:
: Additional Points I'd like to address:
:
: 1) It was my idea, and my decision, to drop the TSR brand. Peter
: concurs
: with that choice, but nobody put pressure on us to make the decision.
In
: fact, when I suggested it to him, his first reaction was shock, and am
: emphatic "no way". Only after thinking about the options for some
time
: and
: listening to our rationale for the change did he decide to support the
: idea.
: Allowing the TSR brand to fade is an internal decision of my team, not
: some
: master plan by Hasbro, or even anyone else at Wizards. That said, we
have
: reached consensus with the other parts of the company who are
connected to
: the TSR logo, and we're all in agreement that this is the right thing
to
: do.
: I believe you will see the same effect happen to our other
"intermediate"
: brands over time, for the same reasons I've enumerated above.
:
: 2) There are lots of case studies of companies abandoning well
known
: brands in favor of other brand identities. An example happening right
now
: is AT&T subsuming and abandoning TCI. If Wizards was a conglomerate
(like
: Hasbro, for example) that was comprised of a collection of companies
: servicing different market segments and selling different types of
: products,
: it might make sense to keep the TSR identity. However, TSR and
Wizards
: sell
: to essentially the same types of products, to essentially the same
: markets,
: and to essentially the same consumers in those markets. There is
: therefore
: little positive value to the company in having two (or more) competing
: brand
: identities in those markets. The larger point is: Company logos and
: brand
: identities are abandoned all the time. There is no business case that
can
: be made to say "all brand and company logos with value should always
be
: preserved". While there is often value in doing so, there are just as
: many cases where it makes no sense to follow that path.
:
: 3) We have advocated the idea of "one Hasbro", and have suggested
that
: the Wizards logo be allowed to fade to be replaced by the Hasbro
logo. It
: is certainly possible that at some time in the future, "Hasbro" will
: appear
: on our products rather than Wizards, and that "Hasbro Stores" may
appear
: in
: your local malls. We would >welcome< that change, rather than fear
it,
: because the reasons we're allowing the TSR logo fade in favor of the
: Wizards
: logo are even more powerful in the case of the Hasbro brand. However,
at
: this time, Hasbro does not intend to replace the Wizards logo, and the
: policy of the company is to leave most acquired business logos intact
as
: long as those businesses sell to clearly differentiated markets. The
most
: notable exception to this policy is Kenner. The Kenner logo has been
: replaced by the Hasbro logo because Kenner was so successful in the
action
: figure business that it became pointless for Hasbro to continue it's
: separate Hasbro action figure division. The responsibility for action
: figures was shifted to Kenner, and Kenner abandoned their imprint in
favor
: of the overall Hasbro logo due to that success. In any case, nobody
at
: Wizards would consider it a "loss" to switch logos to Hasbro. We're
very
: proud to be a part of the Hasbro family, and are not concerned about
: attaching that name to our work.
:
: 4) "Polling" or seeking input from the current consumers on this
issue
: is
: a nearly pointless excersize. First, most people dislike change
without
: any benefit, so the overall expected reaction to such a query would be
: negative
: in any event. Second, the intent of the change is not to increase
: positive
: feeling in the existing customer base, but to tap in to the goodwill
: available from the future customers of the business. Third, without
: working
: an individual consumer through a very detailed set of excersizes
designed
: to create a baseline of information and context, any customer could
not be
: expected to provide a usable answer to the question.
:
: 5) The pernicious issue of Wizards "lying" or "misleading" the
public.
: I've read the comments that Peter made during the acquisition of TSR.
I
: do
: not believe that anything in those remarks was inaccurate then or
now. In
: any event, as our understanding of the TSR business has evolved, and
the
: company has gone through two major shakeups (the Pokemon explosion and
the
: acquisition by Hasbro), we would be re-evaluating our approach to this
: business as a natural course of events anyway. Making the best
decision
: for
: the hobby RPG business in today's market, under today's circumstances,
: while
: looking forward to our best forecast of what tomorrow's market will
need
: is
: my job - and it's the job you should expect us to be doing. Standing
: still
: (or regressing) will do our shared hobby more long term injury than
: anything
: else Wizards could possibly do. Wizards has a strong aversion to
lying.
: Managers who mislead the public don't last long at Wizards. However,
: Wizards
: is a fast changing company where priorities, and strategies change
rapidly
: and without warning. A change in company direction is not a "lie",
nor is
: it misleading - it's just a change. Wizards isn't standing still.
: Likewise, we're often very precise in our wording to limit the scope
of a
: statement to something that we know to be true, to ensure that we will
not
: intentionally mislead the public. You should take what we say as
accurate
: to the degree of precision of the statement. When we said "There
would be
: no new version of D&D in 1999" that statement was totally true. And
: limited
: to 1999. Not misleading. And certainly not a lie. In other words,
don't
: read more into what we say that what is said. 1999 means "1999", not
: "anytime in the near future".
:
: Ryan
Darrell King
<< Why will it not feature the TSR logo? TSR still exists, as a company
owned by WotC/Habro, just a Kenner is also owned by Hasbro. The TSR
will, I am sure, appear on all 3e products, along with WotC and Hasbro.
>>
Nope. They made the decision to drop the TSR brand name last fall.
Starting with the recent Alternity Dark*Matter Campaign Setting
hardback, "TSR" is a fondly-remembered thing of the past. Dungeons &
Dragons 3e, all future Alternity materials (including any reprints of
the core books, in all likelihood), and the forthcoming
much-speculated-upon Star Wars RPG will ALL carry WotC logos.
Oh, and WRT your Kenner example, check the packaging on the current
'Star Wars' and 'Batman' action figures. Brand name logo? Hasbro, not
Kenner. Kenner's goin' the way of the dinosaur, too, it seems.
The way things are going, it won't surprise me a bit to see the WotC
logo bite the dust as well, and the Hasbro logo slapped onto
D&D/Alternity/Star Wars. Maybe not before next fall, but within a few
years.
Regards,
Darrell King
James Robinson
<c...@dragonscroll.com> wrote:
Piggybacking here... 'scuse me. :-)
> In article <389B5E9F...@earthlink.net>,
> Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> > and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
> I'm definitely considering it.
Likewise. A lot of the rules I've heard about are promising, and
they address concerns that have come up frequently within campaigns.
I'm getting the PHB for sure, although the MM also looks like a good
bet. Based on the quality of those, I'll take a look at the DMG.
If the DMG has the wealth of cool stuff that the DMG1 had for really
fleshing out the details and bits of a campaign then I'm all over it.
However, I have one major gripe with 3e: It's obviously a
full-throttle effort to kill this newsgroup! After all, if we can't
have a good 5000-post "Mages in armor with swords" thread, what'll
there be left to talk about? :-)
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Mad Hamish
>There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
I'm definately going to buy them.
I'll probably run a campaign in them (depending upon what else is happening in
my life, I'm currently running an Earthdawn campaign and pulling a few 14 hour
shifts so...)
I'd have to say that 3rd ed is far more likely to get me to play D&D again than
2nd ed was ever going to manage.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
Jason Eric Nelson
Also, the fireball from a LVL 7+ caster has more "oomph" than a standard
wand fireball because it does more *DAMAGE*, not because it's harder to
save against. Unless Larry has switched from OD&D to use the 2.5th Ed.
DM's Option rules for save penalties based on caster level... }:>
Jason Nelson
tja...@u.washington.edu
"God is like Coke - He's the real thing"
jollys...@my-deja.com
I'm going to be starting a First Edition (with a few simple mods)
Ad&d game in the Junction/High Park area of Toronto.
The game will be set in the Extremadura region of Spain in the year
920 AD. Some effort has been made to capture the feel of medieval europe
but there are plenty of fantasy and fantastical elements being used. And
my devotion to historical accuracy is far from fanatical. This setting
is being used because it is an incredibly rich setting for gaming, not
because I want to enact some kind of historical simulation. I've also
lifted a few concepts from Ars Magica, although non mages won't be
overshadowed by any PC mages.
I've been GMing and DMing for nearly 18 years now, most of the
players in the group have 10+ years of gaming under our belt. We
currently have 4 players in our group and are looking for two more.
If you're interested respond via email.
Jose
Larry Mead
: Larry Mead wrote:
:>
:> Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
: <snip>
:> : But why should that affect the saving throw? If you're hit with a
:> : fireball from a wand, you roll a save vs. wands but if you're hit by a
:> : fireball that's cast "live" you roll a save vs. spells. The save vs.
:> : wands is basically a save vs. spells with a +1 bonus, so why should it
:> : be easier to save against fireball from a wand?
:>
:> The fireball from a person has more "oomph" behind it: there is an
:> intelligence driving the magic not just an unconsious trigger?
: Nice idea, but one problem. This implies that a PC with a 25 INT should
: have a fireball that is much deadlier than a PC with a 18 INT of the
: same level and class.
: Allister H.
No; since one can become a mage with a 12 IQ and still cast fireball, it
is the *practice* that matters, not intelligence, and the higher level
mage is the more practiced.
Larry Mead
[nice description of 3e saving rules snipped]
: It should be easy to figure out what category one uses.
: Allister H.
It *should* be but there will be disagreements. This is a good
modification of the save rules, IMOO (in my omnicient opinion ;)
Thanks for the detailed post.
James Brown
focus. It is far easier to prepare for an obvious attack than one which
is more nebulous is it not?
ana...@netcom.com
: There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
: and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
Oh, yes.
pax,
-Chris
--
Christopher Taylor - Senior Game Designer & Part-time EQ Addict
"I have seen the future, and it involves whacking a lot of gnolls..."
I work for Interplay Entertainment Corp, but these words are mine alone...
john v verkuilen
Maybe we're really stretching. :) My guess is that there was a reason for
the distinction at some point but that things got worked around later. Kind
of like the appendix. Even though the save is present I really don't know
anyone who uses it consistently. (Of course I rarely hand out wands.)
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
A legal King Crimson bootleg from the Aug. 2-4, 1996, Mexico City shows:
http://drm.goestoeleven.com/wm/dgm/default.htm.
Sarah Strutz
Mike Clark wrote:
>
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
Nope.
Sarah
Barry Smith
> >It *should* be but there will be disagreements. This is a good
> >modification of the save rules, IMOO (in my omnicient opinion ;)
> >Thanks for the detailed post.
>
> If I read that correctly, it means that saves are still fundamentally
> class/level vs. effect. That, IMO, is a Good Thing. It reinforces
> the value of the class and being high level, where the increasing (2nd
> ed/late 1st ed) trend was towards stat checks emphasize (obviously)
> high stats.
Hmmm, 1E and 2E did? I always thought that level was the indicator for
improving saves, not ability scores. An occasional ability score check
for a NWP or skill check are required in my campaign, but saves are
entirely based off of the character's level.
Robert Baldwin
>john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>: Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> writes:
>
>:>Don <?@?.?> wrote:
>
>:>: Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>:>: news:389B5E9F...@earthlink.net...
>:>:> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>:>:> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
>:>: I will most likely buy the 3 core books. From what I've heard, 3e is fixing
>:>: up a lot of problems.
>
>:>And creating a host of others. Unlike the switch from 1e to 2e where at
>:>least the game was recongnizable, this will indeed be a wholly new game if
>:>the descriptions here are accurate.
>
>: Wait, I thought you were the one who's long said that 2nd Edition was a
>: "substantial revision?" (Just yanking your purist chain.)
>
>It depends on whether or not you thought UA was "official" . ;)
Don't go dissin' UA, Larry. It's got Da' Man's name on the cover. ;-)
[And some genuinely decent stuff inside, as well]
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
>Don <?@?.?> wrote:
>
>: Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>: news:389B5E9F...@earthlink.net...
>:> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>:> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
>: I will most likely buy the 3 core books. From what I've heard, 3e is fixing
>: up a lot of problems.
>
>And creating a host of others. Unlike the switch from 1e to 2e where at
>least the game was recongnizable, this will indeed be a wholly new game if
>the descriptions here are accurate.
Which is how I intend to view it. Not as a new version of the old
game, butas a seperate game in and of itself. Less 1st/2nd ed and
more like BD&D/AD&D, or even OD&D/AD&D. I will make no attempts at
"converting" my existing campaign. I'll start a fresh game and give
3E a fair test.
Robert Baldwin
>Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote:
>[nice description of 3e saving rules snipped]
>
>: It should be easy to figure out what category one uses.
>: Allister H.
>
>It *should* be but there will be disagreements. This is a good
>modification of the save rules, IMOO (in my omnicient opinion ;)
>Thanks for the detailed post.
If I read that correctly, it means that saves are still fundamentally
class/level vs. effect. That, IMO, is a Good Thing. It reinforces
the value of the class and being high level, where the increasing (2nd
ed/late 1st ed) trend was towards stat checks emphasize (obviously)
high stats.
--
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
<snip>
> However, I have one major gripe with 3e: It's obviously a
>full-throttle effort to kill this newsgroup! After all, if we can't
>have a good 5000-post "Mages in armor with swords" thread, what'll
>there be left to talk about? :-)
How about a 6K post thread on how "3E screwed up by allowing mages to
use sword?" ;-)
Mike Clark
Mike Clark wrote:
>
> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
<snip>
Wow, I'm so proud.....this was my first post to generate so many
followups I gave up on reading them all...<sniff> oh my baby, I'm so
proud! :)
-Mike
Nostromo
wrote:
>
>
>Mike Clark wrote:
>>
>> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
>> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
>Nope.
>
>Sarah
Typical girl. :-p *duck*
--
To reply via e-mail *when solicited* and given *express permission* to do so,
please replace 'spamfree' with...ahhh f#$k it! Don't even bother (if you must,
post a request & I'll mail you)...
Titanic/Shite-anic; "Starship Troopers" - the greatest love story of the decade!!!
Werebat
>
> Mike Clark wrote:
> >
> > There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> > and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
> >
>
> Wow, I'm so proud.....this was my first post to generate so many
> followups I gave up on reading them all...<sniff> oh my baby, I'm so
> proud! :)
>
> -Mike
I know the feeling.
- Ron ^*^
--
"Then *know* this and speak of it NO MORE. *Know* that I shall never
*know* the TRUTH.
There is NO resolution to this matter, for I shall NEVER *know*
Zerthimon's heart
upon the Blasted Plains."
- Dak'kon, "Planescape: Torment"
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
>> >It *should* be but there will be disagreements. This is a good
>> >modification of the save rules, IMOO (in my omnicient opinion ;)
>> >Thanks for the detailed post.
>>
>> If I read that correctly, it means that saves are still fundamentally
>> class/level vs. effect. That, IMO, is a Good Thing. It reinforces
>> the value of the class and being high level, where the increasing (2nd
>> ed/late 1st ed) trend was towards stat checks emphasize (obviously)
>> high stats.
>
>Hmmm, 1E and 2E did? I always thought that level was the indicator for
>improving saves, not ability scores. An occasional ability score check
>for a NWP or skill check are required in my campaign, but saves are
>entirely based off of the character's level.
Example: stepping along a narrow ledge, with a fall meaning Certain
Death. 1st ed (check some of the old modules) wouuld have used a
save, perhaps against Death Magic, as the means of determining
success. 2nd ed tends to resolve such things with a Dex check.
2nd ed reduces the use of saves in favor of stat based checks. Many
players have objected to saves at all, or have tied them directly to
stats in ways which make saves less class/race dependent, and more
stat dependent. My fear was that 3E might eliminate saves altogether,
or make them heavily dependent on stats rather than class/level.
A'koss
"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:38a083a8...@news.rio.com...
> On 5 Feb 2000 14:55:11 GMT, Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
> >And creating a host of others. Unlike the switch from 1e to 2e where at
> >least the game was recongnizable, this will indeed be a wholly new game
if
> >the descriptions here are accurate.
>
> Which is how I intend to view it. Not as a new version of the old
> game, butas a seperate game in and of itself. Less 1st/2nd ed and
> more like BD&D/AD&D, or even OD&D/AD&D. I will make no attempts at
> "converting" my existing campaign. I'll start a fresh game and give
> 3E a fair test.
In the final analysis that is probably your best bet. While it is entirely
possible to convert over 2nd ed characters, you really need at least 6
months experience to really get a feel for it. That, and another 6 months to
de-program yourself of all your Basic, 1e, 2e and P.O. preconceptions... ;)
Starting a fresh 3e campaign is the best way to learn.
A'koss!
A'koss
> On 8 Feb 2000 12:58:19 GMT, Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
> If I read that correctly, it means that saves are still fundamentally
> class/level vs. effect.
Yes.
>That, IMO, is a Good Thing. It reinforces
> the value of the class and being high level, where the increasing (2nd
> ed/late 1st ed) trend was towards stat checks emphasize (obviously)
> high stats.
They are both valid and are supposed to accomplish different things.
Saving Throw: When you are trying avoid something from happening to you.
Stat Check: When you want to accomplish something.
A'koss!
Nostromo
Baldwin) wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 20:50:20 -0800, Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>> >It *should* be but there will be disagreements. This is a good
>>> >modification of the save rules, IMOO (in my omnicient opinion ;)
>>> >Thanks for the detailed post.
>>>
>>> If I read that correctly, it means that saves are still fundamentally
>>> class/level vs. effect. That, IMO, is a Good Thing. It reinforces
>>> the value of the class and being high level, where the increasing (2nd
>>> ed/late 1st ed) trend was towards stat checks emphasize (obviously)
>>> high stats.
>>
>>Hmmm, 1E and 2E did? I always thought that level was the indicator for
>>improving saves, not ability scores. An occasional ability score check
>>for a NWP or skill check are required in my campaign, but saves are
>>entirely based off of the character's level.
>
>Example: stepping along a narrow ledge, with a fall meaning Certain
>Death. 1st ed (check some of the old modules) wouuld have used a
>save, perhaps against Death Magic, as the means of determining
>success. 2nd ed tends to resolve such things with a Dex check.
>
>2nd ed reduces the use of saves in favor of stat based checks. Many
>players have objected to saves at all, or have tied them directly to
>stats in ways which make saves less class/race dependent, and more
>stat dependent. My fear was that 3E might eliminate saves altogether,
>or make them heavily dependent on stats rather than class/level.
I guess reducing the number of saves to just 3 seems to be a step in that
direction. Let's face it, if the Dodge save were simple replaced with a Dex
check & Mental/Will with a Wis check & Fortitude with a Con check, would
anyone *really* die from the shock??? Yeah, yeah, Rogues, Priests &
Fighters might get a 'bit' :) of an advantage, but so what? If those were
the core rules, everyone would just accept it & move on. Then the DM could
add bonuses or apply penalties to the check depending on ease of save, etc.
Basically, if the DM's guide had a list of several dozen well detailed
examples of 'save'/ability check situations then the DM would know what to
use in any specific situation & just wing the rest. For example:
- General directed damage spell: DEX check for half dmg
- Charm attempt: CHA check to negate
- Poison: CON check to negate/half dmg
- Petrification: CON check to negate
- Energy Drain: WIS check to negate :)
- Death Magic (e.g. do or die): CON check to negate
- Crushing damage/spell/fallling: STR check for half dmg
- Paralyzation by spell at range: DEX check to avoid
- Paralyzation by touch: WIS check to negate
- Illusion: INT to disbelieve/negate
- Breath Weapon: DEX check for half; if failed
then CON check for half (2nd chance? :)
- Rod/Stave/Wand: depends on effect type (see
above)
Just examples, IMHO, etc, etc, etc...
But you get the idea, right? Anyway, I just thought this up, I'm sure I'm
not the first & hopefully D&D will eventually dispense with the unnecessary
saving throw concept altogether...
Tx!
A'koss
> Example: stepping along a narrow ledge, with a fall meaning Certain
> Death. 1st ed (check some of the old modules) wouuld have used a
> save, perhaps against Death Magic, as the means of determining
> success. 2nd ed tends to resolve such things with a Dex check.
It shouldn't though. That's definitely save territory, and clearly is in
3e. A Dex check should be made for the party member who tries to reach out
and grab the falling character. Then maybe a Str check, then a save for when
the Str check fails... ;)
A'koss!
Zombie
That ought to generate a few ;)
Zombie
Mike Clark <mcl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38A0F21C...@earthlink.net...
Larry Mead
: On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 20:50:20 -0800, Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net>
: wrote:
:>Robert Baldwin wrote:
:>
:>> >It *should* be but there will be disagreements. This is a good
:>> >modification of the save rules, IMOO (in my omnicient opinion ;)
:>> >Thanks for the detailed post.
:>>
:>> If I read that correctly, it means that saves are still fundamentally
:>> class/level vs. effect. That, IMO, is a Good Thing. It reinforces
:>> the value of the class and being high level, where the increasing (2nd
:>> ed/late 1st ed) trend was towards stat checks emphasize (obviously)
:>> high stats.
:>
:>Hmmm, 1E and 2E did? I always thought that level was the indicator for
:>improving saves, not ability scores. An occasional ability score check
:>for a NWP or skill check are required in my campaign, but saves are
:>entirely based off of the character's level.
: Example: stepping along a narrow ledge, with a fall meaning Certain
: Death. 1st ed (check some of the old modules) wouuld have used a
: save, perhaps against Death Magic, as the means of determining
: success. 2nd ed tends to resolve such things with a Dex check.
There is an explicit example of this in G2: Frost Giants. Slipping and
falling off of a slippery ledge requires a *dex* check, not a saving
throw. What 1st ed stuff are you reading? :) In any case, I use saves
for strictly what they are labelled for.
Larry Mead
: Mike Clark wrote:
:>
:> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
:> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
: Nope.
That was informative Sarah :). How about telling us why?
Is it annoyance with the rules changes or just broke? ;)
Michael Brown
> Saving Throw: When you are trying avoid something from happening to you.
> Stat Check: When you want to accomplish something.
I don't think these are distinctive enough; after all - avoidance is
often an accomplishment!
The one clear distinction between stats and saves that I see is that
saves are those actions to which your profession and experience level might
have relevance. "Defending yourself" falls naturally under the saving throw
concept therefore, whereas seeing if you slip on some ice does not.
-Michael
Dave Brohman
Larry Mead wrote:
> There is an explicit example of this in G2: Frost Giants. Slipping and
> falling off of a slippery ledge requires a *dex* check, not a saving
> throw. What 1st ed stuff are you reading? :) In any case, I use saves
> for strictly what they are labelled for.
There was a good discussion of saves v stat checks in Dragon 267. It
makes a lot of good points. I suggest checking it out.
--
"Because, as we all know, the path that leads straight to hell
is paved with lead miniatures and polyhedral dice!"
- from the "MST3K Dark Dungeons" Parody
James Robinson
<rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:50:43 -0500, James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > However, I have one major gripe with 3e: It's obviously a
> >full-throttle effort to kill this newsgroup! After all, if we can't
> >have a good 5000-post "Mages in armor with swords" thread, what'll
> >there be left to talk about? :-)
>
> How about a 6K post thread on how "3E screwed up by allowing mages to
> use sword?" ;-)
That just isn't the same.
The old magic will be gone. Why? Why make such an arbitrary change
without considering the side-effects? Why change for the sake of
change?
[etc.]
--
James :-)
http://avalon.net/~amorph
James Robinson
<lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
> Sarah Strutz <sst...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> : Mike Clark wrote:
> :>
> :> There's another thread similiar to this, but it doesn't come right out
> :> and ask the question "Are you going to switch to 3rd edition?"
>
> : Nope.
>
> That was informative Sarah :). How about telling us why?
> Is it annoyance with the rules changes or just broke? ;)
ObQuote: "What part of NO don't you understand?"
Dave Brohman
I think it is neither arbitrary nor ill considered. From what I have
seen of 3e, most of the rules seem to be in answer to thinkgs asked
fro and demanded by players for two decades now. The magic system in
D&D has long been a sticking point for many players, myself included.
Considering the amount of time spent in creating 3e and the massive
playtesting effort, I think that virtually nothing of 3e can, by the
time the books are released, be classified as arbitrary.
James Robinson
<dbro...@istar.ca> wrote:
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > In article <38a08c89...@news.rio.com>, Robert Baldwin
> > <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:50:43 -0500, James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > However, I have one major gripe with 3e: It's obviously a
> > > >full-throttle effort to kill this newsgroup! After all, if we can't
> > > >have a good 5000-post "Mages in armor with swords" thread, what'll
> > > >there be left to talk about? :-)
> > >
> > > How about a 6K post thread on how "3E screwed up by allowing mages to
> > > use sword?" ;-)
> >
> > That just isn't the same.
> >
> > The old magic will be gone. Why? Why make such an arbitrary change
> > without considering the side-effects? Why change for the sake of
> > change?
>
> I think it is neither arbitrary nor ill considered.
You missed the smiley, Dave.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Robert Baldwin
>
>"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:38a086d7...@news.rio.com...
>> On 8 Feb 2000 12:58:19 GMT, Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>
>> If I read that correctly, it means that saves are still fundamentally
>> class/level vs. effect.
>
> Yes.
>
>>That, IMO, is a Good Thing. It reinforces
>> the value of the class and being high level, where the increasing (2nd
>> ed/late 1st ed) trend was towards stat checks emphasize (obviously)
>> high stats.
>
> They are both valid and are supposed to accomplish different things.
>
> Saving Throw: When you are trying avoid something from happening to you.
> Stat Check: When you want to accomplish something.
So, in the case of an incomming Fireball, am I trying to avoid being
hit, or am I trying to accomplish a dive out of the AoE?
:-)
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.stopspam.com> wrote:
<snip>
>: Example: stepping along a narrow ledge, with a fall meaning Certain
>: Death. 1st ed (check some of the old modules) wouuld have used a
>: save, perhaps against Death Magic, as the means of determining
>: success. 2nd ed tends to resolve such things with a Dex check.
>
>There is an explicit example of this in G2: Frost Giants. Slipping and
>falling off of a slippery ledge requires a *dex* check, not a saving
>throw. What 1st ed stuff are you reading? :) In any case, I use saves
>for strictly what they are labelled for.
Hmm...for specifics, I'll have to get back to you after the weekend.
My 1st ed modules are not easily accessed at the moment. My
recollection, though, is of resolving nearly every issue by use of
saves when it was "roll to avoid bad thing" such as falling, missining
a clue, etc.
Robert Baldwin
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>A'koss <infi...@home.com> wrote in message news:m_8o4.72975
>> Saving Throw: When you are trying avoid something from happening to you.
>> Stat Check: When you want to accomplish something.
>
> I don't think these are distinctive enough; after all - avoidance is
>often an accomplishment!
> The one clear distinction between stats and saves that I see is that
>saves are those actions to which your profession and experience level might
>have relevance. "Defending yourself" falls naturally under the saving throw
>concept therefore, whereas seeing if you slip on some ice does not.
Except that saves also account for divine will, luck, karma, etc.
When relevant, I can see using a high or low stat as the basis for a
modifier, but class and level should be the primary factors in
determining a character's fate, not stats.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>I think it is neither arbitrary nor ill considered. From what I have
>seen of 3e, most of the rules seem to be in answer to thinkgs asked
>fro and demanded by players for two decades now. The magic system in
>D&D has long been a sticking point for many players, myself included.
>Considering the amount of time spent in creating 3e and the massive
>playtesting effort, I think that virtually nothing of 3e can, by the
>time the books are released, be classified as arbitrary.
Define "arbitrary". I think virtually every element of every game is
ultimately an arbitrary decision. None of them are *required*, they
are as the designers *chose* them to be.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>In article <38A225C6...@istar.ca>, Dave Brohman
><dbro...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
>> James Robinson wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <38a08c89...@news.rio.com>, Robert Baldwin
>> > <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:50:43 -0500, James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > <snip>
>> > > > However, I have one major gripe with 3e: It's obviously a
>> > > >full-throttle effort to kill this newsgroup! After all, if we can't
>> > > >have a good 5000-post "Mages in armor with swords" thread, what'll
>> > > >there be left to talk about? :-)
>> > >
>> > > How about a 6K post thread on how "3E screwed up by allowing mages to
>> > > use sword?" ;-)
>> >
>> > That just isn't the same.
>> >
>> > The old magic will be gone. Why? Why make such an arbitrary change
>> > without considering the side-effects? Why change for the sake of
>> > change?
>>
>> I think it is neither arbitrary nor ill considered.
>
> You missed the smiley, Dave.
Shh. We have at least 4,998 posts to go yet.
;-)
A'koss
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:06:59 -0800, "Michael Brown"
> <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> >A'koss <infi...@home.com> wrote in message news:m_8o4.72975
> >> Saving Throw: When you are trying avoid something from happening to
you.
> >> Stat Check: When you want to accomplish something.
> >
> > I don't think these are distinctive enough; after all - avoidance is
> >often an accomplishment!
I was speaking quite generally, I think you know what I meant. Stat checks
are task based. I want to lift a gate, swim a mile, read all these books in
an hour, charm the ladies...
> > The one clear distinction between stats and saves that I see is that
> >saves are those actions to which your profession and experience level
might
> >have relevance. "Defending yourself" falls naturally under the saving
throw
> >concept therefore, whereas seeing if you slip on some ice does not.
Agreed. Action vs Reaction?
> Except that saves also account for divine will, luck, karma, etc.
Give me an example of how this breaks the mold.
A'koss!
Dave Brohman
James Robinson wrote:
>
> In article <38A225C6...@istar.ca>, Dave Brohman
> <dbro...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> > James Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38a08c89...@news.rio.com>, Robert Baldwin
> > > <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:50:43 -0500, James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > However, I have one major gripe with 3e: It's obviously a
> > > > >full-throttle effort to kill this newsgroup! After all, if we can't
> > > > >have a good 5000-post "Mages in armor with swords" thread, what'll
> > > > >there be left to talk about? :-)
> > > >
> > > > How about a 6K post thread on how "3E screwed up by allowing mages to
> > > > use sword?" ;-)
> > >
> > > That just isn't the same.
> > >
> > > The old magic will be gone. Why? Why make such an arbitrary change
> > > without considering the side-effects? Why change for the sake of
> > > change?
> >
> > I think it is neither arbitrary nor ill considered.
>
> You missed the smiley, Dave.
You're right.
Dave Brohman
Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 07:49:38 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
> >news:38a086d7...@news.rio.com...
> >> On 8 Feb 2000 12:58:19 GMT, Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> If I read that correctly, it means that saves are still fundamentally
> >> class/level vs. effect.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >>That, IMO, is a Good Thing. It reinforces
> >> the value of the class and being high level, where the increasing (2nd
> >> ed/late 1st ed) trend was towards stat checks emphasize (obviously)
> >> high stats.
> >
> > They are both valid and are supposed to accomplish different things.
> >
> > Saving Throw: When you are trying avoid something from happening to you.
> > Stat Check: When you want to accomplish something.
>
> So, in the case of an incomming Fireball, am I trying to avoid being
> hit, or am I trying to accomplish a dive out of the AoE?
> :-)
I have always thought the latter, but if you are at ground zero that
seems like an AWFULLY long dive. :)
Dave Brohman
Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 21:43:18 -0500, Dave Brohman <dbro...@istar.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >James Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <38a08c89...@news.rio.com>, Robert Baldwin
> >> <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:50:43 -0500, James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > <snip>
> >> > > However, I have one major gripe with 3e: It's obviously a
> >> > >full-throttle effort to kill this newsgroup! After all, if we can't
> >> > >have a good 5000-post "Mages in armor with swords" thread, what'll
> >> > >there be left to talk about? :-)
> >> >
> >> > How about a 6K post thread on how "3E screwed up by allowing mages to
> >> > use sword?" ;-)
> >>
> >> That just isn't the same.
> >>
> >> The old magic will be gone. Why? Why make such an arbitrary change
> >> without considering the side-effects? Why change for the sake of
> >> change?
> >
> >I think it is neither arbitrary nor ill considered. From what I have
> >seen of 3e, most of the rules seem to be in answer to thinkgs asked
> >fro and demanded by players for two decades now. The magic system in
> >D&D has long been a sticking point for many players, myself included.
> >Considering the amount of time spent in creating 3e and the massive
> >playtesting effort, I think that virtually nothing of 3e can, by the
> >time the books are released, be classified as arbitrary.
>
> Define "arbitrary". I think virtually every element of every game is
> ultimately an arbitrary decision. None of them are *required*, they
> are as the designers *chose* them to be.
I would define arbitrary as without neccessity or logic. If many people
for many years have complained taht certain parts of the D&D rules are
in need of fixing, ans they then set about fixing them, I don't classify
that as arbitrary.
There are many OD&D/AD&D rules that I do classify as arbitrary, such
as percentile STR, the CHA stat and one-minute rounds, among others.
I can see where all of these grew directly out of D&D's wargaming
roots.
Michael Brown
A'koss <infi...@home.com> wrote in message news:5Uuo4.75133
> > > The one clear distinction between stats and saves that I see is
that
> > >saves are those actions to which your profession and experience level
> might
> > >have relevance. "Defending yourself" falls naturally under the saving
> throw
> > >concept therefore, whereas seeing if you slip on some ice does not.
>
> Agreed. Action vs Reaction?
Still not sure that's good enough; after all, some Actions might be
affected by class and level (pierce an illusion) and some Reactions might
*not* (avoid slipping on the ice, for instance). 3E only uses 3 saves, as I
understand it, and it's probably rather clear that they're specific types of
*defenses*.
-Michael
Robert Baldwin
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 07:05:09 GMT, rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert
>Baldwin) wrote:
<snip>
>>2nd ed reduces the use of saves in favor of stat based checks. Many
>>players have objected to saves at all, or have tied them directly to
>>stats in ways which make saves less class/race dependent, and more
>>stat dependent. My fear was that 3E might eliminate saves altogether,
>>or make them heavily dependent on stats rather than class/level.
>
>I guess reducing the number of saves to just 3 seems to be a step in that
>direction.
I have no real problem with consolidating the saves from 6 to 3. The
issue is whether they are derived from level/class or stats.
Let's face it, if the Dodge save were simple replaced with a Dex
>check & Mental/Will with a Wis check & Fortitude with a Con check, would
>anyone *really* die from the shock???
<snip>
It would be a lessening of the importance of class and level. Stats
remain static, level does not. Having life & death decisions made on
the basis of stat checks further increases the "need" for
extraordinary stats, where class/level based saves start equally poor
for everyone and go up with level.
<snip table>
>But you get the idea, right? Anyway, I just thought this up, I'm sure I'm
>not the first & hopefully D&D will eventually dispense with the unnecessary
>saving throw concept altogether...
>Tx!
The saving throw is a key component of the class level system.
Discarding it is *not* desirable.