PDA

View Full Version : Old D&D? AD&D? OSRIC? Anyone?



fmitchell
02-27-2007, 08:36 AM
After reading a controversial review of the AD&D 1e PHB (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12808.phtml), I started wondering about the recent trend of "old-school gaming" (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/).

Does anyone still play versions of D&D before 3.x? Does anyone use OSRIC rules, or Hackmaster, or any other retro rulesets? Can someone explain the appeal to me?

(Caveat: I never really cottoned to D&D. I preferred Melee/Wizard/The Fantasy Trip when I started out, and reached an epiphany when I encountered RuneQuest. After being a GURPS fan for ages, I've glommed onto lighter rules like FATE and PDQ. So, I might be a hard sell ...)

Thanks in advance.

Farcaster
02-27-2007, 10:27 AM
When D&D 3.0 came out, I was not trilled. I had been using second edition since day one of its release. I knew virtually every intimate detail of the rules. I could virtually turn to the exact page I was looking for in my source material by feel. Understandably, I was not eager to have to learn a new set of rules and on top of that buy all new material.

Fast forward two years later, and the campaign I was running was approaching 13th level -- for everyone except the rogue, who was 16th level or so by this point and quite bored. Leveling had ground to a halt because of the vast chasms of experience required between levels. There was also dreadfully little in the entire Monster Manual that could really give my players a run for their money. But, I still had a ton of additional material for the current campaign.

Top that off with the release of Neverwinter Nights which was based on 3rd edition rules. I finally decided to switch, and I am 100% glad that I did. Although I sometimes lament the formulaic feel of magic items and spells in 3rd edition, it gave my players room to continue to develop their characters. That campaign (actually a set of 3 campaigns) finally ended with the characters being around 26th-27th level.

That is the failing of 1st and 2nd edition. They did not scale well. Past 13th level or so, the game was truly broken. The spell save chart is a perfect example of that as well. High level characters were virtually immune to spells regardless of the relative power of the enemy caster. You had the same number to roll to save against a lowly level 1 wizard's Burning Hands, and a level 15th wizards Disintegrate.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed 1st and 2nd edition. But, the time has come to move on. It might be interesting to have a nostalgia night and run an old-style game, but at the end of the day, I'll be going back to something a bit more smoothed out.

Ed Zachary
02-27-2007, 10:46 AM
Does anyone still play versions of D&D before 3.x? Does anyone use OSRIC rules, or Hackmaster, or any other retro rulesets? Can someone explain the appeal to me?

The 2nd ed rule I may want to carry over to my campaign is from the Optional Skillz and Powers book. I like the Idea of splitting each of the six abilities into two minor abilities. Based on how our group used it in 2nd edition, this is how I would likely use it in 3.5:



Strength (Muscle and Stamina)


Muscle: Your ability to cause damage and bring your Strength to bear in short bursts.
- Attack Bonus (melee weapons)
- Damage Bonus
- Abilities requiring bursts of power (Bending, Breaking, Lifting)

Stamina: Your ability to move and bring your Strength to bear over a long period of time.
- Movement Rate (Walk, Run, Jump, Swim, Fly)
- Encumbrance
- Abilities requiring endurance



Dexterity (Aim and Balance)


Aim: Determines how well you can manipulate objects with your hands.
- Attack Bonus (missile weapons, finesse, touch)
- Severity of Fumbles
- Skills requiring hand control (Forgery, Lock Picking, Set/Disarm Traps, etc)
- Crafts requiring hand control (Music, Painting, Sculpting)

Balance: Determines how well you can control your body movement.
- Armor Class Bonus
- Saving Throws: Reflex
- Quickness and Initiative
- Skills requiring body control (Balancing, Climbing, Escaping, Jumping, etc)
- Skills requiring stealthiness (Hiding, Moving Silently)
- Performances requiring body control (Dancing)



Fortitude (Constitution and Toughness)


Constitution: Your ability to resist disease and death magic.
- Saving Throws: Fortitude (Health/Necromancy)
- Resist Toxins (Disease, Poison, Paralyzation, Petrification, etc)
- System Shock

Toughness: Your ability to sustain physical damage, and once damaged heal from it.
- Hit Point Bonus
- Resist Elements (Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Sonic)
- Natural Healing



Intelligence (Knowledge and Reason)


Knowledge: How much information you can store in your memory.
- Number of Skills known
- Arcane spells known
- Skills requiring knowledge (Knowledge, Profession, Spellcraft)

Reason: Your ability to learn new knowledge, and see through falsehoods.
- Learn new Arcane Spells
- Bonus Arcane Spells (Wizard)
- Skills requiring reason and logic (Appraise, Decipher, Research, Use Device)



Wisdom (Intuition and Willpower)


Intuition: Your common sense and ability to be aware of what is around you.
- Bonus Divine Spells
- Skills requiring awareness (Heal, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, Survival)

Willpower: Your mental strength, used to influence or resist mental attacks.
- Saving Throws: Willpower, Mind, Magic
- Skills requiring mental discipline (Concentration)



Charisma (Appearance and Leadership)


Appearance: Your physical beauty, how others see you.
- Physical appearance
- Reaction Bonus
- Skills requiring appearance (Disguise, Seduction)
- Fate, Fortune and Luck

Leadership: Your personality, likability and ability to influence and attract others.
- Bonus Arcane Spells (Sorcerer)
- Attract Cohorts, Followers and Henchmen
- Skills requiring leadership (Acting, Bluffing, Diplomacy, Gathering Info, Handling Animals, Intimidation)

fmitchell
02-27-2007, 07:10 PM
The 2nd ed rule I may want to carry over to my campaign is from the Optional Skillz and Powers book. I like the Idea of splitting each of the six abilities into two minor abilities.

Hm, six abilities into 12? Or 18? I don't see the reason for additional complexity.

However, I have seen (and at least skimmed) a PDF called "A Skill for Everything" (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=20556&), which adds three skills for each characteristic that boosts a subset of attribute rolls. You might take a look at that.

For that matter, I've considered a "skills and only skills" system where what other games would make attributes are structurally similar to skills. After seeing FATE, PDQ, and HeroQuest, I really question the need for the distinction between "attributes" and "skills" (or "spells", "feats", etc.). Maybe if you want to posit some correlation between Ability A and Ability B, they could be based on a more fundamental ability ... although I've never seen necessary correlations between manual dexterity and physical agility, or tolerances for physical trauma, physical exertion, poisons, and diseases.

Ed Zachary
02-28-2007, 07:22 AM
Hm, six abilities into 12? Or 18? I don't see the reason for additional complexity.

For that matter, I've considered a "skills and only skills" system where what other games would make attributes are structurally similar to skills. After seeing FATE, PDQ, and HeroQuest, I really question the need for the distinction between "attributes" and "skills" (or "spells", "feats", etc.). Maybe if you want to posit some correlation between Ability A and Ability B, they could be based on a more fundamental ability ... although I've never seen necessary correlations between manual dexterity and physical agility, or tolerances for physical trauma, physical exertion, poisons, and diseases.

To each their own, but I don't see 12 as a difficult number. And not 12 independent abilities, but the same six with two different aspects each.

How do you characterize the ugly dictator with a strong personality, or the beauty with a repulsive personality and no leadership?

For me, it passes the two key questions...
1 - Does it add to the game?
2 - Is it simple?

Skunkape
02-28-2007, 07:37 AM
The 2nd ed rule I may want to carry over to my campaign is from the Optional Skillz and Powers book. I like the Idea of splitting each of the six abilities into two minor abilities. Based on how our group used it in 2nd edition, this is how I would likely use it in 3.5:

I don't remember how you derived the split stats, and my book is put away somewhere, where I won't be able to find it easily. Would you care to explain how to split up the stats Ed?

By the way, when I looked at Skills & Powers book years ago, I thought it had some good ideas in it.:)

Ed Zachary
02-28-2007, 12:28 PM
I don't remember how you derived the split stats, and my book is put away somewhere, where I won't be able to find it easily. Would you care to explain how to split up the stats Ed? By the way, when I looked at Skills & Powers book years ago, I thought it had some good ideas in it.

I tried to explain it as simply as possible above without writing my own book. And that book was written for the 2nd edition. I am in the preliminary stages of setting up a campaign, and this is how I would likely use it for 3.5 rules. Nothing is set in stone. And even them, change happens. If you have any suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.

For example you would use Str/Mus for your attack bonus and damage, and encumbrance would be calculated from Str/Sta.

Ranged attacks and other hand manipulation skills would use Dex/Aim, and AC, Reflex Save, Initiative and skills like Move Silent would use Dex/Bal.

Fortitude Saves and System Shock would use Fort/Con, and Hit Points would use Fort/Tough.

Skills known would use Int/Knw, and a Wizard's arcane spell bonus would use Int/Reason.

A Priest's divine spell bonus would use Wis/Intuition, and Will Saves would use Wis/Will.

What a character looks like and reaction bonus would use Cha/Appear, and skills like Diplomacy and Intimidation would use Cha/Lead, as well as a Sorcerer's arcane spell bonus.

Skunkape
02-28-2007, 03:45 PM
But I seem to remember that you can shift points between the two, like have one a couple of points higher than the other as long as they average to the original stat, or am I remembering a different game?

Ed Zachary
02-28-2007, 04:02 PM
But I seem to remember that you can shift points between the two, like have one a couple of points higher than the other as long as they average to the original stat, or am I remembering a different game?

Yes, when you initially set the character up, each of the minors can go up and down up to two points each for a spread of four. Afterward, the spread can increase, but the major stat remains the average.

A Fighter could start out with Str=16, adjusted to Str/Mus=18 and Str/Sta=14. After a few levels his Str/Mus increases to 22 while his Str/Sta remains 14. His Str would now be 18.

Skunkape
03-01-2007, 07:56 AM
Yes, when you initially set the character up, each of the minors can go up and down up to two points each for a spread of four. Afterward, the spread can increase, but the major stat remains the average.

A Fighter could start out with Str=16, adjusted to Str/Mus=18 and Str/Sta=14. After a few levels his Str/Mus increases to 22 while his Str/Sta remains 14. His Str would now be 18.

I thought that was how it worked! Thanks for confirming my memory!:D

Course, it amazes my wife how I can remember things about gaming and sci-fi movies and books but can't remember to take out the garbage!;)

Llwch
05-29-2007, 05:12 AM
After reading a controversial review of the AD&D 1e PHB (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12808.phtml), I started wondering about the recent trend of "old-school gaming" (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/).

Does anyone still play versions of D&D before 3.x? Does anyone use OSRIC rules, or Hackmaster, or any other retro rulesets? Can someone explain the appeal to me?

There are versions of D&D after 2nd edition AD&D? :eek:

I'm an old-school gamer. All the way. Had 3e briefly, but sold 'em. Didn't think it was worth the $$$ I paid for it.

Llwch
05-29-2007, 05:15 AM
Yes, when you initially set the character up, each of the minors can go up and down up to two points each for a spread of four. Afterward, the spread can increase, but the major stat remains the average.

A Fighter could start out with Str=16, adjusted to Str/Mus=18 and Str/Sta=14. After a few levels his Str/Mus increases to 22 while his Str/Sta remains 14. His Str would now be 18.

I presume by the above 18 scores, you're referring to 3.x D&D? I know the Player's Option series allowed scores above 18, but only so long as they were within racial maximums.

Ed Zachary
05-29-2007, 05:49 AM
I presume by the above 18 scores, you're referring to 3.x D&D? I know the Player's Option series allowed scores above 18, but only so long as they were within racial maximums.

Screw the racial maximums for levels and ability scores, we never used them.

That, along with exceptional strength made zero sense.

Farcaster
05-29-2007, 12:13 PM
Barring magic or technology, I would think that it makes complete sense that there are physical limits to what the human body (or elven, dwarven, etc) can do. Now, what would probably represent this better is a law of diminishing returns, which is somewhat represented in the point based system. The more points you put into a stat, the less return you get.

I did some research on this a long time ago, when I was trying to come up with a system of my own. Giving some margin, I based the upper limits for a normal human on world records for strength and intelligence. Now, when it came to the super-human characters in this world, then those limits could certainly be bypassed (but also to a limit)

MortonStromgal
10-17-2007, 04:57 PM
So I like to DM AD&D and older editions for monster combat because the Monsterous Manual rocks and leveling up creatures was easier because there were less stats. However as a player I love the versitility of skills and feats etc. I think I would be happiest with something inbetween (heres to hoping 4e fits the bill)

Tony Misfeldt
10-28-2007, 09:51 PM
When D&D 3.0 came out, I was not trilled. I had been using second edition since day one of its release. I knew virtually every intimate detail of the rules. I could virtually turn to the exact page I was looking for in my source material by feel. Understandably, I was not eager to have to learn a new set of rules and on top of that buy all new material.

Fast forward two years later, and the campaign I was running was approaching 13th level -- for everyone except the rogue, who was 16th level or so by this point and quite bored. Leveling had ground to a halt because of the vast chasms of experience required between levels. There was also dreadfully little in the entire Monster Manual that could really give my players a run for their money. But, I still had a ton of additional material for the current campaign.

Top that off with the release of Neverwinter Nights which was based on 3rd edition rules. I finally decided to switch, and I am 100% glad that I did. Although I sometimes lament the formulaic feel of magic items and spells in 3rd edition, it gave my players room to continue to develop their characters. That campaign (actually a set of 3 campaigns) finally ended with the characters being around 26th-27th level.

That is the failing of 1st and 2nd edition. They did not scale well. Past 13th level or so, the game was truly broken. The spell save chart is a perfect example of that as well. High level characters were virtually immune to spells regardless of the relative power of the enemy caster. You had the same number to roll to save against a lowly level 1 wizard's Burning Hands, and a level 15th wizards Disintegrate.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed 1st and 2nd edition. But, the time has come to move on. It might be interesting to have a nostalgia night and run an old-style game, but at the end of the day, I'll be going back to something a bit more smoothed out.

Like you I was not thrilled with D&D 3.0. When I first heard about 3.0 and all the "improvements" that were made I was actually pretty excited. I wasn't pleased at the thought of having to start my entire D&D gaming library over from scratch, but I was happy that the more confusing rules like saving throws and THAC0 were going to be no more. Then I bought a 3.0 Players Handbook and read it and I said (In my best Gollum voice)

"Stupid fat Wizardses! They ruins it! RUINS IT!"

There was so much wrong with it I hardly know where to begin, so I guess I'll go alphebetically.

BARBARIANS: Barbarians were my favorite class to play in 1st and 2nd Edition. I was upset that the barbarian class wasn't carried over from 1st to 2nd Edition, and relieved when it was reserected in 2nd Edition with The Complete Barbarians Handbook (far superior to the barbarian kit in The Complete Fighters Handbook). But when I saw what was done to the class in 3.X, I was disgusted! Barbarian Rage? The ability to rage is a blessing given to elite members of barbarian society by the barbarians gods/ancestral spirits/beast totem spirits/whatever, called BERSERKERS. Berserkers are in barbarian society what paladins are in a civilized fighters society. Always was, always should be. Now all anyone needs to go berserk is a horned helm and a set of wolfskin underwear? BULLS#!T! I've rewritten the 3.X barbarian class to more resemble the barbarian described in The Complete Barbarians Handbook, using a pen and correction tape to make the 3.X barbarian once again the blessed Berserker.

BASTARD SWORDS & BROADSWORDS: First of all, the 3.X description of a bastard sword is all screwed up. It's described as a sword that's too big to be weilded one handed except for those with special training. And even if you have special training, it does the same amount of damage either way. The truth is, bastard swords are in fact longswords with extra long handles to allow them to be wielded two handed for a little extra "oomph". You don't need special training to wield it one handed, and logically it should do more damage when wielded two handed than one handed. 2nd Ed. had it right, 3.X is WAY off. And broadswords were eliminated entirely! As I mentioned earlier, I love playing barbarians. And the fantasy barbarian is heavily based on the viking, who used the Norse broadsword as his prefered weapon! They made the barbarian a standard playing class, but took away his prefered weapon! Quite an oversite if you ask me.

CLERIC SPELLS: While I was happy that cleric spells ranged all the way to 9th level in 3.X, I was furious to find out that they've been categorized by Schools Of Magic instead of Spheres Of Influence. They're clerics, not mages! They leard their spells from the gods, not from some dusty old tome! The spells come from different sources, therfore they're categorized differently. And by eliminating Spheres Of Influence, they've also eliminated an entire character class from being available to be played, the Specialty Priest. I preferred playing specialty priests to playing ordinary clerics in 2nd Ed, now it's not an option. I've rewritten the 3.X Cleric Spell List, categorizing them by Sphere instead of School (reserecting several 2nd Ed spells that didn't get converted to 3rd Ed) and eliminated Cleric Domains completely. Now Specialty Priests are once again an option and clerics are apropriately humbled.

DEMIHUMAN PALADINS: E. Gary Gygax wasn't trying to be cute or funny when he created the rule that only humans could become paladins. This was done for a reason, it's called GAME BALANCE. The paladin is a very powerful character class. With their healing abilities, save bonuses, turning abilities, fighting skills, lack of armor and weapon restrictions, disease immunity, etc, if you were to combine that with the to hit bonuses that elves and halflings get with certain weapons, the attack and defence bonuses dwarves and gnomes get against certain enemies, elven and halfling stealth abilities, lowlight/dark/infravision, etc, then you're getting an overly powerful character. Not to mention what would happen if that elven paladin were to find a longsword which was a Holy Avenger! Besides, in the Realm of Dungeons & Dragons E. Gary Gygax is GOD! Changing the rules HE made is nothing short of SACRILIDGE!

EVIL RANGERS & DRUIDS: The very deffinition of rangers and druids is "defenders of the forrest and woodland creatures". So how the hell can druids and rangers be evil? It makes no sence! I can understand expanding a druids available alignment choices to include all nonevil, partially neutral alignments. But a Neutral Evil Druid? That makes no sence. And expanding a rangers alignment choices to include all non evil neutral alignment, not just good alignments, that makes sence too. But allowing rangers to be ANY alignment? That's rediculous! Why the hell would a Chaotic Evil Ranger protect a forrest and all the woodland creatures that dwell within? He wouldn't! It's a stupid rule that should never have been allowed.

EXTRAORDINARY STATS: I liked the fact that fighters in 2nd Ed were able to get extraordinary strength. It made perfect sence to me, both logistically and by way of story telling. Logistically, some people are just more physically gifted than others and it makes sence that these exceptional people should have stats that reflect Their extraordinary abilities. Also, would reading about Wulfgar's early years in The Crystal Shard been nearly as interesting if he had to adventure alongside Drizzt for twenty years to get ogre or hill giant strength? not likely. I'm toying with the idea of reintroducing extraordinary stats into 3.X by introducing the Paladium rule that any stat of 16 or more scored by rolling 3d6 gets a bonus 1d6 added on. This wouldn't just be for STR, but also DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA. It's been brought to my attension that this may upset game balance, so some limitations would have to be employed. I'm also thinking of eliminating FEATS (I think feats make characters too powerful too quick anyway).

HALFLINGS: Halflings who prefer the cold, dangers, and discomfort of the open road to the warmth, comfort and safety of their cozy little hobbit holes? Are you freakin' kidding me? AND THEY'RE WEARING SHOES FOR GODS SAKE! (Honestly, hasn't anyone at Wizards Of The Coast ever actually READ The Lord Of The Rings?) I think the execs at WotC read too many Dragon Lance novels and got confused between Kender and Halflings. FYI, they're not of the same race. And if The Powers That Be at WotC wanted the kender to be the new halfling, maybe they should have made Krynn the world that 3.X was based in.

That's all I can think of at the moment. There's probably more, but I can't remember it all just now. As for your other complaint of things getting too easy for characters once they've reached 13th level or better, I think it's more a matter of your DMing style than any problems with the game system. You're too bogged down with what's written in the Monsters Manuals. You have to learn to improvise. Who says that the only kobolds the PCs meat have to have 1d4 hit points? put them up against some 7th level kobold fighters with weapon mastery in the short sword! Make that verbeeg a 9th level mage and his ogre minions 5th level fighters! And at that level the adventures should be more cerebral! Make them go through a dungeon crawl where the dungeon itself is what has to be defeated. Like in the movie The Cube, the PCs have to try and find which rooms aren't booby trapped and get out alive. If done right, an adventure could be just as challenging for a 15th level fighter with 18/100 STR as it is for a 1st level fighter with 13 STR. It's all in the execution.
I will agree with you on the Saving Throws though. But that's what house rules are for. Why not have a -1 save penalty for every 3rd level above the level the spell caster needs to be in order to cast the spell when DMing a 2nd Ed game? That's what I'll be doing in my D&D Version 2.5 game.

fmitchell
10-29-2007, 12:54 AM
HALFLINGS: Halflings who prefer the cold, dangers, and discomfort of the open road to the warmth, comfort and safety of their cozy little hobbit holes? Are you freakin' kidding me? AND THEY'RE WEARING SHOES FOR GODS SAKE! (Honestly, hasn't anyone at Wizards Of The Coast ever actually READ The Lord Of The Rings?) I think the execs at WotC read too many Dragon Lance novels and got confused between Kender and Halflings. FYI, they're not of the same race. And if The Powers That Be at WotC wanted the kender to be the new halfling, maybe they should have made Krynn the world that 3.X was based in.

Wizards based D&D 3.x Halflings on Kender intentionally, since a) the Tolkien estate made TSR stop using "hobbits" (the name) and WotC preferred (shudder) "Intellectual property" they owned, and b) everyone played halflings as sneaky little travelers anyway.

Really, adventuring halflings were the precursor to the Drizztification of the Drow: sure, every member of this "race" is (a bucolic comfort-driven stick-in-the-mud)/(a scheming spider-worshiping psycho) (delete as appropriate), except for the PCs who are actually (an inquisitive adventurous thief)/(a righteous crusader for good doomed by his heritage) (delete as appropriate).

diaperlord
10-29-2007, 08:54 AM
It's been over ten years since I played 2nd edition regularly, but I have been reading up on 3.5 in order to try to get back into it. Did AC change between 2nd and 3rd? I seem to remember having PCs with negative ACs, now I see pre-generated characters with ACs of 14 and such. Am I just remembering wrong?

Riftwalker
10-29-2007, 09:50 AM
It's been over ten years since I played 2nd edition regularly, but I have been reading up on 3.5 in order to try to get back into it. Did AC change between 2nd and 3rd? I seem to remember having PCs with negative ACs, now I see pre-generated characters with ACs of 14 and such. Am I just remembering wrong?

You're remembering correctly. Part of the 3rd edition changes flipped AC on its head to keep it more in line with the "higher numbers are better than lower ones" feature of the rules. Now, to hit someone with an AC of 16, a player rolls a d20, adds in their bonuses, and if the total is at least 16, they hit. No more THAC0.

Farcaster
10-29-2007, 03:30 PM
Tony, I have to disagree with you on a number of points, I fear. Third edition was a huge step forward, and from what I can tell from the points you brought up, your resistance to it might be because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the edition as a whole.


Now all anyone needs to go berserk is a horned helm and a set of wolfskin underwear? BULLS#!T!

Barbarian is a PC class, which my definition makes it creme of the crop, so to speak. You could easily assert that most "barbarians" in a tribe are actually NPC warriors.



As I mentioned earlier, I love playing barbarians. And the fantasy barbarian is heavily based on the viking, who used the Norse broadsword as his prefered weapon! They made the barbarian a standard playing class, but took away his prefered weapon! Quite an oversite if you ask me.From what I have read, the most typical viking wepons were the spear and axe. But, your barbarian could also always go with the ever intimidating greatsword as well.



And by eliminating Spheres Of Influence, they've also eliminated an entire character class from being available to be played, the Specialty Priest. I haven't really given this one much though before. I remember playing a specialty priest many times. It allowed for a little more customization so that your character could more closely align with his god. Domains now serve that function to some degree and clerics of a war like good are free to multiclass as fighters, for instance. There is also the much more robust option of using (and creating) prestige classes.


Not to mention what would happen if that elven paladin were to find a longsword which was a Holy Avenger! Besides, in the Realm of Dungeons & Dragons E. Gary Gygax is GOD! Changing the rules HE made is nothing short of SACRILIDGE!I'm not sure I understand how the fact that the elf is automatically familiarity with a longsword would unbalance the game if he got a Holy Avenger that his paladin class would have allowed him to use anyway. By the by, paladins are far from overshadowing the other classes. And, it is important to keep in mind that if the paladin does not walk the straight and narrow, is is exceedingly easy for them to loose all of those abilities. If that happens, they're barely equivalent to the NPC warrior class. That is a balancing factor in and of itself.


EVIL RANGERS & DRUIDS: The very deffinition of rangers and druids is "defenders of the forrest and woodland creatures". So how the hell can druids and rangers be evil? It makes no sence! This one isn't really a stretch at all. Defense of the woodlands can be taken to the extreme where the ranger or druid is willing to slay anyone who dares chop down a tree or hunt an animal. I have played alongside many of types of characters through the years, and their characters could easily be classified as evil, whether their character sheet said so or not.



EXTRAORDINARY STATS: I liked the fact that fighters in 2nd Ed were able to get extraordinary strength. It made perfect sence to me, both logistically and by way of story telling. Logistically, some people are just more physically gifted than others and it makes sence that these exceptional people should have stats that reflect Their extraordinary abilities. With the limits being removed and characters now having the ability to have scores over 18, I'm not sure how you couldn't represent a character in 3rd edition with exceptional strength. Even presuming you started with a human warrior how rolled maximum for their strength, they can continue to raise their strength every four levels.


I think the execs at WotC read too many Dragon Lance novels and got confused between Kender and Halflings. FYI, they're not of the same race. And if The Powers That Be at WotC wanted the kender to be the new halfling, maybe they should have made Krynn the world that 3.X was based in.D&D isn't a gaming system for just one world, and though halflings may have been inspired by Tokein's hobbits, they don't HAVE to follow all the same rules.


You're too bogged down with what's written in the Monsters Manuals. You have to learn to improvise. Who says that the only kobolds the PCs meat have to have 1d4 hit points? put them up against some 7th level kobold fighters with weapon mastery in the short sword!I agree, and third edition makes this level of customization easier than ever before by making it extremely straight forward to advance monsters though a number of different options, including: raising their HD, adding templates, or adding class levels.

Tony Misfeldt
11-10-2007, 02:36 PM
Wizards based D&D 3.x Halflings on Kender intentionally, since a) the Tolkien estate made TSR stop using "hobbits" (the name) and WotC preferred (shudder) "Intellectual property" they owned, and b) everyone played halflings as sneaky little travelers anyway.

Really, adventuring halflings were the precursor to the Drizztification of the Drow: sure, every member of this "race" is (a bucolic comfort-driven stick-in-the-mud)/(a scheming spider-worshiping psycho) (delete as appropriate), except for the PCs who are actually (an inquisitive adventurous thief)/(a righteous crusader for good doomed by his heritage) (delete as appropriate).

First, TSR/Wizards never actually used the word "hobbits". Even in The Complete Book Of Halflings & Gnomes they never actually gave the halfling race a name except for the names of the three subraces (Stout, Tallfellow, and Hairfoot). Therefore the Tlkien estate's argument has no actual basis. If it did, the 3.X halflings wouldn't still be called "halflings" (Tolkien invented that word as the human slang for hobbits in LOTR). Besides, D&D has been using the Tolkien definition of halfling for over thirty years, and they chose to cause a stink now? To quote Colonal Potter on M*A*S*H, "Buffalo Bagels!"
Second, all adventurers are the exceptions to the rule of all the races in all the worlds. Humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, all usually prefer to stay at home rather than risk their lives out in the wild. Even those of adventurer professions (fighters, clerics, wizards, etc) usually don't do anything more adventurous than guarding merchant caravans and such. They're what professional adventurers call "greengrocers". Even the more "common" adventurer races (those other than halflings) more often than not become adventurers because the life chose them, not the other way arround. Conan The Barbarian, Robin Hood, Dar The Beastmaster, Willow Ufgood, Frodo Baggins, have all had the adventuring life thrust upon them. It makes for better story telling. So there was no reason to change the definition of halfling. And regardless of whether a person chose the life of the adventurer or the life of the adventurer chose the person, only the tiniest percentage of any world's population are actually adventurers. Everyone else is just a greengrocer.
And as for WotC wanting to use intellectual property that they actually owned? Well the corperate fat cats at WotC Headquarters can all toss my salad and peal my potatoes!

Tony Misfeldt
11-11-2007, 01:41 AM
You seem to have misunderstood or distorted the meaning of my points. I will do my best to correct that oversight.


Barbarian is a PC class, which my definition makes it creme of the crop, so to speak. You could easily assert that most "barbarians" in a tribe are actually NPC warriors.


First let me point out that my information on barbarians is not dependant on just one source (such as the 3.X Players Handbook), but rather various sources. Historical texts, fantasy novels, movies, documentaries, comics, graphic novels, and D&D source material such as The Complete Fighters Handbook, The Complete Barbarians Handbook, The Viking Campaign Sourcebook, Volo's Guide To The North, The Bloodstone Lands, and The Savage Frontier to name a few. As such I have probably forgotten more about barbarian cultures than any of the corperate fat cats at WotC Head Office have ever known. I'm probably the foremost expert on barbarians on this entire site, as well as VGG, Gaming Central and any other gaming site I'm registered on.
Now, if you recall, I said in my original post that the barbarian class listed in The Players Handbook were in fact Berserkers, and that berserkers were the "cream of the crop" of barbarian society as you put it. But not in the way you intended it. Rather they are the "cream of the crop" the same way paladins are "the cream of the crop" of civilized society. A barbarian can no more call upon a berserker's rage than a Lawful Good fighter who worships Torm can call upon a paladin's healing powers or a cleric of Sylvanus can use a druid's shape shifting ability. The "warrior NPCs" of the barbarian's tribe are the actual barbarian PC class. Like the fighter and the paladin or the cleric and the druid, barbarians and berserkers are related but different PC classes. The barbarian class has the hit dice, hit adjustment, saving throws, fast movement, and uncanny dodge of the berserker. Everything is the same but the berserker's rage. Barbarians get different abilities. They can leap and spring encredible distances. They can climb like a rogue. At 9th level they can gather a horde of fellow barbarians for a specific mission (sacking and razing Zhentil Keep, for example). A barbarian horde equals the character's XP divided by 100. 10% of the horde is an elite group of 2nd level berserkers, led by a berserker half the PC's level who's accompanied by two assistants half his level (round all fractions up).



From what I have read, the most typical viking wepons were the spear and axe. But, your barbarian could also always go with the ever intimidating greatsword as well.


Not all vikings made raiding and looting their whole life. Many were simple farmers, fishermen, shepherds, craftsmen, smithies, and laborers. When the "Powers That Be" decided to go raiding and looting, they would draft these men into service, hand them a helmet, a shield, and a weapon, and tell them "You're going to war, son". These men were typically given weapons they would be familiar with from their daily lives (axes and spears). If you could chop firewood, you could wield a battleaxe. If you could hunt wild game with a spear, you could use a spear in battle. The ones who drafted these conscripts into service wielded swords, specifically the Norse broadsword. Their broadswords were as much a status symbol as it was a weapon. I like to call these guys "career vikings". The Norse broadsword is of similar length and design as the longsword common in more civilized lands. The blade, however, is wider (about the width of your palm, the blade of a longsword is about the width of three fingers) and two to three times as thick, making it more of a cleaving weapon than a slashing weapon. It weighs a pound or two more than the longsword and does 2d4 damage instead of 1d8.



I haven't really given this one much though before. I remember playing a specialty priest many times. It allowed for a little more customization so that your character could more closely align with his god. Domains now serve that function to some degree and clerics of a war like good are free to multiclass as fighters, for instance. There is also the much more robust option of using (and creating) prestige classes.


I've looked into domains and prestige classes to try and recreate the specialty priests that I so enjoyed playing. Unfortunately, few if any of them grant the special abilities that I chose those classes for. The Sensate Of Sharess' ability to reverse the effects of a cursed Girdle Of Masculinity/Femininity by touch at 15th level for instance. The Battleguard Of Tempus's ability to incite berserker rage in himself and others. The Blood Reavers Of Garagos' similar ability to incite a blood rage in himself and others. I've thought of turning the 2e specialty priest classes into 3.X prestige classes with very low prerequisites (must be 2nd level cleric with specific domains or something). Problem is their granted spell like abilities & powers throws the balance of power out of whack. That was the purpose of Spheres Of Influence, to customize the specialty priest's spell lists so that they're not too much more powerful than simple clerics. Then I thought of making it a new class and limiting their spells by school in 3.Xe the way they did by sphere in 2e. But there's more spheres than there are schools causing crossovers which make this method undesirable.
Spells from the elemental, sun, and combat spheres are all classified as "evocation" spells. A Peaceman Of Eldath has major access to the elemental and sun spheres but no access to the combat sphere. If I deny him access to the evocation school, he can't cast the spells he's supposed to have access to. If I give him access to the evocation school, he has access to spells he's forbidden to use. Spheres Of Influence were far better. Also, druids are the specialty priests of the gods of nature. So the nature gods have their clerics AND their specialty priests, while all the other gods only have clerics. Unfair if you ask me.



I'm not sure I understand how the fact that the elf is automatically familiarity with a longsword would unbalance the game if he got a Holy Avenger that his paladin class would have allowed him to use anyway. By the by, paladins are far from overshadowing the other classes. And, it is important to keep in mind that if the paladin does not walk the straight and narrow, it is exceedingly easy for them to loose all of those abilities. If that happens, they're barely equivalent to the NPC warrior class. That is a balancing factor in and of itself.


The elf's +1 bonus to hit with longswords is just one of many elf abilities that, when combined with the paladin's class abilities, throws the balance of power too far in the player's favour. I could have easily used a dwarven paladin weilding a Holy Avenger shortsword against a frost giant as an example, gaining a +4 bonus to his AC, a +4 bonus to hit vs giants, +5 to hit from the swords enchantment, +10 to damage because frost giants are chaotic evil, another +4 to damage because the paladin's a dwarf, etc, etc, etc. As for the looming threat of losing ones status as a paladin, how easy it is is debatable. A Japanese paladin who worships the Japanese God Of War and is also a samurai would have a different view of how to treat prisoners of war than a western paladin who worships Tyr, for example. It all depends on how strict the DM is.



This one isn't really a stretch at all. Defense of the woodlands can be taken to the extreme where the ranger or druid is willing to slay anyone who dares chop down a tree or hunt an animal. I have played alongside many of types of characters through the years, and their characters could easily be classified as evil, whether their character sheet said so or not.


This one's really a matter of ones point of view I guess you could say (enter Star Wars theme here). There are many fictional characters who are considered heroes who have committed cold blooded murder. Jack Bauer on 24, James Bond in Casino Royale, The Rock in Scorpion King, Ogami Itto in Lone Wolf & Cub, Leon in Leon: Le Professional, and Paul Kersey in Deathwish, just to name a few. Personally I view rangers and druids who kill people for poaching game or logging trees in their forrest in one of two ways. They're either insane, which would make them Chaotic Neutral, or they cling too tightly to the letter of the law and have forgotten or simply ignore the spirit of it, making them Lawful Neutral. A perfect example is the barbarians of The Ride in The Forgotten Realms. Every generation, every tribe has one warrior who's job it is to slay all intruders to The Ride on sight. It doesn't matter the intruder's race, class, or alignment. All tresspassers are slain. You know what the required alignment of the chosen barbarian is? Lawful Good!



With the limits being removed and characters now having the ability to have scores over 18, I'm not sure how you couldn't represent a character in 3rd edition with exceptional strength. Even presuming you started with a human warrior who rolled maximum for their strength, they can continue to raise their strength every four levels.


I never said anything against the rule of being able to imrove your stats as you level up. That's one of the changes I liked. I always found it frutrating in 2e that no matter how much your character exercised he could never improve his STR, CON, or DEX, or how much he studied he couldn't improve his INT or WIS. However, I liked the fact that if I rolled an 18 for my fighter's STR, there was a chance I could get 18/100 (ogre strength). I'd like to be able to do that again, without having to dump EVERYTHING into STR from 1st to 20th level. By the time you get to 20th level there's not much that can really challenge you anyway. And like I said before, having a strapping young lad with ogre strength right out of the gate makes for some great story telling.



D&D isn't a gaming system for just one world, and though halflings may have been inspired by Tolkein's hobbits, they don't HAVE to follow all the same rules.


I know D&D isn't made for just one world. However, certain races are indiginous to certain worlds. Red widows and vampyres are indiginous to Ravenloft for example. And draconians, gulley dwarves, and kender are all indiginous to Krynn. And while kender are rather ammusing to read about in novels, they're annoying as hell to DM and adventure with. I've avoided playing in Dragon Lance campaigns like the plague just to avoid them (that strategy's shot all to hell now). And remember, the vast majority of the population on ALL D&D worlds are greengrocers (nonadventurers). ALL PC adventurers are the exceptions to the rule, regardless of race or class. Thus, it makes no sense to make the entire halfling race into a race of adventurers.



I agree, and third edition makes this level of customization easier than ever before by making it extremely straight forward to advance monsters though a number of different options, including: raising their HD, adding templates, or adding class levels.

You obviously misunderstood my point on this one. I actually find much easier to customize monsters in 2e than in 3.X. Before all I had to do was assign them a class, level, calculate THAC0 and hitpoints, if they have weapon specialization or mastery, number of attacks and hit and damage bonuses. Now in addition to all that I've got to choose feats, figure out stats, skills, and a bunch of other stuff that just makes things more complicated than they need to be. Point being, you don't HAVE to play D&D in 3.X to customize your monsters. And if you have enough of the rules memorized, it's actually quicker and easier to customize monsters in 2e.

Tony Misfeldt
11-12-2007, 10:37 PM
There are versions of D&D after 2nd edition AD&D? :eek:

I'm an old-school gamer. All the way. Had 3e briefly, but sold 'em. Didn't think it was worth the $$$ I paid for it.

Amen, brother! TESTIFY! The only reason I never bothered to sell my 3.X books is because I wrote a bunch of corrections iin them and I doubt anyone would pay any money for them after that. As far as I'm concerned, the optional rules in Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic is what 3rd Edition SHOULD have been. They fixed most of the problems found in the original 2nd Edition AD&D without destroying what worked about the system. 3.X threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Llwch
11-13-2007, 01:53 AM
Amen, brother! TESTIFY! The only reason I never bothered to sell my 3.X books is because I wrote a bunch of corrections iin them and I doubt anyone would pay any money for them after that. As far as I'm concerned, the optional rules in Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic is what 3rd Edition SHOULD have been. They fixed most of the problems found in the original 2nd Edition AD&D without destroying what worked about the system. 3.X threw the baby out with the bathwater.

True 'dat... So when're you gonna move to Toronto so I can game with ya? :D

Tony Misfeldt
11-13-2007, 03:50 PM
True 'dat... So when're you gonna move to Toronto so I can game with ya? :D

No plans to move to The T Dot in my immediate future (all my family & friends are here in beautiful BC). But let me know if you have any plans to move to Vancouver and we can play D&D like it SHOULD be played!

Moritz
11-13-2007, 04:24 PM
And another successful match.love.pnpgames.com moment. Two players finding one another yet are in seperate passing trains on the forum express.

Digital Arcanist
11-13-2007, 06:32 PM
bow chika wow wow!!!!!

When do I get my soul mate here?

Llwch
11-14-2007, 12:24 AM
LMAO!

Yeah, well... Not likely to have any gaming come outta that. Last time I played face to face AD&D was in 1992.

My PBeM doesn't count, and my kids play BECMI D&D, so AD&D is still a distant thing.

Digital Arcanist
11-14-2007, 12:28 AM
So many acronyms!!! What does BECMI stand for?

gdmcbride
11-14-2007, 05:18 AM
First, TSR/Wizards never actually used the word "hobbits"!

Actually the first editions of D&D (the white box and the brown box) did actually use the words hobbits, ents and balrogs. I'll forgive you for not knowing this since that was in 1974.

The Tolkien estate when they learned of this transgression sent TSR fiery letters and later editions were corrected. Thus D&D gained halflings, treants and balors. By the time the game saw truly wide release -- the AD&D Monster Manual and the Moldvay Basic Set -- the corrections were in place.

There is a reference to this mish-mash in an old Phil and Dixie cartoon where the staff at TSR are so afraid of the Tolkien estate they refuse to say 'ring' instead substituting 'circular metal band' at every turn. Thus: 'Hey the phone is circular metal banding!'

Gary 'Trivia from Hell' McBride

gdmcbride
11-14-2007, 05:19 AM
So many acronyms!!! What does BECMI stand for?

Basic Expert Companion Master Immortals

The five sets of D&D rules later compiled into the rules compendium.

Gary

Grinnen Baeritt
11-14-2007, 07:56 AM
I'm not currently running D&D d20. I used to run Ad&D all the time, I liked it, I was comfortable with it. For Me 3.0 and 3.5 has ruined D&D both as a player and a DM.

So they have made a few things easier... but did this WAY after other companies had been doing the same thing for over 5 years.

E.G. The New Combat system: Basically the same as Palladium RPG, cept palladium is better, cos it allows parries and dodges, and armour damage etc.

In so many ways if you were to do a conversion of Rolemaster (early 80's) from d100 to d20 you would arrive back at D&D.

What really gets my goat as even after all that time, and with the input of literally thousands of users they still didn't manage to get it right first time.

Races and Characters. Humm. Don't get me started on Hobbits. Halflings are Hobbits. End of matter. Call them halflings if you like but to me they will always be Hobbits. Call an apple an orange if you like but it will still be an apple.

Grinnen Baeritt
11-14-2007, 08:04 AM
AD&D is broken and unchallenging at high levels?

Where exactly do people get this idea? Firstly, I can't imagine a good DM allowing characters to progress so easily through the levels that the really high levels need to be there at all.

If D20 is so much better then why cap it with level 20?

Basic D&D! Yeh!:)

Digital Arcanist
11-14-2007, 10:15 AM
E.G. The New Combat system: Basically the same as Palladium RPG, cept palladium is better, cos it allows parries and dodges, and armour damage etc.

What really gets my goat as even after all that time, and with the input of literally thousands of users they still didn't manage to get it right first time.

Races and Characters. Humm. Don't get me started on Hobbits. Halflings are Hobbits. End of matter. Call them halflings if you like but to me they will always be Hobbits. Call an apple an orange if you like but it will still be an apple.

Unearthed Arcana gives rules for GM's to implement parries and dodges as well. The DMG also explains variations on rules to include damage to armor. I had a DM who let us parry blows if we took a feat and also penalized us for not maintaining our gear. I liked the penalties for ill-maintained gear.

Hobbits and Halflings started out the same as you can see from the early drawings but what we call a Halfling today is nothing like a Hobbit. They are the Kender of the non-Dragonlance settings as someone pointed out earlier. Bilbo and Frodo were the exception and not the standard for Hobbit society.

There is no level cap Grinnen. The core books stop at 20 and the Exalted Deeds goes to 30, however you can cap your levels at 1000 if you want. They really stopped writing material at 30 because the deities listed in the books start at level 30 and end at 40-50.

MortonStromgal
11-14-2007, 11:03 AM
AD&D is broken and unchallenging at high levels?

Where exactly do people get this idea?

I believe this idea comes from having a lot of powers to remember the higher up you go and at high level forgetting something that gives you a bonus can mean the difference between 5 rounds of combat and 1 round of combat. I to feel it breaks as it enters the double digit levels but I would say its more challenging rather than unchallenging.

gdmcbride
11-15-2007, 01:09 AM
AD&D is broken and unchallenging at high levels?

Where exactly do people get this idea? Firstly, I can't imagine a good DM allowing characters to progress so easily through the levels that the really high levels need to be there at all.

If D20 is so much better then why cap it with level 20?

Basic D&D! Yeh!:)

First of all, if you enjoy AD&D or Basic D&D, great! Those games are both very easy to find at places like Half Price Books or Ebay. They are still both very playable.

AD&D 1st edition was broken at high levels. I wouldn't call it unchallenging. Broken game systems are often very challenging. Why do I think this?

I ran or played AD&D for more than half a decade (1983-1989). By the time I picked up AD&D 2nd edition, I had constructed an elaborate frame work of house rules to fix the countless problems that had been revealed in actual play. My game system of choice was actually not AD&D anymore but a complex mishmash of dragon articles, 3rd party supplements, homebrew house rules and official publications. It worked but it was unwieldy and devilishly tricky to explain to the uninitiated.

I was ready for a revision in 1989. Beyond ready! I didn't agree with all the changes but it was closer to fine. It worked smoothly especially at lower levels. In college, I ran a 2nd edition campaign than lasted six years. By the end of it, I was ready to set my 2nd edition books on fire. Not because the campaign wasn't great, but because the rules (especially at higher levels) were full of holes and problems. House rules once more abounded.

3rd edition did much to fix what was broken. Again, I didn't agree with everything. And time has once more revealed problems. But I would say that 3.5 is probably the most internally consistent least problem filled version of D&D ever released (which is truly damning with faint praise). But when I play it, I still have house rules.

To give a specific example of why I think first edition was broken, AD&D with its so called "god wall" was incredibly frustrating at higher levels. Great, you've earned a quarter million XP. Now, earn it again to advance one whole level. Yay. And if you are going to put in rules for high level play but a "good DM" never uses them, why put the rules in at all?

D20, as already pointed out, is not capped at level 20. That is simply factually wrong.

I'm not trying to convince you that AD&D 1st or Basic D&D aren't great. You seem to like them. I had immense fun playing them. But they certainly aren't perfect.

You shouldn't be surprised that many people have moved on.

Happy gaming,
Gary McBride

Llwch
11-15-2007, 01:33 AM
So many acronyms!!! What does BECMI stand for?

BECMI is an acronym for the earlier versions of the D&D boxed sets... Stands for Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals.

Grinnen Baeritt
11-15-2007, 02:18 AM
Unearthed Arcana gives rules for GM's to implement parries and dodges as well. The DMG also explains variations on rules to include damage to armor. I had a DM who let us parry blows if we took a feat and also penalized us for not maintaining our gear. I liked the penalties for ill-maintained gear.

Hobbits and Halflings started out the same as you can see from the early drawings but what we call a Halfling today is nothing like a Hobbit. They are the Kender of the non-Dragonlance settings as someone pointed out earlier. Bilbo and Frodo were the exception and not the standard for Hobbit society.

There is no level cap Grinnen. The core books stop at 20 and the Exalted Deeds goes to 30, however you can cap your levels at 1000 if you want. They really stopped writing material at 30 because the deities listed in the books start at level 30 and end at 40-50.

I suppose that this is entirely my point. None of the measures above are included in the CORE rules. All the rest are rules that have been tagged on. Doesn't this make the supposedly better rules just as broken if they need additional books to include all this stuff.

The difference is you have just paid out through your nose to purchase these options rather than coming up with them yourselves. And to be entirely brutal about it, MOST of this stuff the users of the system have come up with... but the publishers claim the credit.

We all know that as players and DM's that the rules as written are just a framework for our imagination and ANY rpg will have "homebrew" rules attached by DM's who find the material released insufficent for their needs.

Halflings as per the WOTC/TSR rules MAY not be Hobbits, but anyone who know the legal wranglings of the situation know that this was just a way out of the "intellectual property" loophole. I know this, everyone knows this. I WANT to play the type of Hobbit that ups and goes adventuring not some hyperactive midgit.

Moritz
11-15-2007, 07:31 AM
BECMI is an acronym for the earlier versions of the D&D boxed sets... Stands for Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals.

Where's Advanced?

Grinnen Baeritt
11-15-2007, 10:24 AM
Where's Advanced?

It wasn't part of that series... for those not in the know, Elves, Hobbits (oh yes, called Halflings...but these were fat and had hairy feet;)) and Dwarves were character classes unto themselves.... unlike AD&D and D20.

Digital Arcanist
11-15-2007, 11:07 AM
Actually, PHB (CORE RULEBOOK I) contains all the information needed to add gear maintenance as well as the rules for striking and breaking common weapons on page 136 of my 3.0 book.

The DMG (CORE RULEBOOK II) contains all the information needed to add dodging and parrying to your combat on page 25 in the variant rules section labeled Defense Roll. This is a 3.5 book so it may be on a different page in a 3.0 book. The Unearthed Arcana is really nothing but variations on the rules for the core books. It contains some rather detailed information.

As for the Hobbit thing....if you don't like the Halfling race as presented in D&D then get rid of them and create a new race called Hobbits and play them. TSR is dead, so whatever legal actions taken against them is irrelevant. WotC bought the rights to D&D and so they can do whatever they want. I rather think it smart to create a new race of creatures and call them halflings. Why would you want to be sued over intellectual property rights?

I love Tolkien as much as the next nerd but he did nothing different that TSR. He took magical creatures that have been written about, and portrayed as real, and renamed them for his purposes. His image of elves are nothing more than Sidhe written about in Celtic mythology for hundreds of years. His dwarves are taken from Norse mythology. There are only so many new ideas in the world, and sometimes we have to borrow and alter to find a suitable solution.

I still don't understand why buying a book is the common defense or accusation against WotC. My library carries almost all the 3.0/3.5 books to date. My friends all own different books and we share them. Find the book you need and go photocopy the material you want. There are also cheaper electric versions to purchase or used books to buy.

fmitchell
11-15-2007, 01:04 PM
I love Tolkien as much as the next nerd but he did nothing different that TSR. He took magical creatures that have been written about, and portrayed as real, and renamed them for his purposes. His image of elves are nothing more than Sidhe written about in Celtic mythology for hundreds of years. His dwarves are taken from Norse mythology. There are only so many new ideas in the world, and sometimes we have to borrow and alter to find a suitable solution.

I guess I agree with you here, although the Elves had as much to do with Norse myth as the Dwarves, with perhaps a fine dusting of Sidhe/Faerie glamour. Both, though, departed significantly from the Ljotalfar/Sidhe and Svartalfar/Dvergar as depicted in myths. (Also, hobbits and orcs were entirely Tolkien's invention.)

Then again, I often wonder why FRPers (and FRP publishers) are stuck on Tolkien-ish "races" when other founding authors of fantasy literature had completely different takes on mythology. Robert E. Howard had only humans and monsters, Moorcock only occasionally used vaguely elf-like beings (Eldren, Melniboneans, Vadagh), C. S. Lewis used talking animals with a smattering of Greek woodland spirits, and so forth. Runequest tried to take elves/dwarfs/trolls in a new direction, but nearly every other fantasy game uses some slight variant of Tolkien's old standards. So few look beyond to other myths and legends, such as the Arabian Nights, Chinese legends, Japanese legends (not the same thing!), medieval Russia, Native American beliefs, or "Africa" (as if it's a single culture).

Farcaster
11-15-2007, 05:33 PM
[Tokein] took magical creatures that have been written about, and portrayed as real, and renamed them for his purposes. His image of elves are nothing more than Sidhe written about in Celtic mythology for hundreds of years. His dwarves are taken from Norse mythology.

Hobbits, though, as far as I know where Tolkein's own creation, but you're right that he borrowed just about everything else from existing mythologies. What he did though was bring things together. The way he presented elves, dwarves, hobbits, dragons, goblins, orcs, wizards, rangers, et al, was thereafter widely imitated in popular fantasy literature and RPGs.

Digital Arcanist
11-15-2007, 08:39 PM
Careful Fmitchell, elves, svartan and Sidhe are three separate races as far as Celtic mythology goes.

However, Norse elves are pretty much the same as the elves presented by Tolkien and adopted by D&D and fantasy writers.

Now before any Tolkien fans start screaming blasphemy, my points were made only to combat the accusations made earlier that WotC just takes ideas and renames them to gain credit. I am a huge Tolkien fan myself.

This thread, and many others seem to degrade into a name-calling match between those who like 3.X and those who don't. It really doesn't matter. I had good times playing all the version of D&D and will undoubtedly play 4.0 as well. I prefer 3.X over previous versions for my reasons. That in no way invalidates your love of prior versions or is a personal attack against you.

Moritz
11-16-2007, 08:47 AM
Tolkien stole Hobbits from the Wizard of Oz.

Digital Arcanist
11-16-2007, 10:25 AM
I bet that pissed the Wizard off......

Fear the might of Oz!!!!!!!

fmitchell
11-16-2007, 11:21 AM
Careful Fmitchell, elves, svartan and Sidhe are three separate races as far as Celtic mythology goes.

I'm not sure about that. Svartalfar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svartalfar) and Dvergar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_dwarves) blended into each other in Norse mythology (according to Wikipedia, anyway), and Tolkien relied more heavily on Saxon/Norse myth than on Celtic. "Elf" is a Saxon word derived from "alfar".

Norse fairy-like beings "blended" with Celtic Sidhe during the Saxon invasions, giving us "trow" or "drow" (from troll) and "duergar" (from dvergar), among others. The Tuatha de Danaan, in particular, resemble the original Norse vision of Ljosalfar (light elves).

So, to summarize, sidhe (Celtic) == elf (Saxon) == alfar (Norse); svartalfar are a subtype of alfar that are often identified with dvergar.

There's no true sense of races in British myth and legend apart from cultural borders and the succession of races from the Irish Book of Invasions (including Tuatha de Danaan and Firbolg). Although, perhaps one could say that the sidhe, faerie, elves, or what have you form myriad races like the sluagh, banshee, daoine sidhe, dwarfs, pixies, nixies, bogles, light elves, dark elves, black elves (no relation), ...

Digital Arcanist
11-16-2007, 07:01 PM
Well I see your problem....you are using Wikipedia while I am using a textbook from a Celtic Mythology class at my university as well as another reference book of common Celtic/Scottish myths I got from a library book sale.

Wikipedia knows a lot but you always should double check but to make sure since anyone can edit stuff.

Anyway, regardless of the finer points of the origins of certain creatures, we all agree that Tolkien borrowed from mythology while writing his books.

Grinnen Baeritt
11-16-2007, 07:58 PM
I apologise for saying that D20 has been "Level Capped" at 20th...

Though the level charts do seem to indicate that. I will bow down to those who have read the 3.X rules more thouroughly than I.

I was under the impression that the only way you could progress further was by the use of prestige classes or with the "Epic level Source Book" neither are exactly standard and subject to DM acceptance.

Anyway, I may have given the impression that I dislike D&D D20, or in fact prefer AD&D. This isn't really the case, I play both, though the more memorable ones have all been AD&D and that the greatest proportion of the D&D I've played in the last 25 years have been using those rules.

I have to confess that I prefer games where there is not a rule written for everything... one where the referree is trusted to make good judgement calls and be a storyteller without having to refer to the rules as written. No, this isn't required, but the amount of rules-lawyering players that I've seen in the later versions of the game has turned me off running the games for them.

Also I'm getting too old (and poor) to see the reason for all the new classes/feat/prestige classes and rules-bending addititons that accompany them. True I could say "Stick to the Core rules" but then I lose players who prefer to play games where these additions are allowed.

Take one example of over-complication for profit by the publishers: there are multiple feats doing exactly the same thing, giving +2 to two different skills all with different names. These fill up many pages of many supplements. Why not have One Basic feat that allows you to choose any two skills and give them both +2?

Digital Arcanist
11-16-2007, 10:11 PM
The feat of which you speak is included in the Complete Scoundrel......

No one likes a rules-lawyer. To deflate their posturing before it begins I start any new campaign with the caveat that I am always right....even when I'm wrong and anything outside of the PHB and DMG is subject to my whims. I own pretty much every source book published to date and have read about 90% of them so I have at least a passing knowledge of all the rules and so I allow pretty much every rule with exceptions that muddle and befuddle the progression of the story and the players.

WotC knows that they can't satisfy everyone, but that hasn't stopped them from trying. With the number of classes, spells, and feats published there is something for everyone. Infinite diversity through infinite combinations as our Vulcan brothers and sisters would say.

Llwch
11-17-2007, 06:42 PM
Where's Advanced?

Advanced D&D was an entirely different beast. In BECMI D&D, the races were classes. An "elf" in BECMI was the AD&D equivalent to an elven fighter/magicuser. Halflings and Dwarves were basically equivalent to an AD&D fighter in each respective race.

Llwch
11-17-2007, 06:44 PM
No one likes a rules-lawyer.

IMCs, Rules Lawyers are shown an early grave. Or the door. The rules are only supposed to provide a guideline and rough boundaries for the game mileu. It is, after all, supposed to be fun. Arguments over rules are counterproductive, and a complete waste of time.

Moritz
11-18-2007, 04:30 PM
Advanced D&D was an entirely different beast. In BECMI D&D, the races were classes. An "elf" in BECMI was the AD&D equivalent to an elven fighter/magicuser. Halflings and Dwarves were basically equivalent to an AD&D fighter in each respective race.

I guess I wasn't paying enough attention back then. Because when I transitioned from Basic/Expert to Advanced, the rules didn't seem to change. Perhaps I never really used the rules? :)

Llwch
11-18-2007, 07:21 PM
I guess I wasn't paying enough attention back then. Because when I transitioned from Basic/Expert to Advanced, the rules didn't seem to change. Perhaps I never really used the rules? :)
LOL. Rules, schmulez. :D

rabkala
11-18-2007, 07:58 PM
I guess I wasn't paying enough attention back then. Because when I transitioned from Basic/Expert to Advanced, the rules didn't seem to change.

There was a definite progression of more complicated rules and more player options with every new incarnation of the game. It is only logical that 4e will be even more rules heavy with far more player options. Even 2e was far more 'player friendly' than 1e.

Everyone seems to make such a great distinction between the versions of the game, but it is just the natural evolution. Is 3.5 so far from the original? At it's heart, it remains the original. Coca-cola went through many recipe changes before the 'New Coke' fiasco, but is still original coke. The extra rules and options only weigh you down if you let them.



I prefer games where there is not a rule written for everything... one where the referree is trusted to make good judgement calls and be a storyteller without having to refer to the rules as written. No, this isn't required, but the amount of rules-lawyering players that I've seen in the later versions of the game has turned me off running the games for them.

Also I'm getting too old (and poor) to see the reason for all the new classes/feat/prestige classes and rules-bending addititons that accompany them. True I could say "Stick to the Core rules" but then I lose players who prefer to play games where these additions are allowed.

I would say I prefer a game where the DM is trusted also, but too many people have endured horrible referees in the past. As in life, trust and respect should be earned.

I am also getting old and poor. As 3.5 ground on, I saw myself refusing more of the supplemental material than ever before in earlier games. Some of it just didn't feel right. Some of it seemed to contain a gradual power creep where every new book tried to outdo the previous books. When the players know that the DM is just trying to keep it fun and fair for everyone, there usually aren't that many problems. As a player, although somewhat rare, I definitely prefer the later editions.

Moritz
11-19-2007, 07:37 AM
Also I'm getting too old (and poor) to see the reason for all the new classes/feat/prestige classes and rules-bending addititons that accompany them. True I could say "Stick to the Core rules" but then I lose players who prefer to play games where these additions are allowed.

Dude, I'm right there with ya. I do happen to own about 40 3.5 books. But I still stick to the Core Rules. All the other books are because I got them for 'off the back of a truck' cheap. And they give me good pictures and some source material for story ideas. But ain't nobody gonna be walking around playing some Savage Species rules bending class in my game.

Tony Misfeldt
11-20-2007, 03:25 PM
First of all, if you enjoy AD&D or Basic D&D, great! Those games are both very easy to find at places like Half Price Books or Ebay. They are still both very playable.

AD&D 1st edition was broken at high levels. I wouldn't call it unchallenging. Broken game systems are often very challenging. Why do I think this?


I'm not trying to convince you that AD&D 1st or Basic D&D aren't great. You seem to like them. I had immense fun playing them. But they certainly aren't perfect.

You shouldn't be surprised that many people have moved on.

Happy gaming,
Gary McBride

All the various versions of D&D were broken in some form or other. In Basic D&D, as mentioned previously, each of the races were essentially classes unto themselves. Players became frustrated that only humans could choose between becoming fighters, clerics, wizards, or thieves. It's been forever since I've played basic, but I seem to remember the combat system and level advancement being similar to 3rd Edition's (but I may be remembering wrong).

In AD&D (now referred to as 1st Edition AD&D), they fixed many of those problems. Class and race were now two different things that the players got to choose seperately. Each class had a different rate of level afvancement. They also introduced the concept of THAC0 to the combat rules. THAC0 was confusing to the uninitiated (I recall having problems with it when we first switched from Basic to Advanced), but for the most part the changes were a vast improvement. They also introduced Extraordinary Strength & Constitution for the warrior classes, as well as stat and level limits for nonhuman PCs. Some players had a problem with these changes but, as I've both played and DMed, I can see the advantages of this system. Humans being the only race that can be of any class and had unlimited level advancement was done because humans had the fewest special advantages. They had shorter life spans, no infravision, no stat adjustments, not racial bonuses to any weapons, thieving abilities, etc. There had to be something that gave them an advantage over the other races, otherwise no one would ever play a human PC. As for the difference between the level advancements of different classes, this was done for play balance. High level wizards can wipe out entire armies of fighters with but a few spells. Therefor wizards require the most XP to level up so that they will still need thier warrior allies for as long as possible. Thieves have fewer hit points than warriors, more limited armour and weapon selections, and a worse THAC0. Therefor they leveled up the quickest so that they might be more or less on par with the party's warriors when it came time to fight. Clerics also had more limited weapon selections, fewer hit points, and a poorer THAC0 than warriors, thus they also leveled up more easily than the other classes. Also, as party healers it was important to the group on the whole that they be able to access more powerful healing magics as soon as possible. Of course, there were problems with the system. Thieving abilities went up at a set pace, leaving no room for player individuality (what if I wanted my thief to be better at stealth than picking pockets). Also, there was no rules governing skills or proficiencies in 1st Edition. But on a brighter note, the book Unearthed Arcana introduced the new classes of barbarian and cavalier, as well as the new ability score Comeliness.

Then came AD&D 2nd Edition. 2nd Edition fixed much of what was wrong with 1st Edition. First of all, they removed most of the ability score limits on demihumans. Only human, and I think dwarven, male fighters were able to have 18/100 Strength in 1st Edition, now any character of any of the warrior classes could get ogre strength if they roll well enough. There were still some racial limits with other stats (for example, elves and halflings DEX +1 bonus wasn't suppose to raise the stat above 18), but most DMs I played with ignored those rules. The only real limitations to playing demihumans was the -1 ability score penalty and the still controversial level and class restrictions. However, the 2nd Edition DMG gave optional rules on allowing demihuman PCs to level up beyond racial maximums. Experience levels were more clearly defined. Cleric spells were rewritten, categorized by Spheres Of Influence, which allowed DMs to create Specialty Priests for their own mythos. There was now a skill and proficiency system. Secondary skills never really made much senes to me, but nonweapon proficiencies were a good (if somewhat broken) addition. The problem with NWPs was that there was very little you could do to improve them. Technically, you could improve them by devoting additional proficiency slots to the proficiency, but gaining new slots happened so infrequently that most players just took the proficiencies that required rolls against the stats they have the highest scores in rather than the ones that would be of most use on an adventure. They also elected not to transfer the Comeliness stat, or the monk, barbarian, or cavelier classes to 2nd Edition. Granted, they did bring them back (after a fashion) in the Complete Priest's and Complete Fighter's Handbooks (although the monk and barbarian kits were pretty lame in comparison to the originals). And my group continued using the comeliness stat anyway. They finally did get the barbarian right with The Complete Barbarian's Handbook. However, since this came out only a couple of years before the unveiling of 3rd Edition, it was a case of "too little, too late".

Then came the 2nd Edition books Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic (or as I refer to it, D&D Version 2.5). These books fixed much of what was wrong with the original 2nd Edition. The Character Point system used for weapon and nonweapon proficiencies maed far more sense than the old proficiency slot system (it was very similar to the skill point system in 3rd Edition). Characters could advance beyond just weapon specialization if they were high enough level. The new critical hit system made far more sense (you scored a critical with a roll of a natural 18 or better, but only of you hit your oponent by a factor of 5). And if you scored a critical, the target had to make a successful save vs death or suffer a critical effect (lost limb, decapitation, crippled appendage, instant death, etc). Spell casters (mages, clerics, druids, bards, etc) had to keep track of their Magic Points or they could cast themselves into a state of fatigue, exhaustion, or even death. You could pick some minor hindrances (phobeas, allergies, bad temper, annoying personality, tone deaf, etc) to gain extra Character Points, and spend some of those Character Points on character traits (fast healer, lucky, musically talented, double jointed, alluring, etc). I didn't agree with all the new rules (splitting ability scores into subcategories, customizing racial or class abilities to gain extra Character Points, etc), but the ones I liked I used and they made the whole role playing experience better.

Then came 3rd Edition. Many changes were made. Some still needed to be made, some looked like they made changes just for the sake of making changes. They dropped the "Advanced" from the title. This was a marketing decision, done because they felt that people weren't trying the game because they thought you needed to be an experienced player because it's "advanced". Good move on their part. They got rid of THAC0 and addopted a Paladium style combat system. Again, good move. As I stated earlier, I found THAC0 confusing when I first made the switch from Basic D&D to AD&D. Many people probably bought an AD&D Players Handbook, couldn't make heads or tails of it, then broght it back for a refund because of that. They simplified saving throws. Now instead of saving vs death, breath weapon, magic, wands, and petrification, it's just reflex, willpower, or fortitude. The Difficulty Rating of skills is a nice touch, although Skill Points serve pretty much the same function as Character Points in D&D 2.5. Having spells become more difficult to save against as the spell caster levels up is also cool. I like that cleric spells go all the way up to 9th level now (I always felt that they were jipped in 2E when their spells only went up to 7th level), and that healing spells are more powerful as the caster becomes higher level. Bringing back the monk and the barbarian was awsome (even thought they ruined the barbarian class, almost as badly as The Complete Fighter's Handbook did). I liked the addition of the sorcerer class, I think that's cool. The idea of Challenge Ratings for monsters instead of a set number of XP for killing them is a good idea (I don't completely understand how it works, but I understand the concept and I like it). I can understand why they lifted the level limits on demihumans. It's an old argument that I've heard many times over the years. If most demihumans live longer than humans do, and thus can spend more years adventuring and gaining experience, why are they not able to exceed humans in experience levels? I explained why above, but the complaint is a valid one. I've already written my dislikes of 3rd Edition's changes previously, but I do have a few more. The whole class limations for demihumans rule served a function in 1st & 2nd Editions as I mentioned above. With the introduction of the sorcerer kit, allowing all races to be any class is unnecessary. Sorcerers help explain why so many enchanted weapons and armour are of dwarven craftsmenship when the spells to enchant weapons and armour are arcane in nature and not divine. I don't like feats, they make characters too powerful too quickly. The new rules for creating magical items makes thier creation too easy. In 2nd Edition, magic items were rare and covetted items. Now their as common as blades of grass. There are probably more problems with 3.X D&D, but I can't think of any right now. To quote Winnie The Pooh, I have a rumbly in my tumbly, and I can't think when I'm hungry. I'll update this post later when I have more to write.

Tony Misfeldt
11-23-2007, 09:13 PM
Oh! One more change in 3rd Edition that I liked! In 1st & 2nd Editions, after you've achieved a certain level (9th or 10th) you received a set amount of hit points per level and no longer got any bonus hit points for high CON scores. In 3rd Edition you now roll for your hit points at EVERY level, and you continue to get your CON bonus! Good move on WotC's part! Too bad they made all those other changes that ruined the game.

fmitchell
11-24-2007, 01:20 AM
At the beginning of this thread, I asked the following questions:


Does anyone still play versions of D&D before 3.x? Does anyone use OSRIC rules, or Hackmaster, or any other retro rulesets? Can someone explain the appeal to me?

So far, the answers are as follows:

Yes
Apparently not.
The only clear answer I've heard is: "Because 3.x is BROKEN! BROKEN, I say!" Maybe also for the nostalgia value? I don't know.


Is this correct?

Digital Arcanist
11-24-2007, 01:36 AM
1. No I don't play older editions.
2. When I play D&D, we use only 3.5 rules.
3. I don't play older editions because I like the new combat rules and players in my area have adopted 3.5 as the system of choice.

I, however, think previous editions had the best generated scenarios but that is probably due to the superiority of the writers and not the system.

Inquisitor Tremayne
11-24-2007, 10:50 AM
The feat of which you speak is included in the Complete Scoundrel......

No one likes a rules-lawyer. To deflate their posturing before it begins I start any new campaign with the caveat that I am always right....even when I'm wrong and anything outside of the PHB and DMG is subject to my whims. I own pretty much every source book published to date and have read about 90% of them so I have at least a passing knowledge of all the rules and so I allow pretty much every rule with exceptions that muddle and befuddle the progression of the story and the players.

WotC knows that they can't satisfy everyone, but that hasn't stopped them from trying. With the number of classes, spells, and feats published there is something for everyone. Infinite diversity through infinite combinations as our Vulcan brothers and sisters would say.

I like rules lawyers.

Mostly because I am one and can use it to my advantage. The other reason why I play smart characters!

After all, we are at the very least bound somewhat to the rules in the PHB and the DMG, whats wrong with using those rules to your advantage?

Tony Misfeldt
11-30-2007, 07:49 PM
At the beginning of this thread, I asked the following questions:



So far, the answers are as follows:

Yes
Apparently not.
The only clear answer I've heard is: "Because 3.x is BROKEN! BROKEN, I say!" Maybe also for the nostalgia value? I don't know.
Is this correct?

Looks right to me. I'm not saying that 3.X is a bad system. I'm just saying that in trying to improve an admittedly broken system, they ended up making one that's just as broken, if not more so.

Drohem
11-30-2007, 08:49 PM
Ok, I skimmed this thread.

I don't play any earlier versions of D&D. My group currently plays 3.5 D&D and d20 Modern. Each GM has their own House Rules. I am one of two 'vanilla' GMs in the group.

I recently found Labyrinth Lords, OSRIC, and GORE. I have downloaded them and skimmned them. I doubt I can convince anyone in my group to return to the 'good old days.'

I would play them if given the opportunity.

The only reason would be for nostalgia, and trying to capture that certain *feel* of those days of yore.

It seems there is much controversy over these 'retro-clone' games. There is much discussion over the 'morality' and legality of these games.

As far as legality goes, they are within the laws as written.

Now, the issue of morality: I read the introductions by the authors. It's clear to me that they are paying homage to the forefathers of the RPG industry. They are clearly trying to re-kindle an interest in these older games, and it seems for nostaglia's sake and a desire to return to a 'simpler time' of roleplaying. I have no problem with these games.

Olothfaern
12-05-2007, 12:40 PM
My number one seething hatred for any rule system is arbitrary (with respect to the rule framework) limitations
.

In Basic, it was why can't my Dwarf be a Thief; in AD&D it was I'm an Elf a member of a magical race and I'm stuck at what level of Magic? in 2nd ed, it was so how is it that me and the Warrior face the same challenge, but he benefits more from it?; in 3.x it favored class...

Every edition has it's problems; if they didn't you wouldn't need a DM, but the rules work better with every iteration.

No I don't play pre- 3.x D&D it would be like going from an air car to a 3 legged horse

I don't play retro rules sets (see above)

Their appeal is to people who had their golden age during another era, and would rather wallow in that than pay their SOTA costs.

Farcaster
12-05-2007, 01:07 PM
Every edition has it's problems; if they didn't you wouldn't need a DM

*chuckle*

I wouldn't go quite that far. :D

Tony Misfeldt
12-06-2007, 10:53 PM
Every edition has it's problems; if they didn't you wouldn't need a DM, but the rules work better with every iteration.



Their appeal is to people who had their golden age during another era, and would rather wallow in that than pay their SOTA costs.

I agree with the first half of this statement (except for the part about the DM). I mentioned in an earlier post that each edition had its benefits and hindrances (much like character kits in second edition). And as I stated earlier there were several changes made in 3rd Edition that needed to be made.

The second half of this statement I disagree with. People who play earlier editions of D&D aren't wallowing in their golden age of gaming. To paraphrase Giles in Season One of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, "we just don't go by the knee jerk opinion that just because something is new automatically makes it better." Yes, 2nd Edition had its faults. However, most of those faults were corrected through the optional rules in the books Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic. Which is why I choose to play 2nd Edition with those optional rules. The 2nd Edition DMG also has optional rules for allowing demihumans to level up past racial limitations, and numerous DMs have their own house rules for other things such as saving throws, and spell strength according to caster level, etc.

The source of my seething hatred of 3.X Edition is that for every positive change made for the new d20 system, they made an equally negative change, thus beaking what they were trying to fix. For example:

POSITIVE: They changed the old Non Weapon Proficiency system to the new Skills system, introducing Skill Points and Difficulty Checks.
NEGATIVE: They introduced Feats. Feats suck! They make characters too powerful too quick. It's also a unnecessarily complicates a system that they were trying to simplify.

POSITIVE: They simplified the combat system by eliminating THAC0 and turning the Armour Class system on its head.
NEGATIVE: They changed the descriptions and damage of many of the weapons. Some of the weapons didn't even survive the conversion into 3rd Edition, such as the broadsword and katana. That I don't like.

POSITIVE: The warrior classes are no longer the only ones who gain additional attacks as they move up in level.
NEGATIVE: The 2nd Edition system for multiple attacks was simpler.

POSITIVE: Divine spells now go all the way up to 9th level, while in 1st & 2nd Editions they only went up to 7th.
NEGATIVE: They eliminated Spheres Of Influence, thus eliminating the specialty priest from an optional choice of PC class. They tried compensating with the introduction of Prestige Classes and Cleric Domains, but those are a poor substitute for the lost classes.

POSITIVE: The (re)introduced the Barbarian, Monk, and Sorcerer as PC classes.
NEGATIVE: As I mentioned in my first post, they got the barbarian class all wrong.

POSITIVE: They introduced Challenge Ratings for monster XP values.
NEGATIVE: They made all classes level up at the same rate. In 1st & 2nd Edition, the different XP requirements to level up for all the different classes served the same purpose as CR in 3.X. It also makes for equality between PCs in combat situations. A 3rd level fighter and a 5th level thief in 2nd Ed have roughly the same THAC0, Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc. So when facing the same monsters (or each other) in combat, they'll be on roughly equal footing.

POSITIVE: They simplified Saving Throws, so that you only have three saves instead of five. Also, high stats can aide or hinder your saving throws. The number you have to roll against is also dependant on the level of the wizard/priest casting the spell, the age of the dragon, or the potency of the poison. This makes more logistic sense.
NEGATIVE: They got halflings wrong. Halfling are hobbits, plain and simple. Always have been, and in my mind always will be. Halflings are not kender. While true halflings who have met kender while visiting Krynn (or while the kender were visiting the halflings home world) have sort of adopted kender as a halfling subrace, they are not in the truest sense halflings. And I don't care what Wizards Of The Coast says to the contrary.

POSITIVE: They simplified Weapon Proficiencies, so you no longer have to learn each weapon individually.
NEGATIVE: They over simplified Weapon Proficiencies. While I can understand one being able to wield a scimitar just as well as a long sword, or a great sword just as well as a bastard sword, or a spear just as well as a javeline, there is a world of difference between wielding a short sword and a bastard sword, or a long sword and great sword. I think the group proficiency system introduced in The Complete Fighter's Handbook is a much more realistic system. And they should be skills, not feats (feats suck!).

POSITIVE: They allowed demihumans to have unlimited level advancement. I've always been on the line with this 2nd Ed rule. If a demihuman can go adventuring for centuries gaining XP, why does he have to stop advancing at X number of levels while humans, who can only adventure for a few decades, have unlimited advancement?
NEGATIVE: They also allowed demihumans to be any PC class. The answer to the above question was because if humans didn't have an advantage over demihumans, no one would want to play a human PC. That was the reason for limiting demihuman PC class choices as well. Without either rule, who's going to want to play a human PC?

Olothfaern
12-06-2007, 11:19 PM
... so I'll summarize...

3rd ed has features you don't like

and?

examples:

Feats make characters too powerful too quick? Too powerful for whom? You? The challenges of their CR? The planet Earth?

Hobbits vs. Halflings? Flavor text...

Analogy:

DC current was good enough for me, I didn't need any power adaptors, and my risk of electrocution was much lower...

AC current is easier to distribute at lower cost making it more beneficial for a larger portion of the community; buy adaptors and stop playing with the wires...



Don't think I'm hatin' on you though

Farcaster
12-06-2007, 11:37 PM
The source of my seething hatred of 3.X Edition is that for every positive change made for the new d20 system, they made an equally negative change, thus beaking what they were trying to fix.

I just don't get this sentiment. Why do you have a "seething hatred" for any RPG? It seems a bit extreme to me. But, I notice there there seems to be some people who polarize towards these extreme points of view and come to believe that their opinions are facts. I equally disagree with people who vehemently speak against 2nd edition and think anyone who plays it is obviously making a mistake, or as you put it, they have a "knee jerk opinion."

Going down your list of positives and negatives, there are several things you list as negative that I actually think are great additions to the game. Feats, prestige classes, and the elimination of class limits for demi-humans are perfect examples of things I like about 3rd edition. Does that make my opinion less valuable than yours? No, it just means you like 2nd edition better, and I like 3rd.

So, my friend, truly there is no reason for the seething hatred. Just play the game you prefer.

Digital Arcanist
12-07-2007, 12:51 AM
Tony there are few things wrong with some of your points. The first being that WotC is behind the change in the halfling race. We've been through this fact in this very thread. I think your anger is misplaced and should be directed at the Tolkien estate. Second, humans do have some benefits over demi-human races, those being no multi-classing restrictions, extra skill points, and a bonus feat at creation. The third is that Dragon magazine put out an issue where the Class Acts article was all about clerics and they reintroduced the Spheres of Influence. The final problem is that the entire point of 3.5 edition was balance among the classes, especially during combat. There is no need to level up different classes at different rates to even the field. At level 5 my rogue is just as effective as any level 5 fighter. Part of that is owed to feats.

Olothfaern there are also some problems in your post. The decision to move to a new edition from an old isn't always about money. Sometimes the new edition doesn't offer the same experience as the old and so gamers choose to stick with the old. I bought the new World of Darkness books and decided that White Wolf went in a direction I didn't like so I play OWoD still. Cost of books had nothing to do with it. Books can be downloaded for free now with the same ease as an MP3 (with the same illegality) but some gamers still stick to the old editions of their games.

Now, the original point of the thread was to poll members about their draw to older editions to games if any. There is no need for members to criticize others about their choice of edition or to pick apart game systems.

Tony Misfeldt
12-07-2007, 02:06 PM
I just don't get this sentiment. Why do you have a "seething hatred" for any RPG? It seems a bit extreme to me.


I was actually quoting Olothfaern's remark of having a "seething hatred" of earlier editions of D&D.




Going down your list of positives and negatives, there are several things you list as negative that I actually think are great additions to the game. Feats, prestige classes, and the elimination of class limits for demi-humans are perfect examples of things I like about 3rd edition.


Again you misread or misunderstood my point. I never said that prestige classes were a negative addition to the game. I said they were a poor substitute for the Specialty Priest class. I actually like the idea of prestige classes, but why did they have to eliminate Specialty Priests? As for demihuman class limitations, when there are infinate advantages to playing demihumans and none for playing humans, who would ever want to play a human? And I still think feats suck.



So, my friend, truly there is no reason for the seething hatred. Just play the game you prefer.

As there is no actual "seething hatred" (I was just poking fun at Olothfaern), I've always played the game I prefer and will continue to do so no matter how many people try to sell me on the "superiority" of the new system.

Tony Misfeldt
12-07-2007, 02:29 PM
Tony there are few things wrong with some of your points. The first being that WotC is behind the change in the halfling race. We've been through this fact in this very thread. I think your anger is misplaced and should be directed at the Tolkien estate. Second, humans do have some benefits over demi-human races, those being no multi-classing restrictions, extra skill points, and a bonus feat at creation. The third is that Dragon magazine put out an issue where the Class Acts article was all about clerics and they reintroduced the Spheres of Influence. The final problem is that the entire point of 3.5 edition was balance among the classes, especially during combat. There is no need to level up different classes at different rates to even the field. At level 5 my rogue is just as effective as any level 3 fighter. Part of that is owed to feats.



With halflings, if the Tolkien estate was getting their panties in a bunch about the use of halflings in D&D then why not change the name to something completely different, which niether looks nor sounds anything like hobbit or halfling, and keep the description the same? You get the same effect but without such a huge change in race descriptions (I believe in the 3rd Ed Players Handbook it says the halflings refer to themselves as hynn or something like that). That's what they did with ents, changing them to treants, so why not halflings?

I've never read the Dragon Magazine article on reintroducing Spheres Of Influence for priest spells, but then I haven't bought a copy of Dragon Magazine since the change over.

The human benefits over demihumans are kind of pathetic in 3rd Ed, especially if you don't use feats (I still say they suck). The ability to multiclass is a nice change, but the bonus skill points are negligable.

Without feats like Cleav, Great Cleav, Uber Cleav, Kill Seven Giants In One Blow Cleav, and whatever other crap they came up with, rogues need a little edge over warriors. Leveling up quicker gives them this. Leveling wizards up slower allows DMs to hold off on throwing the players against more powerful monsters too soon by allowing the warriors, rogues, and priests to get to higher levels before the wizard can start unleashing fireballs and lightning bolts right left and centre.

Of course, this is all just my own opinion.

Olothfaern
12-08-2007, 03:17 AM
For Tony:

My seething hatred isn't for earlier editions of D&D.

Let's quote myself...

"My number one seething hatred for any rule system is arbitrary (with respect to the rule framework) limitations."



For Digital Arcanist:

When I said pay your SOTA costs, I wasn't actually referring to money, I was equating it to Shadowrun's optional rules for cyberware...

Maelstrom
12-08-2007, 05:09 AM
About 3.5 rouges, they do have quite an effective sneak attack, usuable any time they are flanking, as opposed to the one shot 2nd edition backstabs. Add to that skills that give them more mobility than fighters
(jump, balance, tumble) and they are much better at getting positional tactical advantage. Finally, I'd take a high level rouge with a good wand and high Use Magic Item skill over a bulked up fighter.

Tony Misfeldt
01-12-2008, 06:59 PM
For Tony:

My seething hatred isn't for earlier editions of D&D.

Let's quote myself...

"My number one seething hatred for any rule system is arbitrary (with respect to the rule framework) limitations."





Okay, so Farcaster isn't the only one who misreads or misinterprets posts. I'm not perfect, I accept that (although, being Canadian, I'm so damn close it's scary).

Tony Misfeldt
01-12-2008, 07:09 PM
About 3.5 rogues, they do have quite an effective sneak attack, usuable any time they are flanking, as opposed to the one shot 2nd edition backstabs. Add to that skills that give them more mobility than fighters
(jump, balance, tumble) and they are much better at getting positional tactical advantage. Finally, I'd take a high level rogue with a good wand and high Use Magic Item skill over a bulked up fighter.

I always found the 2nd Ed rule for rogue backstabs to be open to interpretation. The necessary eliment in a backstab is surprise. If an enemy is distracted with another PC or NPC during your sneak attack then you get the bonus to hit & damage. If you dive between the giants legs, tumble to your feet, then quickly drive your shortsword into his kidney before he gets a chance to turn around, you don't (that's still a cool move though, and you'd probably get extra XP just for trying it). At least, that's how I always run the Backstab rule when I DM 2nd ED.

Mulsiphix
01-12-2008, 08:27 PM
Okay, so Farcaster isn't the only one who misreads or misinterprets posts. I'm not perfect, I accept that (although, being Canadian, I'm so damn close it's scary).With this attitude I almost believe your avatar is a personal photo. I haven't seen that kind of pompous self indulgence since watching Gladiator :p (just kidding ;))

Digital Arcanist
01-12-2008, 10:27 PM
Alright guys...let's not stir up any hornet nests!!!!:D

Mulsiphix
01-12-2008, 10:36 PM
Honestly just kidding. I recently read an article on Russel Crowe that stated he was often hard to work with due to his ego. I'm a fan of Canadians myself. The Canadian Tax System... not such a big fan of. I'm sure free medical care doesn't pay for itself lol. God knows I wish it did :(

tesral
01-13-2008, 10:37 AM
After reading a controversial review of the AD&D 1e PHB (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12808.phtml), I started wondering about the recent trend of "old-school gaming" (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/).

Does anyone still play versions of D&D before 3.x? Does anyone use OSRIC rules, or Hackmaster, or any other retro rulesets? Can someone explain the appeal to me?


me/ gets my curmudgeon on.

My game is what results with you start with Zero edition back in the dark ages and evolve with the game, never wholesale replacing one rules set with another. It can have some "old-skool" feel to it. We like it.

I am of the opinion that for the most part the game has evolved for the better. I hold no great nostalgia for the old digest sized books and their confused and unorganized "rules". I am only fond of them in the fact they got me started. Once in a while I pull them out to scare young gamers with. "Hehe, this is what you used in the old days kiddies!" I've been told I have a cruel streak.

I cannot say that I like everything that has evolved. I don't like or use feats for example, but I think positive AC and the three save system are groovy (proving my age). Likewise the single d20 mechanic for resolution is a good idea.

Some old-skool ideas are just old and broken. Plotless hack and slash for example. I'll avoid that. Using alignment as a club, player vs DM, all ideas that I don't and have never liked, but are old-skool.


Zero edition was practically unplayable. The idea of the game was in there, and struggling hard to get out.

AD&D started to pull it together, but was overly flavored by Gygax's distastes, preferences, and frankly taking itself too seriously.

Second Edition better organized the materials, made a few minor changes, but in general has the same feel as AD&D 1e.

Third Edition is a clean break from the Gygaxian influence. I consider that good. However it added things I don't consider actually add to the game. It made unnecessary changes for the sake of change, renaming spells and such, spell names and item names were not broken. It streamlined the game play, but did not reduce the crunch in the least. 3e is if anything more math intensive than 2e and previous versions.

Fourth? We shall see.

Mulsiphix
01-13-2008, 05:25 PM
I cannot say that I like everything that has evolved. I don't like or use feats for example, but I think positive AC and the three save system are groovy (proving my age). Likewise the single d20 mechanic for resolution is a good idea.:eek: THAC0 WILL LIVE FOREVER!!! :cool:

tesral
01-13-2008, 11:43 PM
:eek: THAC0 WILL LIVE FOREVER!!! :cool:

Unloved. You are welcome to mine as well. Like I said, new editions do not casue the print to fall off the older books, no matter what R&D down at Lizards has been trying to do.

Mulsiphix
01-13-2008, 11:51 PM
new editions do not casue the print to fall off the older books, no matter what R&D down at Lizards has been trying to do.

R&D came over to my house and personally whited out the two AD&D 2nd Edition books I had on my shelves. They left me with a promo flier for 4E. The print may not be falling off the books but it is gone sir... IT HAS BEEN SNUFFED FROM THE PAGES OF HISTORY!!! (at least in my house)

tesral
01-14-2008, 12:06 AM
R&D came over to my house and personally whited out the two AD&D 2nd Edition books I had on my shelves. They left me with a promo flier for 4E. The print may not be falling off the books but it is gone sir... IT HAS BEEN SNUFFED FROM THE PAGES OF HISTORY!!! (at least in my house)

You need bigger cats or rat traps. Gets those sneaky Lizards every time.

Mulsiphix
01-14-2008, 12:09 AM
I don't think they're coming back but if they do Mr. Paws will be waiting for them. Thankfully Texas has very relaxed laws on importing animals into this state. I hope a Lynx will suffice as I was turned down for the Tiger permit :o

tesral
01-14-2008, 02:54 AM
I don't think they're coming back but if they do Mr. Paws will be waiting for them. Thankfully Texas has very relaxed laws on importing animals into this state. I hope a Lynx will suffice as I was turned down for the Tiger permit :o

All that trouble with Cougars locally?

Mulsiphix
01-14-2008, 03:02 AM
All that trouble with Cougars locally?Nah I really don't have any problems with Cougars. The biggest problem I have right now is all these damn Poachers. Ever since this Lynx arrived my house has been staked out by multiple parties. The area in front of my house looks like I'm holding an African Safari themed party inside. All these jeeps and hummers with turret mounts, men in Savannah themed clothing, tens on my neighbors lawn. These guys can't be to bright. You'd think I might get suspicious of their vehicles parked across the street with massive iron cages bolted to the bed of it. Apparently it hasn't occurred to them yet :rolleyes:

rabkala
01-14-2008, 08:18 AM
All that trouble with Cougars locally?
Actually, it is a nationwide epidemic. Things are freer now than in the past and women are living longer. A young guy like Mulsiphix has to watch out for these loose older women who are on the prowl. :p

Drohem
01-14-2008, 10:43 AM
Cougars....hehehe

I'm running a d20 Modern Urban Arcana campaign based in Hollywood, CA. One of the PCs is a young Australian (18 yrs) wildlife photographer. In his intro session, he went to the IMAX to see a movie on big cats. He met an older woman, Beth Reynolds (early 30's), there and they had drinks after the show. They went to get some food, and were involved in a fight with some kobold gang members. Innocent bystanders were murdered in front of them. Christian (the PC) always carries a boot knife, and fought for their lives. After the fight, they fled to his house.

Let's say that they found comfort in each others arms that night from the horror of being exposed to the Shadow.

Beth is a part-time cryptozoologist and cat lover. Beth and her two sisters run a cat shelter and rescue in Burbank, CA. Beth has been called the Cougar now that her and Christian are involved with each other.

Danny the Douche is a Heroin junkie, and another PC. His dealer is secretly a Catfolk, and he hates all cats. He had Danny kill several cats in his neighborhood in the past. He offered Danny a large bag of H if he killed all the cats in a nearby cat shelter. Danny went to the shelter, but couldn't find it in his heart to murder all the those cats, and so he let them all loose instead. This was his connection the rest of the PC group (the other PCs had already been connected). Danny noticed a picture of Beth and her two sisters in the shelter, and then he met her and other PCs.

Danny the Douche firmly believes now that Beth and her sisters are witches, which as a GM, I have neither confirmed or denied. I hadn't thought of that angle, but it is a cool sub-story arch to explore if needed.

Mulsiphix
01-14-2008, 03:40 PM
You said kobolds so I assume this is a fantasy setting but just about everything else is modern. Is this a D20 modern campaign or? I've never heard anything like this before. And if a cougar comes a knockin, I'll probably take her under my wing and nurse her back to moral health... and of course deny her the chance to control me with her "skills" :D

Drohem
01-14-2008, 06:52 PM
You said kobolds so I assume this is a fantasy setting but just about everything else is modern. Is this a D20 modern campaign or? I've never heard anything like this before. And if a cougar comes a knockin, I'll probably take her under my wing and nurse her back to moral health... and of course deny her the chance to control me with her "skills" :D

It is a d20 Modern game. Urban Arcana is the official WotC d20 Modern campaign setting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Arcana

It is actually a modern setting with fantasy elements: it is campaign setting in our modern world were you can incorporate creatures from Dungeons & Dragons. The vehicle is called the Shadow or the Veil of the Shadow and creatures and humanoids that have crossed over into our world are called Shadowspawn or Shadow Creatures. In the campaign setting, the trip is one-way and once creatures cross-over they start to forget about their previous lives on another plane of existence, and are now faced with trying to integrate themselves into our world. Most peoples' minds cannot handle the idea of shadow creatures and usually talk themselves out of believing what they saw. As an example, the other patrons in the restaurant who saw the kobolds, have convinced themselves that they saw short, teenage gang members, and not actually kobolds. Some people who are exposed to Shadow Creatures can handle it and are in the know and can spot them going forward.

It is a really cool campaign setting because you can incorporate fantasy elements. :cool:

Mulsiphix
01-14-2008, 07:00 PM
Sounds pretty cool. I had no idea D20 modern was modern times with fantasy elements. I figured it was just modern times with no fantasy elements, D20 Future was sci-fi, and D20 past was long ago (time period unknown).

Drohem
01-14-2008, 08:00 PM
Sounds pretty cool. I had no idea D20 modern was modern times with fantasy elements. I figured it was just modern times with no fantasy elements, D20 Future was sci-fi, and D20 past was long ago (time period unknown).

Well, you are right. The d20 Modern Core Book is just modern cinematic rules. However, in the d20 Modern Core Book under the campaign section it provides several different options with some Advanced and Prestige classes tailored for those campaigns. The give a brief, several page synopsis of each of the example campaign. For example, they provide the Shadow Chasers and Psionic campaigns. The Shadow Chasers is were the heroes hunt and chase down evil creatures like vampires, werewolves, etc. The Psionic campaign provides rules for psionics in the d20 Modern system.

The Urban Arcana Campaign book is a d20 Modern campaign that is greatly expanded. It provides rules for creating character that have come through the Shadow Veil, rules for fantasy races as player characters, more Advanced and Prestige classes, more spells, etc. It provides details on Dept. 7, which is a private organization that helps good Shadow Creatures and fights the evil Shadow Creatures that have crossed over. It provides a bunch of organizations that can be used by the GM as tools for the campaign.

Mulsiphix
01-14-2008, 08:08 PM
That sounds amazing. I really haven't seen anybody talk about an actual D20 campaign setting before. I hope Wizards creates a youtube-esk website when they try to bring 4E into the mainstream. It would be very nice to see actual groups gaming and not just reading about it :p

Drohem
01-14-2008, 09:37 PM
That sounds amazing. I really haven't seen anybody talk about an actual D20 campaign setting before. I hope Wizards creates a youtube-esk website when they try to bring 4E into the mainstream. It would be very nice to see actual groups gaming and not just reading about it :p

Well, you can check out the Urban Arcana material in the free d20 Modern SRD:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/msrd

Dravion
01-20-2008, 06:37 AM
After reading a controversial review of the AD&D 1e PHB (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12808.phtml), I started wondering about the recent trend of "old-school gaming" (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/).

Does anyone still play versions of D&D before 3.x? Does anyone use OSRIC rules, or Hackmaster, or any other retro rulesets? Can someone explain the appeal to me?

(Caveat: I never really cottoned to D&D. I preferred Melee/Wizard/The Fantasy Trip when I started out, and reached an epiphany when I encountered RuneQuest. After being a GURPS fan for ages, I've glommed onto lighter rules like FATE and PDQ. So, I might be a hard sell ...)

Thanks in advance.


I started playing RPG's back when I was like between 6 or 8. Those years are lost to me for a few different reason. Mostly trying to forget they ever existed. My brother played the orig. D&D box set, for which I still have the rule books for. Then he went to the orig AD&D. When he went to AD&D he took me along with the ride, cause I needed the help with math and other personal problems. And I progressed to 2nd Edition when that came out. I slowly started branching out to other games while still playing, if not DMing my D&D games. I lost contact to a group I played with in about 1999. And swore that 3rd and 3.5 were making the game I grew up with too childish. It wasn't until about a month ago that I even read the rule book for 3rd and 3.5. And I have to agree that the leveling of characters is a little better, and they at least give the full stats and saves up to level 20...at least. I grow tired of doing advanced math to figure out the experience and all that in 1st and 2nd. The only thing that I miss that 3rd and 3.5 don't have....and I doubt 4th will have is the plethra of KITS for the character, that 2nd edition was so eager to let the players use. And by no means am I going to not allow players from having interesting character. So I am currently working on how to adapt the old KITS to the newer rule set. But I'm always down if someone is playing 1st or 2nd to try to get in on the game. And fair warning, I am far from an old guy. I'm only 27 years old...but I remember when you needed to know Trig to play the game.

tesral
01-20-2008, 11:43 AM
Trig? Please. The four basic fuctions yes, but trig?

I was never a big fan of the kits. Too unbalanced or unplayable. I still know people that break out in a cold sweat if you mention an "Elven Bladesinger".

3e put a good deal of what was kits and later player's option into the feats. I still have issues with the feats. Again I don't believe they are themselves balanced or that they are issued in a balanced fashion.

But I digress. Some people who claim the rules set makes a difference in the feel of the game get hung up on a given set of rules, or avoid a given set of rules. Meh. I'm here to play the game.

Drohem
01-20-2008, 12:15 PM
You just needed good math skills and how to decipher Gygax's stylized writting. ;) Well, at least with 1st AD&D. With 2nd AD&D, you just needed to shell out a wheel barrel full of cash for all the handbooks!

tesral
01-20-2008, 12:19 PM
You just needed good math skills and how to decipher Gygax's stylized writting. ;) Well, at least with 1st AD&D. With 2nd AD&D, you just needed to shell out a wheel barrel full of cash for all the handbooks!

Well, no you don't. I don't have a fracion of them. Most are simply not useful to me.

Drohem
01-20-2008, 12:21 PM
Well, no you don't. I don't have a fracion of them. Most are simply not useful to me.

Yeah, I'm right there with you...I guess I didn't express it well enough

tesral
01-20-2008, 12:28 PM
Yeah, I'm right there with you...I guess I didn't express it well enough

This is not to say that late TSR and now Lizards of the Coast wouldn't want you to shell out for every book there was, for each and every edition.

I'm done with the system breaking changes in each edition. Evolution I can live with. Revolution on the other hand, making everything that came before useless. No, it's just money grubbing to make you rebuy everything yet again.

Mulsiphix
01-20-2008, 12:52 PM
When did you need to know trigonometry to play D&D? I know THAC0 was a pain but I didn't think it was that complex.


Lizards of the CoastI see you reference the company regularly using Lizards as the first word. Are you implying they are cold blooded or do you hate reptiles? I think Lizards are pretty awesome :cool:

tesral
01-20-2008, 01:10 PM
I see you reference the company regularly using Lizards as the first word. Are you implying they are cold blooded or do you hate reptiles? I think Lizards are pretty awesome :cool:

Finally, a bite. Actually I like reptiles. I have a snake.

Two things really. First was the cartoon in the old 1e DMG where the invisible stalker is holding a highly confused lizard in front of the annoyed Mage. "I said wizard not lizard you stupid stalker!!" reads the caption.

Second was Zar. Another late night session and Mike his player is as punch drunk as the rest of us. Having just gotten a use it or lose it wish he, wanting to cast 7 level spells which he could not, blurts out; "I wish I could cast seventh level lizards." Well you say it that's your wish. Zar from then on could "cast" his level in 7 hit die monitor lizards a day. He was followed around by the lizards not expended in combat. Are you going to mess with a guy that can dump a Komono Dragon on you? Mike actually thought that casting lizards was much cooler than casting spells.

And yea, they are a cold blooded bunch of corporate shills. Nuf said.

Mulsiphix
01-20-2008, 01:16 PM
And yea, they are a cold blooded bunch of corporate shills. Nuf said.Glad to see your on board the WOTC hate train. Actually I don't mind WOTC so much except for their MAGIC THE GATHERING division. Damn every last one of the decision makers in that division. DAMN THEM TO HELL!! :eek:

Drohem
01-20-2008, 02:17 PM
Finally, a bite.

hahaha...Mulsiphix, you sucker!! :D

Mulsiphix
01-20-2008, 06:49 PM
hahaha...Mulsiphix, you sucker!! :DI was sooooo hungry though :p

tesral
01-20-2008, 08:04 PM
Glad to see your on board the WOTC hate train.

Hate is way to strong a term. Rather I withhold my money from them. I will not buy new Lizards product. Nothing for their bottom line, nothing. They ignored me as a customer, I ignore them as a company.

BTW Amazon Marketplace is a good clearing house for used books in excellent condition. Pay less, usually much less, and add nothing to the Lizards' bottom line.

Drohem
01-20-2008, 08:06 PM
BTW Amazon Marketplace is a good clearing house for used books in excellent condition. Pay less, usually much less, and add nothing to the Lizards' bottom line.

And shipping costs are much better than eBay too! ;)

Tony Misfeldt
01-23-2008, 07:27 PM
This is not to say that late TSR and now Lizards of the Coast wouldn't want you to shell out for every book there was, for each and every edition.

I'm done with the system breaking changes in each edition. Evolution I can live with. Revolution on the other hand, making everything that came before useless. No, it's just money grubbing to make you rebuy everything yet again.


My sentiments exactly!


Glad to see your on board the WOTC hate train. Actually I don't mind WOTC so much except for their MAGIC THE GATHERING division. Damn every last one of the decision makers in that division. DAMN THEM TO HELL!! :eek:

Good God! Despite the fact that so many of us are of differing opinions of the merits/problems with the 3.X D&D system, it's great to know so many of us are on board with this! Lizards Of The Coast are The Devil! THE DEVIL I SAY!!

Mulsiphix
01-23-2008, 10:29 PM
Goog God! Despite the fact that so many of us are of differing opinions of the merits/problems with the 3.X D&D system, it's great to know so many of us are on board with this! Lizards Of The Coast are The Devil! THE DEVIL I SAY!!Preach it good sir! Can I get an Amen?! Hallelujah :eek:

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-23-2008, 10:43 PM
I don't mind WotC so much.

They have never offended me in anyway and I do not regret any purchases I have made from them.

I have zero expectations from them and thus they never fail.

But I feel this way about most corporate entities. I worked in the corporate retail world for far too long to have any preconceived notions about how a corporation values their customers, in general they don't. Including their employees.


*Edit* I kinda regret getting the Complete Arcane but I chalk that up to not doing my research first. I still like the book though.

Mulsiphix
01-23-2008, 10:56 PM
It is hard for me to appreciate corporations. Usually the things that turn a business into a corporation (attention to detail, striving for customer satisfaction, highly quality products and customer service, etc...) go out the window once they make it big. AOL, Microsoft, WOTC, WizKids, Sony, etc... are all guilty of this in my eyes. Even the corporations like Sony that have been around for a long time made it big with their PS1. The PS2 was designed with low quality components that failed horribly on millions of units, millions of units came with a power shortage that was responsible for 80+ in home fires (class action lawsuit was filed and won), and the PS3 is more about "trust us it is good" than "what would you like in your next console?". The same can be said with Microsofts Xbox to Xbox 360. Just sucks...

tesral
01-23-2008, 11:26 PM
My love for Microsoft is clearly shown in the fact I run a Linux system. :)

The breaking point was the lines behind the text in the core books. I was told, by a Lizards rep that the lines were the largest complaint they had, but the lines made it into 3.5. They did not listen to the customer base.

I;m done. I write a better book than they do.

But that thing about bitting the hand the feeds them and expecting the hand to keep feeding is getting far too common. I can live without Microsoft or Sony or Apple or even Lizards. They however cannot live without us. Something they fail to understand.

Mulsiphix
01-24-2008, 03:06 AM
But that thing about bitting the hand the feeds them and expecting the hand to keep feeding is getting far too common. I can live without Microsoft or Sony or Apple or even Lizards. They however cannot live without us. Something they fail to understand.Unfortunately WOTC is doing quite well on just about every game they have going. If a game isn't doing well, like the recent TCG Hecatomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecatomb_%28card_game%29), they scrap it. Much like Microsoft they are the big dog and it will probably be that way for a very long time. Sooner or later they will be eclipsed but that time is probably very far off indeed. Lets face it. The average consumer is as fascinated by the brand name as they are about the product. As long as our society continues to cling to the superficial and popular trends, companies like Nike, WOTC, Microsoft, Sony, Hilfiger, etc... will continue to be successful for as long as they remain in the public eye. Advertising is almost more important these days than having a quality product :eek:

Maelstrom
01-24-2008, 08:01 AM
The problem is not when you have big companies... the problem is when they don't have sufficient competition. When forced to work hard for thier share in a market they have to produce well or perish. As soon as the competition lets off then companies focus their money on efforts on other markets and delve into unpopular items.

Take the console wars since it was already brought up: Despite Microsoft and Nintendo's efforts in the last generation consoles, the PS2 made more sales than both of them combined. In order to face that competition, Microsoft & Nintendo Had to step up in the next generation or perish, while Sony stagnated in its PS3 offering, planning that their name would give them the advantage. Now the Wii is supreme, with the 360 second, and PS3 is barely reaching into the market at all.

As far as the RPG industry, what is good about Wizards is that they Are increasing the market share, by bringing those that have never done pen&paper gaming in with their latest offerings, or brining back those that have put it aside. The more they do this, the more people we will have as a pool of available players and community, and that is a good thing.

Mulsiphix
01-24-2008, 08:35 AM
As far as the RPG industry, what is good about Wizards is that they Are increasing the market share, by bringing those that have never done pen&paper gaming in with their latest offerings, or brining back those that have put it aside. The more they do this, the more people we will have as a pool of available players and community, and that is a good thing.Indeed. The bigger the market gets the better the chance of sufficient competition coming to fruition will be. Don't forget that Nintendo also dominates the hand held system market as well. Currently they are a super power that is giving both Microsoft and Sony a run their money.

Maelstrom
01-24-2008, 08:48 AM
Haven't thought of it that way... so by bringing new people to the pen&paper market WOTC is increasing the appeal of that market as a target for another big player. I'm not sure what large companies out there might want to diversify into paper RPGs, but if the market is big enough it could be tempting. Maybe some of the big book publishers, if they see the market growing, might find a already good game and back it with some muscle.

I don't have a strong dislike for WOTC, but if there is strong competition between two or more powerhouses, thats good for all of us.

Mulsiphix
01-24-2008, 09:13 AM
but if there is strong competition between two or more powerhouses, thats good for all of us.Exactly my line of thinking. Just look at the video game market. I think the PS1 showed that there was serious potential in this market. Big enough that Microsoft developed the Xbox. Nintendo had already proven the hand held console market was huge with the Gameboy and Gameboy Advance. Sony eventually got involved, much to their detriment, hoping to snag a piece of that pie. Competition can be a very healthy thing indeed :p

Maelstrom
01-24-2008, 10:01 AM
So now all we need is someone with enough clout to convince Mattel to drive fullbore into pen & paper gaming? A quick search put it above Hasbro in earnings (Mattel is actually in the Fortune 500, while Hasbro didn't cut it).

Hasbro has already supported D&D some, so it would make sense for Mattel to join in the fray.

Drohem
01-24-2008, 10:41 AM
WotC is owned by Hasbro. 3.0 D&D and the OGL concept was the biggest revitalization of the RPG industry ever. I think that Hasbro has supported D&D more than a little. The problem is that Hasbro has only supported D&D because it is such a brand name. WotC holds the rights to many older games from TSR but will never do anything with them because it's risk and not profit worthy according to the parent company Hasbro. WotC stopped supporting d20 Modern once it started work on 4e D&D.

Maelstrom
01-24-2008, 10:47 AM
:) Oops, missed that

fmitchell
01-24-2008, 11:44 AM
We've wandered far away from the original topic, of who plays TSR versions of D&D or their retro-clones.

Should we just go ahead and make a "WotC Hate Train Thread"? It beats having every other D&D thread morph into "4e is teh suxx0rs and WotC are reptoidz".

Sorry to interrupt the hatefest.

Mulsiphix
01-24-2008, 12:10 PM
Sorry for going so off topic. I just wanted to clarify that my problem doesn't really lie with WOTC, even most corporations have masters they answer to, but in markets where monopolies exist. Take Dragon Naturally Speaking for instance. Before Vista there was no real competition for it on the Windows platform. The company charges $20 for phone support with a single problem and $10 for email support for a single problem. Monopolies are bad news. Now that Microsoft has their own form of voice support integrated into Vista, the company that owns Dragon Naturally Speaking will either go the way of the Do-Do or have to change their money grubbing ways.

My life wouldn't be complete without Magic The Gathering or many of WOTC other products. I am thankful to them for their games and especially for the D20/OGL opportunity they gave to so many fledgling gaming companies. I just wish they had some competition. If there were multiple companies to complain about, as a consumer I would feel it was my duty to voice my opinions ;)

Tony Misfeldt
01-24-2008, 08:45 PM
If any of you Americans, or people from other parts of Canada, are ever in Vancouver and want to buy some previously enjoyed D&D books that are very inexpensive so as not to add to WotC's bottom line, here are some good local stores to look up.

Drexol Games on West 4th Ave in Vancouver proper (in a neighborhood called Kitsilano). I bought a copy of the 2nd Edition Complete Book Of Humanoids and a copy of the 3rd Edition Hero Builder's Guide Book (hey, there's plenty of useful information in there for whatever edition you're playing) for $5 each.

Chaos Games in New Westminster on the corner of 8th Ave and Columbia Street. Most of the used gaming books there are only $10 each and the taxes are included in the price (so what you see is what you pay).

The Granville Comic & Book Emporium on the corner of Granville and Drake street. Thier previously enjoyed D&D books run from about $9.50 to about $14.95, depending on the size and condition of the book. Still, that's not too bad.

There might be others around, but those are the ones I shop at.

Farcaster
01-24-2008, 08:47 PM
Any WotC or 4e flame posts should go here: http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5059

Inquisitor Tremayne
01-25-2008, 01:03 PM
Any WotC or 4e flame posts should go here: http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5059

What about those of us who want to rave about how great WotC is and how much we love them?

Can we get our own thread?

I'm just kidding of course.

Was that not funny?

I'm a jerk.

Sorry.

Mulsiphix
01-25-2008, 04:01 PM
*cough* hilarious *cough* ;)

tesral
01-25-2008, 09:26 PM
Any WotC or 4e flame posts should go here: http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5059


For what ever the reason I don't wish to add to anyone's bottom line more than I must. Bargins for books is a good thing.

Did I mention that I buy all my SJ Games books used too? I even like Steve.

Tony Misfeldt
04-23-2008, 05:11 PM
I bumped into one of my old gaming buddies the other week and I asked him if he would like to join the new D&D group that I've finally managed to pull together. He asked me if it was going to be a 3.5 Ed game and I told him "No it's going to be 2.5 Ed actually". Then he says "No thanks. If it's not 3.5 I'm not going to bother playing. Actually, after 4th Ed comes out I'll be getting rid of all my 3.5 stuff".

This is the kind of attitude I don't get. To me, playing D&D is like driving a sports car. It doesn't really matter what year or model it is, it's just as much fun to drive. Imagine this conversation...

"Hey, wanna go for a ride in my Ford Mustang Convertable?"

"What model is it?"

"1995."

"No thanks. If it's not a 2008 model Mustang, I'm just not going to ride in it."

Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? That's exactly how people who absolutely refuse to play earlier editions of D&D sound to me. I say it doesn't matter what year it came out. It still gets you from point "A" to point "B" and you get to enjoy one hell of a ride.

Farcaster
04-23-2008, 05:42 PM
Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? That's exactly how people who absolutely refuse to play earlier editions of D&D sound to me. I say it doesn't matter what year it came out. It still gets you from point "A" to point "B" and you get to enjoy one hell of a ride.

I have to totally disagree with you. There are significant differences between 2nd edition and 3.5. You yourself have said so. Considering your vehemence against playing 3.5, why would it surprise you that someone that likes that edition wouldn't want to play 2nd? If I invited you to a 3rd edition game, you would have given the same response, based on your previous statements...

Here's some direct Tony quotes about 3rd edition:


"Stupid fat Wizardses! They ruins it! RUINS IT!"

There was so much wrong with it I hardly know where to begin, so I guess I'll go alphebetically.


I'm just not as emamored with the 3.5 gaming system as everyone else.


Q: What if I want us to switch to 3.5 rules when it's my turn as DM?

A: Then you lose your DMing privledges. I don't want to come off as a jerk, because I'm not, but I've already stated that flip flopping back and forth between systems is a headache I'd rather not have. And at the risk of sounding childish MY HOUSE, MY RULES.

JSorenson1979
04-23-2008, 10:47 PM
Like you I was not thrilled with D&D 3.0. When I first heard about 3.0 and all the "improvements" that were made I was actually pretty excited. I wasn't pleased at the thought of having to start my entire D&D gaming library over from scratch, but I was happy that the more confusing rules like saving throws and THAC0 were going to be no more. Then I bought a 3.0 Players Handbook and read it and I said (In my best Gollum voice)

"Stupid fat Wizardses! They ruins it! RUINS IT!"

There was so much wrong with it I hardly know where to begin, so I guess I'll go alphebetically.

BARBARIANS: Barbarians were my favorite class to play in 1st and 2nd Edition. I was upset that the barbarian class wasn't carried over from 1st to 2nd Edition, and relieved when it was reserected in 2nd Edition with The Complete Barbarians Handbook (far superior to the barbarian kit in The Complete Fighters Handbook). But when I saw what was done to the class in 3.X, I was disgusted! Barbarian Rage? The ability to rage is a blessing given to elite members of barbarian society by the barbarians gods/ancestral spirits/beast totem spirits/whatever, called BERSERKERS. Berserkers are in barbarian society what paladins are in a civilized fighters society. Always was, always should be. Now all anyone needs to go berserk is a horned helm and a set of wolfskin underwear? BULLS#!T! I've rewritten the 3.X barbarian class to more resemble the barbarian described in The Complete Barbarians Handbook, using a pen and correction tape to make the 3.X barbarian once again the blessed Berserker.

BASTARD SWORDS & BROADSWORDS: First of all, the 3.X description of a bastard sword is all screwed up. It's described as a sword that's too big to be weilded one handed except for those with special training. And even if you have special training, it does the same amount of damage either way. The truth is, bastard swords are in fact longswords with extra long handles to allow them to be wielded two handed for a little extra "oomph". You don't need special training to wield it one handed, and logically it should do more damage when wielded two handed than one handed. 2nd Ed. had it right, 3.X is WAY off. And broadswords were eliminated entirely! As I mentioned earlier, I love playing barbarians. And the fantasy barbarian is heavily based on the viking, who used the Norse broadsword as his prefered weapon! They made the barbarian a standard playing class, but took away his prefered weapon! Quite an oversite if you ask me.

CLERIC SPELLS: While I was happy that cleric spells ranged all the way to 9th level in 3.X, I was furious to find out that they've been categorized by Schools Of Magic instead of Spheres Of Influence. They're clerics, not mages! They leard their spells from the gods, not from some dusty old tome! The spells come from different sources, therfore they're categorized differently. And by eliminating Spheres Of Influence, they've also eliminated an entire character class from being available to be played, the Specialty Priest. I preferred playing specialty priests to playing ordinary clerics in 2nd Ed, now it's not an option. I've rewritten the 3.X Cleric Spell List, categorizing them by Sphere instead of School (reserecting several 2nd Ed spells that didn't get converted to 3rd Ed) and eliminated Cleric Domains completely. Now Specialty Priests are once again an option and clerics are apropriately humbled.

DEMIHUMAN PALADINS: E. Gary Gygax wasn't trying to be cute or funny when he created the rule that only humans could become paladins. This was done for a reason, it's called GAME BALANCE. The paladin is a very powerful character class. With their healing abilities, save bonuses, turning abilities, fighting skills, lack of armor and weapon restrictions, disease immunity, etc, if you were to combine that with the to hit bonuses that elves and halflings get with certain weapons, the attack and defence bonuses dwarves and gnomes get against certain enemies, elven and halfling stealth abilities, lowlight/dark/infravision, etc, then you're getting an overly powerful character. Not to mention what would happen if that elven paladin were to find a longsword which was a Holy Avenger! Besides, in the Realm of Dungeons & Dragons E. Gary Gygax is GOD! Changing the rules HE made is nothing short of SACRILIDGE!

EVIL RANGERS & DRUIDS: The very deffinition of rangers and druids is "defenders of the forrest and woodland creatures". So how the hell can druids and rangers be evil? It makes no sence! I can understand expanding a druids available alignment choices to include all nonevil, partially neutral alignments. But a Neutral Evil Druid? That makes no sence. And expanding a rangers alignment choices to include all non evil neutral alignment, not just good alignments, that makes sence too. But allowing rangers to be ANY alignment? That's rediculous! Why the hell would a Chaotic Evil Ranger protect a forrest and all the woodland creatures that dwell within? He wouldn't! It's a stupid rule that should never have been allowed.

EXTRAORDINARY STATS: I liked the fact that fighters in 2nd Ed were able to get extraordinary strength. It made perfect sence to me, both logistically and by way of story telling. Logistically, some people are just more physically gifted than others and it makes sence that these exceptional people should have stats that reflect Their extraordinary abilities. Also, would reading about Wulfgar's early years in The Crystal Shard been nearly as interesting if he had to adventure alongside Drizzt for twenty years to get ogre or hill giant strength? not likely. I'm toying with the idea of reintroducing extraordinary stats into 3.X by introducing the Paladium rule that any stat of 16 or more scored by rolling 3d6 gets a bonus 1d6 added on. This wouldn't just be for STR, but also DEX, CON, INT, WIS, and CHA. It's been brought to my attension that this may upset game balance, so some limitations would have to be employed. I'm also thinking of eliminating FEATS (I think feats make characters too powerful too quick anyway).

HALFLINGS: Halflings who prefer the cold, dangers, and discomfort of the open road to the warmth, comfort and safety of their cozy little hobbit holes? Are you freakin' kidding me? AND THEY'RE WEARING SHOES FOR GODS SAKE! (Honestly, hasn't anyone at Wizards Of The Coast ever actually READ The Lord Of The Rings?) I think the execs at WotC read too many Dragon Lance novels and got confused between Kender and Halflings. FYI, they're not of the same race. And if The Powers That Be at WotC wanted the kender to be the new halfling, maybe they should have made Krynn the world that 3.X was based in.

That's all I can think of at the moment. There's probably more, but I can't remember it all just now. As for your other complaint of things getting too easy for characters once they've reached 13th level or better, I think it's more a matter of your DMing style than any problems with the game system. You're too bogged down with what's written in the Monsters Manuals. You have to learn to improvise. Who says that the only kobolds the PCs meat have to have 1d4 hit points? put them up against some 7th level kobold fighters with weapon mastery in the short sword! Make that verbeeg a 9th level mage and his ogre minions 5th level fighters! And at that level the adventures should be more cerebral! Make them go through a dungeon crawl where the dungeon itself is what has to be defeated. Like in the movie The Cube, the PCs have to try and find which rooms aren't booby trapped and get out alive. If done right, an adventure could be just as challenging for a 15th level fighter with 18/100 STR as it is for a 1st level fighter with 13 STR. It's all in the execution.
I will agree with you on the Saving Throws though. But that's what house rules are for. Why not have a -1 save penalty for every 3rd level above the level the spell caster needs to be in order to cast the spell when DMing a 2nd Ed game? That's what I'll be doing in my D&D Version 2.5 game.

You're actually joking, right? Right?

JSorenson1979
04-23-2008, 11:39 PM
I have to totally disagree with you. There are significant differences between 2nd edition and 3.5. You yourself have said so. Considering your vehemence against playing 3.5, why would it surprise you that someone that likes that edition wouldn't want to play 2nd? If I invited you to a 3rd edition game, you would have given the same response, based on your previous statements...


Agreed. I absolutely loathe and detest D&D 3.5; In fact I had given up on the game entirely, having switched over to WHFRP and Runequest a couple years ago. The only thing that actually brought me back is news of 4th edition. And having played the game at a CON recently, I'm pleased to say that the feel of the game is reminiscent of the good old AD&D days.

Of course many old school gamers will rail at the inclusion of things like Warlocks, Tieflings, Warlords and Dragonborn that fly in the face of tradition. But honestly, F$%k the traditions.

agoraderek
04-24-2008, 12:38 AM
i've played all editions (started playing in '79 when i was 9), and all i have to say is this:

D&D is D&D is D&D.

the point is to get together with friends, kick back some mountain dew or beer (depending) eat some pizza, and kick the crap out of the bad guys.

edition this and rule #8 that be damned.

Tony Misfeldt
04-24-2008, 02:11 PM
I have to totally disagree with you. There are significant differences between 2nd edition and 3.5. You yourself have said so. Considering your vehemence against playing 3.5, why would it surprise you that someone that likes that edition wouldn't want to play 2nd? If I invited you to a 3rd edition game, you would have given the same response, based on your previous statements...


Yes, it's true that I don't like the 3.X system. However I would like to point out that there are several posts that I've made on this thread and others of the changes that I did in fact agree with. I've also gone on record as saying that if I were invited to join someone else's 3.X campaign I would, I just have no intensions of ever running one myself. And for the upteenth time, I don't play 2nd edition per se, but rather a sort of hybrid between 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions which I call D&D 2.5 (most of the core rules are from 2nd ed though). I don't simply go running out to get the latest version of something just because it's the shiny new one. Shiny and new doesn't always equal better. Those tiny little Smart Cars that you see everywhere might be great for the environment, but if you're driving one and some idiot runs a red light and plows into you with his 4X4 truck you'd be a dead man. Sorry but I want a few feet of steel between me and that oncoming vehicle. Those things are death traps, shiny and new but death traps none the less.

"Hey, I've got a copy of both D&D movies at home. Want to come over and watch them with me?"

"Are they on Blue Ray High Def DVD?"

"No, my only copies are on VHS. My TV's not even high def."

"In that case no. I only watch movies on high def blue ray."

Another analogy, a little more relevent to the topic at hand, with just as silly an answer.

Farcaster
04-24-2008, 02:26 PM
Nay, it is not more relevant. You are trying to make your point with ludicrous analogies. It makes no sense.

And frankly, I think it is disingenuous to assume and insinuate that most people like and play 3rd edition over 2nd edition simply because it is "newer." The fact is that there are major differences between the two that in many people's opinions, including my own, make 3rd edition a more enjoyable and playable system. As I played 2nd edition from the time it came out in 1989 until around 2002 and 3rd edition for the last 6 years, I think I have a pretty grounded foundation from which to form an opinion on. It certainly doesn't boil down to -- ooh, it's shiny and new, that's why I play it and not 2nd edition. For you to try characterize it as such is insulting.

Tony Misfeldt
04-24-2008, 02:27 PM
You're actually joking, right? Right?

No I wasn't kidding. I repeat I WASN'T KIDDING! I still maintain that barbarians should not be able to rage; that bastard swords should do damage as longswords when weilded one handed and do more damage when weilded with two hands; that broadswords should have survived the transformation to 3rd edition; that cleric spells should be governed by Spheres Of Influence and not Schools Of Magic; that the paladin class should be exclusive to humans; that rangers and druids should not be allowed to be evil; that exraordinary stats should have remained as some kind of option (not just for fighters, but all classes); and that halflings are hobbits, and if the Tolkien Estate didn't like them being so close to hobbits then they should have renamed the race something else but kept the description the same instead of keeping the name and changing the description to match those pesky kender of Krynn. Non of those changes were needed, neither were the addition of feats. But I'll still play it if asked to join a campaign.

Farcaster
04-24-2008, 02:30 PM
Non of those changes were needed, neither were the addition of feats. But I'll still play it if asked to join a campaign.

Really? Then perhaps your opinion has changed since this previous post....


Q: What if I want us to switch to 3.5 rules when it's my turn as DM?

A: Then you lose your DMing privledges. I don't want to come off as a jerk, because I'm not, but I've already stated that flip flopping back and forth between systems is a headache I'd rather not have. And at the risk of sounding childish MY HOUSE, MY RULES.

Severion
04-24-2008, 09:55 PM
No I wasn't kidding. I repeat I WASN'T KIDDING! I still maintain that barbarians should not be able to rage; that bastard swords should do damage as longswords when weilded one handed and do more damage when weilded with two hands; that broadswords should have survived the transformation to 3rd edition; that cleric spells should be governed by Spheres Of Influence and not Schools Of Magic; that the paladin class should be exclusive to humans; that rangers and druids should not be allowed to be evil; that exraordinary stats should have remained as some kind of option (not just for fighters, but all classes); and that halflings are hobbits, and if the Tolkien Estate didn't like them being so close to hobbits then they should have renamed the race something else but kept the description the same instead of keeping the name and changing the description to match those pesky kender of Krynn. Non of those changes were needed, neither were the addition of feats. But I'll still play it if asked to join a campaign.

Those are, for the most part, fairly minor quibles in my opinion. If you don't like certain class/race/alignment combo's don't use them. Cleric spells aren't divided into schools of magic, they just happen to say what school they are from (i believe they did this in 2e as well), i like the "Domain Spells" idea myself.
If you something to complain about, i personally miss Thac0, i don't like power creep, i liked uneaven level progression and some more of the randomness of the early editions. But i'm currently running my third 3e game since it came out and i'm planning my second D20 game. I like the versitility of the current game. I like the fact that the rules allow me to do all the things i used to have to house rule in 1e/2e.

Pease out, Severion

JSorenson1979
04-25-2008, 02:47 AM
No I wasn't kidding. I repeat I WASN'T KIDDING! I still maintain that barbarians should not be able to rage; that bastard swords should do damage as longswords when weilded one handed and do more damage when weilded with two hands; that broadswords should have survived the transformation to 3rd edition; that cleric spells should be governed by Spheres Of Influence and not Schools Of Magic; that the paladin class should be exclusive to humans; that rangers and druids should not be allowed to be evil; that exraordinary stats should have remained as some kind of option (not just for fighters, but all classes); and that halflings are hobbits, and if the Tolkien Estate didn't like them being so close to hobbits then they should have renamed the race something else but kept the description the same instead of keeping the name and changing the description to match those pesky kender of Krynn. Non of those changes were needed, neither were the addition of feats. But I'll still play it if asked to join a campaign.

Wow...that's awesome for you.

I however am going to have loads of fun in the newest shiniest edition I can find playing my evil Warforged Paladin with super anime powers while listening to my confounded rock n' roll music and trampling your lawn.

tesral
04-25-2008, 10:56 AM
I have played D&D in some form since the first rule set. I don't play any given edition, but a hybrid of all of them really. I took from 3.x what I liked.

Setting, my races are mine. I don't have to go by the book. Wrote my own book.

Ergo I don't care what Lizards does. My game, my stuff. I don't have the rule police sniffing about my game and if I did I would 86 them so fast they would bounce twice.

Tony Misfeldt
04-25-2008, 01:31 PM
Wow...that's awesome for you.

I however am going to have loads of fun in the newest shiniest edition I can find playing my evil Warforged Paladin with super anime powers while listening to my confounded rock n' roll music and trampling your lawn.

Good luck. I live in an apartment building. I DON'T HAVE A LAWN!!!!

Tony Misfeldt
04-25-2008, 01:35 PM
Really? Then perhaps your opinion has changed since this previous post....

Not really. That campaign is set with 2.5 edition rules and a rotating DM system. People are told upfront that I don't want to go flip flopping between editions during the campaign. These are people I'VE invited into MY campaign. If someone else were to call me up and ask me to join THEIR campaign, then I would bow down to whatever rules THEY laid out.

tesral
04-25-2008, 07:08 PM
If someone else were to call me up and ask me to join THEIR campaign, then I would bow down to whatever rules THEY laid out.

Only fair.

Digital Arcanist
04-26-2008, 10:14 AM
Not really. That campaign is set with 2.5 edition rules and a rotating DM system. People are told upfront that I don't want to go flip flopping between editions during the campaign. These are people I'VE invited into MY campaign. If someone else were to call me up and ask me to join THEIR campaign, then I would bow down to whatever rules THEY laid out.

So you invite some people over with the idea of having a rotating DM, who is creating their own content for the campaign, and you feel that the campaign is "yours" and not "ours"?

I come to my sessions, as a DM, with the mindset that a campaign is shared by all. The players are more important than the campaign....otherwise just go out and write a book.

boulet
04-26-2008, 10:34 AM
I can understand both Digital Arcanist and Tony standpoint. Yes a campaign is a common good of a group of players and without any input of more than one player it pretty much becomes a novel. But I assume Tony has set a perimeter about the way he wants to share the role of GM. Say he prefers the campaign to have a setting where magic is rare or some races are absent. As long as he explained exactly the boundaries of possibilities and the players subscribe to this vision of the campaign, power to them. Sharing the role of GM doesn't mean anarchy and free for all...

Now Tony's wording sometimes sounds a bit strict and harsh at times. I hope it's not a reflection of a military atmosphere at his table. That I would run away from quickly.

Kilrex
04-26-2008, 10:56 AM
Now Tony's wording sometimes sounds a bit strict and harsh at times. I hope it's not a reflection of a military atmosphere at his table. That I would run away from quickly.

Die Druid ist verboten!

tesral
04-26-2008, 05:27 PM
So you invite some people over with the idea of having a rotating DM, who is creating their own content for the campaign, and you feel that the campaign is "yours" and not "ours"?


Yes, you do. Even in a multiple DM system you need one person that holds the final say on world building matters. I've done that in the past and you do need a Over DM.

Tony Misfeldt
04-26-2008, 09:35 PM
I can understand both Digital Arcanist and Tony standpoint. Yes a campaign is a common good of a group of players and without any input of more than one player it pretty much becomes a novel. But I assume Tony has set a perimeter about the way he wants to share the role of GM. Say he prefers the campaign to have a setting where magic is rare or some races are absent. As long as he explained exactly the boundaries of possibilities and the players subscribe to this vision of the campaign, power to them. Sharing the role of GM doesn't mean anarchy and free for all...



That's the point I was trying to get across. I don't always express myself as clearly as I want to. Thank you for being able to read between the lines and help clarify things.

When I invite someone into my home to play in a 1, 2, and 3.X editions hybrid D&D game, I explain quite clearly that the last thing I want to hear is "Okay, new game, new characters, first level, 3.5 rules all the way, etc, etc, etc..." The point of rotating GMs is so that one person doesn't get stuck GMing for 5 or 6 years straight (as happened to me with my last gaming group). It's also to allow all the players, who by the time we've switched GMs have likely become quite attached to their characters, to continue playing their characters and gaining experience. If the other players don't want to accept this then they should say so up front and either not join the group at all, or at the very least not volunteer to take over as GM when the previous one steps down.

Tony Misfeldt
04-26-2008, 09:42 PM
Yes, you do. Even in a multiple DM system you need one person that holds the final say on world building matters. I've done that in the past and you do need a Over DM.

Thank you Tesral. Even with me sharing the DM duties with the other players, it's still taking place in my house, I am the host, and as primary DM who chooses which system we're using and which setting we're playing in, that responsibility lies with me. And it's not as if I spring this information on them at the last minute. I tell everybody up front that these are the rules we're using and regardless of who's DMing, these are the rules we're sticking with. As I said before, flip flopping between systems is just too big a hassle to bother with.

Tony Misfeldt
04-26-2008, 10:05 PM
Nay, it is not more relevant. You are trying to make your point with ludicrous analogies. It makes no sense.

And frankly, I think it is disingenuous to assume and insinuate that most people like and play 3rd edition over 2nd edition simply because it is "newer." The fact is that there are major differences between the two that in many people's opinions, including my own, make 3rd edition a more enjoyable and playable system. As I played 2nd edition from the time it came out in 1989 until around 2002 and 3rd edition for the last 6 years, I think I have a pretty grounded foundation from which to form an opinion on. It certainly doesn't boil down to -- ooh, it's shiny and new, that's why I play it and not 2nd edition. For you to try characterize it as such is insulting.

Actually the analogy makes perfect sense in that at their core their both about D&D. As someone wrote on this thread "D&D is D&D is D&D". The system is irrelevant, it's the game that matters. At it's heart, D&D is a game where you create a character, go on a quest, kill the monsters, rescue the damsel in distress, get the gold, kiss the girl, level up, lose the gold, then go out and do it all over again (I'm more or less paraphrasing the D&D GOD, E. Gary Gygax there). It doesn't matter if it's Basic, 1st Ed AD&D, 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed, 3.5 Ed, 4th Ed, or 13th Ed (which, at the rate Lizards Of The Coast are going, will be out in about 5 years). In the movie, Jeremy Irons is going to be over acting, Damodar is going to look like a drag queen who lost his wig, the one and only scene where Elwood is ever referred to anything other than "The Dwarf" will be left on the cutting room floor, Snailz is going to die, they'll end the movie hinting that he'll be back in the sequel, and the sequel is going to be 100 times better than the original (and thankfully they didn't bring Snailz back). No matter if you watch it on VHS, DVD, or Blue Ray HD, NONE of that is going to change.

And BTW, I wasn't implying that you were a sheep that runs out and buys the latest edition of D&D just because it's shiny and new. Peter, on the other hand, is such a sheep. So's his buddy Marcello. Neither of them will even consider reverting to playing an earlier edition, not because the newer editions are necessarily better, but because they're newer. And that's an opinion that I just can't get behind.

tesral
04-26-2008, 10:41 PM
And BTW, I wasn't implying that you were a sheep that runs out and buys the latest edition of D&D just because it's shiny and new. Peter, on the other hand, is such a sheep. So's his buddy Marcello. Neither of them will even consider reverting to playing an earlier edition, not because the newer editions are necessarily better, but because they're newer. And that's an opinion that I just can't get behind.

I'm a game designer at heart. I am always open to a better idea. Not necessarily a newer idea, but a better one. System can effect the flavor of the game. I change rules with great reluctance. Simply I am not reworking my world to fit a rule system no matter how new.

To that end I have kept a lot of the old 2e systems because they work and don't need changing, or I have things built around them that I don't want changed. My game is 2.8. I never made it all the way to three.

Do I refuse to play 3.x? No, I'm playing one now, but different DM different world. Not mine. The game is fun. I play because it is fun. The rules are secondary.

I have a 32 year legacy of world building. That comes before any rule set. Anyone so shallow that they will not play my game because it is "old", I don't really want them.

Tony Misfeldt
04-28-2008, 05:38 PM
I have a 32 year legacy of world building. That comes before any rule set. Anyone so shallow that they will not play my game because it is "old", I don't really want them.

Amen to that, brother.


Those are, for the most part, fairly minor quibles in my opinion. If you don't like certain class/race/alignment combo's don't use them. Cleric spells aren't divided into schools of magic, they just happen to say what school they are from (i believe they did this in 2e as well), i like the "Domain Spells" idea myself.
If you something to complain about, i personally miss Thac0, i don't like power creep, i liked uneaven level progression and some more of the randomness of the early editions. But i'm currently running my third 3e game since it came out and i'm planning my second D20 game. I like the versitility of the current game. I like the fact that the rules allow me to do all the things i used to have to house rule in 1e/2e.

Pease out, Severion

Unless things were changed for the divine classes in 3.5 (my Players Handbook is 3.0), they eliminated Spheres of Influence completely. Yes, they did assign schools to priest spelld in 2nd edition. However this was done for reference purposes only, in case a DM needed to know about spell resistance (like elves' immunity to Charm spells for example). THAC0? I didn't mind it but I can live without it. And there are several other changes that they made that I agree with, that make the game more playable and that make more sense than the old 2e rules did. Things like skill points, difficulty checks, the new saving throw system, rolling for hit points and getting CON bonuses past 9th or 10th level, the new armor class system, wizards getting bonus spells for high INT scores, challenge ratings for calculating XP, these are all good changes that I agree with. I just happen to think they should have stopped there. Everything beyond this is just change for the sake of change, not change to fix what's broken.

Tony Misfeldt
04-29-2008, 10:54 PM
I try to adopt rules from all D&D systems. I take what works and throw away the rest. I have not fully converted to 3.X because I find many of the new rules undesirable. Not necessarily unplayable, but undesirable. Here are the rules that I play under, and their sources.

1st Edition

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Monks are now a standard playable PC class. The new monk class is a combination of the 1e and 3.Xe versions of the class.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Half-Orc is now a standard playable PC race. Stats on half-orc PCs are found in The Complete Book Of Humanoids.

SOURCE: Unearthed Arcana
RULE: Barbarians are a standard playable PC class. The new barbarian class is a combination of the typical barbarian fighter listed in The Complete Barbarian's Handbook and the barbarian kit listed in The Complete Fighter's Handbook.

SOURCE: Unearthed Arcana
RULE: The additional ability score of comeliness, which determines your character's level of physical beauty. This stat is used exactly as written in Unearthed Arcana.

2nd Edition

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Ability scores work exactly as written with the following exception, wizards get bonus spells for high INT scores. The chart for bonus spells for priests with high WIS scores is used to determine number and level of spells.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Racial limitations regarding class are closely observed to an extent (some "forbidden classes" are available to some races). Most notably, ONLY HUMANS CAN BECOME PALADINS. Racial limitations regarding levels are ignored.

SOURCE: Players Handbook
RULE: THAC0 is still being used.

SOURCE: Players Handbook
RULE: Still using old Saving throw system.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Cleric spells are categorized by Spheres Of Influence.

SOURCE: The Entire Character Handbook Series
RULE: Kits from virtually any available handbook are available with DM's approval.

SOURCE: The Complete Fighter's Handbook
RULE: Players can become proficient in weapon groups (Tight Group Bows, Broad Group Blades, Tight Group Crossbows, etc).

SOURCE: Skills & Powers
RULE: Character Points are used to develope weapon and nonweapon proficiencies. This works in a fashion very similar to Skill Points in 3.Xe.

SOURCE: Skills & Powers
RULE: You can gain extra Character Points by choosing minor Disadvantages or spend them on Character Traits.

SOURCE: Skills & Powers
RULE: Characters can spend extra character points to become proficient in a weapon normally forbidden to his class (Example: a wizard can spend 5 character points to become proficient in longsword).

SOURCE: Combat & Tactics
RULE: Critical hits are made on rolls of a natural 18-20, but only if you hit your opponent by at least 5 points (so if you need to roll an 18 just to hit, then a natural 20 isn't a critical).

SOURCE: Combat & Tactics
RULE: Characters hit with a critical must roll a Save vs Death. If they make it they only take double damage. If they fail they suffer a critical effect. This could be anything from a minor inconvenience (blood getting in your eyes from a scalp wound) to lethal (decapitation).

SOURCE: Combat & Tactics
RULE: Levels of proficiency for weapons. There's non-proficient (same as in Players Handbook); Familiar (weapon is similar to one character is proficient in, thus providing less of a penalty); Proficient (same as in Players Handbook); Expertise (available to classes not normally allowed to take weapon specialization, improved number of attacks/ROF as specialization, but with no hit or damage bonuses); Specialized (same as in Players Handbook, except that missile weapons get a +1 to hit bonus on all ranges not just Point Blank); Mastery (only available at 5th level or higher, bonus to hit & damage improves to +3 respectively, missile weapons get an additional +1 to hit bonus at short to long range for a total of +2); High Mastery (only available at 9th level or higher, critical hits are on rolls of natural 16 or better if hits by at least 5 points, missile weapons have a 5th range category "extreme range", which is 50% farther than long range and made at a -10 penalty); and Grand Mastery (only available at 13th level or higher, one additional attack per round, weapon does damage with the next largest dice, example a great sword will do 1d12;3d8 in the hands of a grand master).

SOURCE: Combat & Tactics
RULE: Classes other than fighters can take weapon specialization. They must first take weapon expertise, then upgrade after using the weapon at that level of proficiency for at least one level.

SOURCE: Spells & Magic
RULE: Magic Points. Spellcasting is very physically taxing on a character. Casting spells uses up spell points, and if too many spell points are used the spellcaster becomes fatigued or even exhausted from overexertion (kind of like Willow in seasons 5 through 7 of Buffy The Vampire Slayer).

3rd Edition

SOURCE: The Player's Handbook
RULE: Barbarians and monks are now available as PC classes (see 1st edition entry above for more details).

SOURCE: The Players Handbook
RULE: Sorcerers are now available as a PC class. They get the same THAC0 and saving throws as wizards, but they get the same number of character points to spend on weapon proficiencies at first level as rogues and priests. They also have a better selection of weapon proficiencies to choose from than wizards do. Their number of spells and spell progression is the same as in 3.X.

SOURCE: The Player's Handbook
RULE: All classes get extra attacks per round at higher levels. Priests and rogues get 3 attacks/2 rounds at 8th to 14th level, and 2 attacks/round from 15th level up. Wizards get 3 attacks/2 rounds from 12th level up. This of course changes if they get weapon expertise.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Half-orcs are now available as a PC race. See 1st edition entry for more details.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Wizards get bonus spells for high INT, and sorcerers get bonus spells for high CHA. Use the Bonus spell chart for clerics with high WIS scores to determine the number and level of spells.

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Rangers can be of ANY NONEVIL ALIGNMENT (rather than any alignment like in 3e or only good alignments like in 2e). Druids can be of ANY NONEVIL PARTIALLY NEUTRAL ALIGNMENT (LN, N, CH, or NG ONLY).

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Saving throws vs spells are more difficult when the spells are cast by higher level wizards. Characters suffer a -1 penalty to their saving throws for every 3 levels the caster is above the minimum level he has to be in order to cast that spell (thus a Charm Person spell cast by an 18th level wizard would have a -6 penalty to it's save).

SOURCE: Player's Handbook
RULE: Priest's Cure Wounds spells (Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, etc) use the 3.Xe descriptions and levels rather than the 2e versions. These are the only priest spells being transferred from 3.X at this time.

SOURCE: The Slayer's Guide To Amazons by Mongoose Publishing
RULE: Amazons are now an available PC race. Their society is a mixture of that described in The Slayer's Guide To Amazons as well as those suggested in The Complete Fighter's Handbook.

SOURCE: My Imagination
RULE: All spellcasters casting spells with vocal components must actually speak those vocal components OR THE SPELL WON'T WORK.

When I get the 3.X DMG and Monsters Manual, I'll eventually switch from the THAC0 combat system to the d20 system. I'll also change saving throws to WILL, REFLEX, and FORT, adopt the Challenge Rating system for combat XP, and the Difficulty Check system for Non Weapon Proficienvies/Skills. But those will be all the additional changes I'm willing to make. I won't be using feats, prestigie classes, or the new system for clerics.