"You think that you can tell us apart? Many have tried, but then again, many have failed. What do you think the price for that is?" The Three Sisters Lylie-governess to a child of the first plain "You grew up. Thats a shame. The carousel never stops turning. You cant get off either. Its a shame."
Much as I wanted to vote for the original Basic D&D, I realized that I must help my cause out. 2nd Edition is D&D, refined from the silly British nonsense they had in 1st Edition (though I do miss the monk...). Basically, unless Magic: the Gathering, umm, I mean Wizards of the Coast ever acknowledges that they are just printing d20 Fantasy or D&D d20, then this is still the original.
Post by The Hatter on May 20, 2005 12:32:10 GMT -5
I could not help but put my love and props in for 2.0. I personaly can't stand 3 or 3.5. There are reasons for this, and if you want to know them thats for another thread.
I have to go with 3.5. Second Ed is simply too constraining for my tastes. Why can't a Halfling become a ranger? Or even better, why is it that a Dwarf cannot become a Paladin? I am also not entirely happy with the classes, either. The Fighter's only real special ability (other then weapon specialization, which dual-class characters cannot take) is followers and a keep. Which other classes ALSO get, albeit at a slightly slower progression.
3.5 I find to be the most open of the systems for character ideas. With the multitude of feats, classes, and prestige classes, you can make pretty much every possible idea you have. Half-Ork monk raised by humans? Fully do-able. I also find the system simply easier to use; I understand THAC0, mostly. I just do NOT know what the point of having a negative armor class is. Why not just reverse it and do away with the numbers entirely? It is just easier. 3.5 is better then 3.0 SIMPLY because of the Ranger change and everything similar. Everything else is secondary, though I would like the Paladin to be… well… an actual class after level 10.
Not to say that there was a lot of fun with Second Ed. I just find one system nicer then the other.
Post by gryphonpoet on May 21, 2005 2:33:25 GMT -5
I enjoy playing 2ed because of the constraints. I mean, how many half orcs are going to be raised in a human monastery? The strength of 2ed is not in the player "freedom" (please read "Chaos") but rather in the storytelling.
Coupled with the feats and prestige classes, 3rd ed and 3.5 become more of a comic book-oriented game that is based loosely on high fantasy.
I have told others and I'll stand by my words now...
1st ed AD&D is like a bowl of ice cream. 2nd Ed is a sundae with nuts, whipped cream and bananas. 3rd Ed is a pepperoni pizza.
Nothing wrong with it, it just isn't ice cream.
Last Edit: May 21, 2005 2:34:34 GMT -5 by gryphonpoet
I enjoy playing 2ed because of the constraints. I mean, how many half orcs are going to be raised in a human monastery? The strength of 2ed is not in the player "freedom" (please read "Chaos") but rather in the storytelling.
Coupled with the feats and prestige classes, 3rd ed and 3.5 become more of a comic book-oriented game that is based loosely on high fantasy.
Storyline is well and good, but it should have nothing to do with how the system works. You do not even need a system to have a good RP storyline, as free-form online RPs show.
I find the Second Ed system to be artificially constraining and outright pig holed into the western European fantasy myth. If I am making my own world, I should not be constrained by the rules with just who can be what. The GM should be laying down the guidelines, not some pretentious book. Half-orcs raised as humans cannot become Paladins, or Bows cannot be Intelligent weapons. Just why can they not, exactly? Sure, I can just ignore it all and just do my own thing, but just ignoring large chunks of a system seems wasteful when you have other system options.
As for Feats and Prestige Classes, they only help give you more options. Your character can do whatever he wants in the Storyline; but when it comes to combat (when it does come up), your fighter's only ability is to hit things and have followers. In fact, the main ability everyone in Second Ed gets is followers and a keep, of some sort. Which REALLY makes it an odd fit for many campaign settings. Once again, you can ignore this, but then your character, especially fighters, get very little...
All told, yes, I agree that things can devolve into chaos in the Third Ed system; some of the Prestige Classes are powerful, and with feats someone like a Ranger or Monk can get ALOT of attacks each turn. But, when you ignore a Third Ed option like a specific feat or class, you have things that your character can turn to. When you ignore a Second Ed fighter’s thirty spearman followers because you are playing a small band heroes, then what does he have left?
Post by gryphonpoet on May 27, 2005 3:04:12 GMT -5
artemi said:
When you ignore a Second Ed fighter’s thirty spearman followers because you are playing a small band heroes, then what does he have left?
Ummm... Five attacks in two rounds, with two seperate weapons, for a possible maximum of 79 points of damage plus the magical modifiers for each weapon. (An 8th level fighter with a specialized long sword in the prime hand and a specialized short sword in the off hand, presuming a super-strength of 18-50... Quite a possiblity, to be sure.)
And 2nd Ed. doesn't require a leaning toward European myths. In fact, I made my own mythoi up and am willing to link my realm with others, just for variety in play. I LURVE seeing Oriental Monks or Wu-jen come in and throw the overly-traditional players off. Keeps them on their toes.
I tried 3rd ed for a while, but it seemed that if the players protested, then the DM was supposed to back off. I didn't care for that. I like the final 4 words when a stalemate has happened... "Not In My Realm."
As I said in my previous post. There is nothing wrong with 3rd Ed. It just isn't D&D. It is a DIFFERENT rpg that uses d20. Sorry if you disagree, but that is the truth and they should have called it something different.
I have to go with Eunathes and Gryphon when they say that 3 ed D&D isn't D&D..it's fantasy D20. I cannot say anything else that will back it up because they have pretty much done it for me.
I care to disagree. Third ed is still D&D, what makes D&D D&D is still there. PLOTLINE. I can play Ravenloft, Feron(sp?), or that damn island I can't remember in the third ed rules. What 3.0 and 3.5 are, are D&Dd20. I also think it's an eaiser system to learn, just for the sheer fact it is everywhere.
That is all I wanted to hear from someone that liked the system. Is that it isn't just D&D....if you are going to give it the title at least put the d20 after it.
I'll still call it D&D because you can't accuratly balance out AD&D and D&D because there are things that are beter in one but the other has it's own strengths. It's like asking what was better Star Wars the RPG we play now or the Star Wars RPG that was released in 1976. It is difficult to compare the two because the systems are completely different but the plot is the same.
The plot is the same to an extent. Ravenloft, Faerun and the fuckin' island's storylines have changed.....GREATLY over the years between 2.0 and 3.5. But that is to be expected with any system. Stories change, erratas are written.
One more time: d20 D&D is not AD&D. Third Edition is so radically different from D&D (think BESM meets White Wolf style) that it no longer remains the same game, it just has the same name.
How many people were disheartened on November 9th when they popped Halo 2 into their XBox expecting HALOMFGWTF THENINJAS AREONFIREHFS! and got UT2k4? Exactly. Everyone.
Now, don't get me wrong. d20 is a good system. Just like Halo 2, it has its merits and flaws. On a whole, one of the best engineered systems of the last decade (with the distinct exception of Legend of the Five Rings. And Tri-Stat dX)! I will stick with the last incarnation of the grandaddy of all roleplaying games.
NO, no. The storylines are not an issue, here. Drizt is still running around, killing everything. Lolth is still running the drow, even if she is silent of late. This argument has nothing to do with the storyline, though. A good storyline does not need a rules system. Check out the free form RPs on this site for more details.
This discussion is entirely about the system behind the curtain.
3ed Ed D&D is not AD&D. I will give you that. It is still Dungeons and Dragons, it is simply not the last edition. D&D is not a set of rules; it is an option that you have to play a fantasy based game. The two systems are different, but this new edition deserves to be called D&D just as much as the last one.
And yes, the core Ad&D rule books, at any rate, are pulling from a very western standpoint. I cannot entirely blame them, as they are some 20-30 years old. Conceptions were different back then, as the market and ideas were able to mature a little since then. I do not blame AD&D for what it cannot or can do.
Just what these great evils that the 3ed Ed system has anyway, that are so horrible that that 2ed Ed is so much better? The feats and their innate ability to give your character many special abilities and options that you would not normally have? Prestige Classes and the character ideas that they open, focusing your power in different ways? Maybe the gird system that "forces" you to think step by step in a almost chess like way? The saving throws, which compiled each of the various throws into a three entry long master list? How about the skills, which unlike proficiencies, allow degrees in specialization? Or how about multi-classing in general; growing tired of your fighter? Throw in a few levels of wizard!
The fighter really best exemplifies the difference between the two systems. While they both run up and hit things until dead, the feat fighter in 3ed Ed has many more options. Feats allow him a host of actions, from disarming to tripping to changing his attack style. Light and fast? Do-able. Super heavy with shield bashes? Check. A 2ed Ed fighter hit things, wore heavy armor, and had a host of followers. In 3ed he can do so much more then his base attack bonus, which I find is a relief; a base attack bonus alone only goes so far in the way of options.
I just see that the system has been replaced with a different, simpler, better system; ultimately, it makes for a more enjoyable game.
*childish* And the art is better in these new books, too! Lidda for the win! *sticks tongue out*
Post by Atreides Conscript on May 30, 2005 0:41:10 GMT -5
eunhathes said:
One more time: d20 D&D is not AD&D. Third Edition is so radically different from D&D (think BESM meets White Wolf style) that it no longer remains the same game, it just has the same name.
Now that is a senseless remark that was obviously not very well thought out. Is D&D d20 the same game as AD&D? No... but it is the same world (only more detailed and elaborated on).
At this point, you seem to be picking your favourite because of the system, and not the setting. How LAUGHABLE. You play role-playing games for the ROLE-PLAYING... as if you wanted to roll dice for gameplay, you could just go by a $6.00 pack of BottleMen! From everything I've seen, I prefer the 3.5 system to 2.0, but both are in the same world... and that is the point that really matters to me at least.
As for "BESM meets Whitewolf", I could use the BESM d20 system to play Vampire: The Masquerade if I wanted to. I could rewrite the classes to be the clans, and transfer the Merits and Flaws into BESM terms. I could follow up by figuring out which abilities are class skills, and which are cross-class, and so on....
It would still be Vampire, but with a different system. Are they different games? Yes... but the part that matters is still the same. If I want to play D&D, I'll play D&D... the system is merely an empty skeleton that the true "game" fits itself on. Don't be mistaken.
I agree completely. If I want to play a fantasy world in which the history is already written down I will play D&D. I won't care if it AD&D or D&D because the plots are the same. The system really doesn't matter to me what I play.
