| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Portella
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
247 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Aug 2012 : 18:42:22
|
Really liked that idea
quote:
Originally posted by Brix
I think that each edition has its flaws. At the moment we play pathfinder rpg. Before that we played 1st and 2nd edition of the game. We never played 4th edition, because of it's card game/ hero quest flavour.
But even our 3/3.5/PRPG has flaws. For me the most important one is, that it is very cumbersome. And it's getting more cumbersome the more books are released.
2nd Edition was quick to play but had some stupid restrictions
I often compare the different editions to computer operating systems:
2E = DOS : stable, fast, but can't do many things
3E = Windows: can do many things, but gets slower the longer you use it
For me a hybrid of both worlds would be perfect.
Something like that:
* no feats
* substitude 2E saving throws with 3E saving throws
* substitude 2E non weapon profs with 3E skills
* substitude 2E weapon profs with weapon groups
* featless races
* featless classes
* core d20 engine
* no absolutes: +10 bonus instead of immunity
* etc..
|
Purple you say?!
|
 |
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2012 : 15:34:47
|
I have played 2ed, 3.x and 4e as well as read the rules for Castles and Crusaders and glanced over Pathfinder.
I played with 2ed with my grade school and high school group. 3ed with my college and post college group as well as a year of 4e. I prefer games designed with the goal of mechanics supporting the lore. So, I look for systems that can support the feel of the classic realms novels, the wheel of time series and game of thrones depending on what kind of game I am running.
I had a blast running 2e and 3e for years. 2e mechanically outside of skills and powers is pretty simple and my group took what we liked and threw out what we didn't. I never cared for skills and powers, so my group never used it. However, we did have one player that loved the 2e spell point system which works great. Reflecting back on it, I really like that 2e does not have the exotic / fantasy weapons in it. Racial level limits were a bad idea, although I have never been bothered by racial class restrictions. As a DM, I like to be running a group that has at least 3 characters that fit into the setting for every one odd ball character. One thing I really miss from 2e is the way necromancy was handled. The complete book of necromancers makes necromancy so much more interesting than that magic that makes undead which it became in 3.x and beyond. As far as realms products, IMO 2e was the golden age.
3e did a lot of things right and the easiest one to name off is getting rid of THACO. I liked the concept of feats and how multiclassing works in 3e, because it could be used to flesh out characters as they grew. However, in execution for the most part I found that it had the opposite effect. Other than spell casters characters in 3e tended to build tricks that consumed all of their feats and reduced options available to the character at higher levels. So, the party warrior type character absolutely needed to have a spiked chain(as a example) with him/her at all times, or the characters effectiveness dropped off. Also, do to the heavy amount of power gaming, the DM was forced to edit monsters and NPC buildings to compete with player builds in order for the game to be entertaining. I generally tried to avoid using the grappling mechanics, because it was not fun for anyone involved. In retrospect, at least the DM had the option to make meaningful edits to the monster in 3e to attempt to compete with PC options.
My experiences with 4e were all bad, every DM(a total of 6 including myself) I played with started to refuse to run 4e games within a year of release. IMO 4e's mechanics don't really interact with what is going on in the game world. There is a very ugly transition to and from combat in 4e, because character sheets basically only have combat powers on them. Also, the rules of the world change in combat, so while outside of combat swimming in lava would be a bad idea, in combat it can't cause more than an on level encounter power in damage which is more of an annoyance than an actual threat. Basically IMO, the rules in 4e support character balance to the exclusion of all other things. Also, there is a baked in monster difficulty that is IMO not very challenging.
Now when I look into what system to run, I want to capture the fun of the 2ed realms era, but I want to give the player's more options than AD&D allowed. Currently, I am running the D&D next playtest, but if I had to pick a system I would modify 2e with the improvements from the playtest and 3e. If you are looking for a rules light kind of game, but want a few more player options available than 1e and 2e I would recommend looking at playtest. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2012 : 19:36:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I have played 2ed, 3.x and 4e as well as read the rules for Castles and Crusaders and glanced over Pathfinder.
I played with 2ed with my grade school and high school group. 3ed with my college and post college group as well as a year of 4e. I prefer games designed with the goal of mechanics supporting the lore. So, I look for systems that can support the feel of the classic realms novels, the wheel of time series and game of thrones depending on what kind of game I am running.
I had a blast running 2e and 3e for years. 2e mechanically outside of skills and powers is pretty simple and my group took what we liked and threw out what we didn't. I never cared for skills and powers, so my group never used it. However, we did have one player that loved the 2e spell point system which works great. Reflecting back on it, I really like that 2e does not have the exotic / fantasy weapons in it. Racial level limits were a bad idea, although I have never been bothered by racial class restrictions. As a DM, I like to be running a group that has at least 3 characters that fit into the setting for every one odd ball character. One thing I really miss from 2e is the way necromancy was handled. The complete book of necromancers makes necromancy so much more interesting than that magic that makes undead which it became in 3.x and beyond. As far as realms products, IMO 2e was the golden age.
3e did a lot of things right and the easiest one to name off is getting rid of THACO. I liked the concept of feats and how multiclassing works in 3e, because it could be used to flesh out characters as they grew. However, in execution for the most part I found that it had the opposite effect. Other than spell casters characters in 3e tended to build tricks that consumed all of their feats and reduced options available to the character at higher levels. So, the party warrior type character absolutely needed to have a spiked chain(as a example) with him/her at all times, or the characters effectiveness dropped off. Also, do to the heavy amount of power gaming, the DM was forced to edit monsters and NPC buildings to compete with player builds in order for the game to be entertaining. I generally tried to avoid using the grappling mechanics, because it was not fun for anyone involved. In retrospect, at least the DM had the option to make meaningful edits to the monster in 3e to attempt to compete with PC options.
My experiences with 4e were all bad, every DM(a total of 6 including myself) I played with started to refuse to run 4e games within a year of release. IMO 4e's mechanics don't really interact with what is going on in the game world. There is a very ugly transition to and from combat in 4e, because character sheets basically only have combat powers on them. Also, the rules of the world change in combat, so while outside of combat swimming in lava would be a bad idea, in combat it can't cause more than an on level encounter power in damage which is more of an annoyance than an actual threat. Basically IMO, the rules in 4e support character balance to the exclusion of all other things. Also, there is a baked in monster difficulty that is IMO not very challenging.
Now when I look into what system to run, I want to capture the fun of the 2ed realms era, but I want to give the player's more options than AD&D allowed. Currently, I am running the D&D next playtest, but if I had to pick a system I would modify 2e with the improvements from the playtest and 3e. If you are looking for a rules light kind of game, but want a few more player options available than 1e and 2e I would recommend looking at playtest.
One of my old gaming pals had a favorite character named Tarlyn Nightstar  |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
Edited by - Artemas Entreri on 13 Aug 2012 15:38:39 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2012 : 23:17:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I played with 2ed with my grade school and high school group. 3ed with my college and post college group as well as a year of 4e. I prefer games designed with the goal of mechanics supporting the lore. So, I look for systems that can support the feel of the classic realms novels, the wheel of time series and game of thrones depending on what kind of game I am running.
I don't really know what it means for mechanics to support the feeling of lore or Realms novels. To me, any generic Fantasy RPG could do this given some re-flavoring. Even something classless like GURPS has been used for Realms games. But to each their own.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I had a blast running 2e and 3e for years. 2e mechanically outside of skills and powers is pretty simple and my group took what we liked and threw out what we didn't. I never cared for skills and powers, so my group never used it. However, we did have one player that loved the 2e spell point system which works great. Reflecting back on it, I really like that 2e does not have the exotic / fantasy weapons in it. Racial level limits were a bad idea, although I have never been bothered by racial class restrictions. As a DM, I like to be running a group that has at least 3 characters that fit into the setting for every one odd ball character. One thing I really miss from 2e is the way necromancy was handled. The complete book of necromancers makes necromancy so much more interesting than that magic that makes undead which it became in 3.x and beyond. As far as realms products, IMO 2e was the golden age.
Agreed about the Realms products via 2E, really it was the Baby-Boom of Realms lore. What I find weird is that I really enjoyed the Baldur's Gate CRPGs and I assumed that I'd equally enjoy the Pen-and-Paper version too, but that did not happen. I think, for myself, it was the combination of a LOT of things such as the interior design of most 2E books, charts that (at the time) didn't make much sense, and a crappy DM. Couple all of that with first-time roleplaying person who doesn't really know anything and it was a very negative experience. So I don't hold a lot of love for the syste itself. But I think now in my older years (heh, being 30 and all) that I've come to understand more about RPGs and game-design and wouldn't out-right balk at the idea of a 2E game. But I'd always rather play 3E, 4E, or Pathfinder first and foremost.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
3e did a lot of things right and the easiest one to name off is getting rid of THACO. I liked the concept of feats and how multiclassing works in 3e, because it could be used to flesh out characters as they grew. However, in execution for the most part I found that it had the opposite effect. Other than spell casters characters in 3e tended to build tricks that consumed all of their feats and reduced options available to the character at higher levels. So, the party warrior type character absolutely needed to have a spiked chain(as a example) with him/her at all times, or the characters effectiveness dropped off. Also, do to the heavy amount of power gaming, the DM was forced to edit monsters and NPC buildings to compete with player builds in order for the game to be entertaining. I generally tried to avoid using the grappling mechanics, because it was not fun for anyone involved. In retrospect, at least the DM had the option to make meaningful edits to the monster in 3e to attempt to compete with PC options.
I definitly hear you on "preferred builds" over flavorful ones, which to me signifies a game build on "system mastery" and unbalanced features. Not that it's wrong or bad, it just is what it is. One thing that I've tended to veer far away from in my own homebew v3.5 games is forcing NPCs and Monsters into the "build like PCs" mode, which I'm really coming to hate. For one, the PCs don't need to know my monster's "stats", they don't need to recreate a creature's abilities, and they certainly dont need to meta-game the situations that I present my monsters/NPCs with. Which is probably why I really enjoy 4E's monster design, who have their own set of rules to follow.
You also touch on Power-gaming and while I consider myself a power-gamer, I hope people who read this understand the difference between Power-gaming and Munchkins. To me, Power-gaming uses the rules-as-written within the context of the game and DM's campaign to make strong, effective characters in combat. That's the one place where the mechanics really count. I don't feel the need to max out my ranks in Craft (alchemy) or Perform or Profession primarly because those don't come up in our games and when they do, it's just roleplayed for fun instead of set DCs and skill checks. A munchkin, OTOH, will used questionable tactics within the entirety of the d20 rule-system (including 3PP stuff) and build characters with the intent to "win" at battles or situations with 99% efficency. This is where Pun-Pun, CoDzilla, and the Cheater of Mystra builds come into play.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
My experiences with 4e were all bad, every DM(a total of 6 including myself) I played with started to refuse to run 4e games within a year of release.
That's a shame, but not because you left the system but because the game didn't provide you with the fun and enjoyment it should've offered. I definitly understand your perspective as I too felt that the PHB lacked a certain.....something. Even as a staunch 4E fan now, the biggest and most common complaint was that the system didn't grab people at it's initial release. That, as I see it, is crutial in getting players for the long haul. It doesn't matter now that I tell you they've since added about 20+ classes with varying mechanics, powers, feats, and thousands of options for characters to further explore because that initial attempt pretty much stopped furture enjoyment.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
IMO 4e's mechanics don't really interact with what is going on in the game world. There is a very ugly transition to and from combat in 4e, because character sheets basically only have combat powers on them.
I'm actually confused by this statement. From what I'm interpreting in this post, your saying that the mechanics (At-will, encounter, daily, utility powers?) don't interact with the environment? Perhaps it's the format that limited you to just a combat-focused application. For example, I'd encourage the party's wizard to use their Scorching Burst (fire at-will spell) to melt ice, catch curtains on fire, start a bonfire or prye, burn down a tree, catch cooking grease on fire, light a half-dozen torches, create a make-shift flare, blind a room of bats, etc.... Additionally, a Fighter could use the Cleave power to shear through wooden pillars, cut through foilage, cut into a door and possible hit the target on the other side. Powers should've never been thought of "Combat Only" in their function and I've never treated them as such. In the case of Encounter powers, to me that just applies a combative mechanic so people don't abuse the system. In out-of-combat appliaction, I'd allow my eladrin characters to use their Fey-Step ability all the time (probably every few minutes) or perhaps a cold-based spell to freeze a pond to go ice skating on.
You also touched on what it says on the character sheet and this, sadly is the way many RPGs have been going in the last 10 years. I'm all for codified rules and making sure brokeness doesn't happen and I think the more DM-fiat in this specific area isn't needed. But also comes the idea that the things on your character sheet just ampifly what you could already do without rules. I don't need mechanics to allow me to bake or craft a mundane sword or dance a jig at the local tavern. To me, those are just roleplaying elements to have fun in. If I want something out of these actions, then a simple Skill Challenge set forth by the DM works well for me and my group.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Also, the rules of the world change in combat, so while outside of combat swimming in lava would be a bad idea, in combat it can't cause more than an on level encounter power in damage which is more of an annoyance than an actual threat.
I quite don't understand. From what I read about the PHB, most obsticles that inflict possible character death scale with level as to maintain that sort of "This is always difficult, no matter what level you are" image. So falling in lava might deal 5d6 fire damage per round and if your a 1st level character, you'd expect to die within two rounds (12 seconds) immersed in it. At 12th level, falling in lava should be something like 1/4 hp per level (meaning you'd survive a possible 24 seconds with your HP dropping 1/4). In my opinion, there should never be a point in a character's career where they could briskly walk through lava and say "ok, who are we gonna fight?" This should also be applied to any part of the game world that normally would be deadly for something to happen (a boulder falling on someone's head for example). I'm pretty sure 4E had some good mechanics for this, but I'm away from my books at the moment.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Basically IMO, the rules in 4e support character balance to the exclusion of all other things. Also, there is a baked in monster difficulty that is IMO not very challenging.
I whole heartedly agree that they went overboard with the eratta and probably could've left a lot of it alone and I've just ignored a LOT of it and the system works fine for us. When there is a problem or a broken-combo or something that doesn't work quite right we then look it up to see if there has been a fix. But I do expcet a game system to be balanced and I, as a DM or Player, shouldn't have to take super-special precautions so I don't let that happen.
As for monsters, again I'm sorta confused by your statement. Monsters in 4E have mechanics based on level where as in 3E they were based on CR. I don't see much distinction except that the by-level seems more appropriate in getting what DM might expect out of a particular battle. It allows more DM control, as it were. For example in 3E I had a battle I expected the PCs to generally overcome with the usage of some specific items and possibly some daily resources. Instead, it killed two and the other 2 fled with all but 1 of the monsters in pursuit. In part, it was bad rolling and another part was two Critial hits but it was also the fact that the PC's resources had NO effect in their application which is frustrating for the players (who are losing the battle) and for me (who puts forth strong plot points after the battle).
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Now when I look into what system to run, I want to capture the fun of the 2ed realms era, but I want to give the player's more options than AD&D allowed. Currently, I am running the D&D next playtest, but if I had to pick a system I would modify 2e with the improvements from the playtest and 3e. If you are looking for a rules light kind of game, but want a few more player options available than 1e and 2e I would recommend looking at playtest.
Then I think D&D:Next will aid you in this endeavor. From the playtest so far, it definitly feels a lot like 2E with some 4E bits thrown in. So it wasn't that suprising that our group quit after two sessions. But I'm not going to give up and I intend to keep going with the Playtest as more packets come out and even giving it up to TWO years after release to determine if it's for me or not. With as much quitting as I saw with 4E, I feel I owe WotC at least that much. |
|
|
|
Aryalómë
Senior Scribe
USA
666 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2012 : 00:19:51
|
I'm pretty much a 2e person for life, though I've grown up mostly during 3/3.5/4e's times (I wasn't even in my double digits when 2e came out). I first got into D&D via 4e an quickly regressed down the path. I have found 2e to be best, especially in lore.
However, these are things that I like from newer editions that I would incorporate into 2e:
3/3.5e- 0 level spells and prestige classes
4e- the AEDU mechanic for spells and Epic Destinies
4e just seems too simplified for me. I also don't really like the Eladrin taking the place of the Grey Elves and High Elves. I'd much rather have them as fey-celestials. I REALLY want the old Elvish subraces back (Grey, High, Sylvan, Aquatic, etc) from 2e. |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 10:28:04
|
Okay, finally back. The new school year really makes my job akin to sitting in the lap of Asmodeous. Brutal. Firstly PC power; Specifically ( and no I can't quote the damn issue # ) There is an article with fancy graphics and such showing with very 1st ed DM's guide style graphs in KODT about pc powers. It proved what I thought all along about the evolving editions of d&d. Namely that pc's are getting more powerful per edition and that the power curve gets out of control starting with 3rd ed. Secondly about too much xp. Having played 3rd ed and Dmed it for six years or so pc's level ups are way too fast. Play on a regular basis for a year and you've got yourself an epic level campaign (18th by my recollection). I tried to slow this down as a DM by halving monster xp but in a matter of less than 3 months the group was all at least 5/6th level. These players only received monster xp. Fact: characters
in 3.0 3.5 fly through the levels. Counterpoint: having run 2ed since 2007, the first campaign lasted from March/April 07 till about July 2011. Only two of the original 4 pc's were still alive and had just reached 10th level. I estimate that 50% of the xp garnered was from role play/magic item aquisition/quest completion. Now to buy your advocacy of d20 I must accept that you like a system that spells out every rule for virtually any concievable happen stance on the dry erase map or magic item creation or spell use but you throw away all of the intrinsic rules for one of the most important and basic concepts of the game dating back to the dark ages (70's): xp.
As far as spells are concerned I'm not sure what you are talking about (literally). I never had any problem blowing anything up in my way in those days with the spells provided. In fact all of the spells I created were either effect or defense spells. Frankly, I was so damn powerful I could have soloed a Deity. With no special items or DM favour.
I admittedly only played Pathfinder a couple of times and really liked the skill system compared to 3.0 ( not saying much). You are correct in saying that the art/asthetic/style is totally subjective. I prefer a bit of realism. You can keep your 5 foot swords ( you keep nasty chips!).
I have never cracked the spine of a 4th ed Realms book so I have no opinion on contemporary Realms vehicles. However, the Spoony one speaks forth about this so called edition of dnd, and I take his review with a bit of weight. He is an old schooler and doesn't just sleight 4th ed out of ignorance as you accuse me of doing. He gives the ups and downs of it and is quite fair. However, he quite appropriatly deems it not dnd. It is simply a dice and paper game spawned from MMO's , much like the first gen of computer rpg's were rip off's of dice and paper dnd.
I don't know what game you are playing if you think d20 paladin is in any way superior to previous incarnations of the class. Gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I would highly encourage anyone interested in this childish tiff to read the seperate PG's. I'll take your dislike of the bard as a win as well.
As far as my critique of d20 Realms books, I own enough of 1st/2ed/d20 to more than compare. Also, I do understand that authors do not have 100% creative control over their released product, so please spare me the hateful emails now. Now, 1st/2ed products are primarily for DM's. There are exemptions from this. But the product is clearly labeled so. "The complete fighters guide" is clearly for pc's who play fighters. Even so there is quite a bit (half) of info useful to dm's, plus the kits. Core Realms products of 1/2ed are totally of the DM's sphere. The knowledge of said info by pc's is punishable by instant death from the +5 VorpalAnvil! This change in d20 and we all know why. Not going to talk about here. But when 2/3 to 3/4 of every damn book is new spells/items/prestige classes for pc's and I get 15 pages of semi useful Realmslore I get kinda pissed. I mean can you even imagine a Volo's guide getting published today!? My point was not to demean fans of contemporary product. But as a fan of history and I would like to think that if you play a game as involving as dnd that you are intellectually motivated, that you might want to investigate old product. If all you have ever been exposed to is more recent stuff you will be shocked at the difference in scope and quality, I think. Yeah, you're mistaken. |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 10:34:23
|
| KODT refers to Knights of the Dinner Table. Check it out. |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 16:43:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
KODT refers to Knights of the Dinner Table. Check it out.
I used to love KODT... But after a while, it felt like I was paying for non-comic stuff and getting a few pages of comic thrown in. And as I recall, KODT was already pricier than other comics, at the time... So I dropped the comic. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 18:58:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
Firstly PC power; Specifically ( and no I can't quote the damn issue # ) There is an article with fancy graphics and such showing with very 1st ed DM's guide style graphs in KODT about pc powers. It proved what I thought all along about the evolving editions of d&d. Namely that pc's are getting more powerful per edition and that the power curve gets out of control starting with 3rd ed.
Pardon my not understanding, but how is this specific? What sort of Power did the graph detail? Hit Point inflation? Attack modifier inflation? Damage-per-Round inflation? Higher resistance against monter's specific attacks? More combat options? I mean, I haven't played 2nd Edition in about 15 years so I'm definitly out of practice when it comes to mechanics, so perhaps the plethora of options presented in 3E and 4E are considerd over-powering? Or that Feats allow Fighters to break out of the attack, move, attack mold? Or that spellcasters have the option to take a 5-ft step as their move that doesn't provoke a rebuttal attack (also called Opportuinity Attack)?
And the suggestions I just posted might be considered power-ups by some, but by many it appears to be a natural progression to the Dungeons and Dragons game. Players like options, options provide more flexability. Flexability opens up more arch-types and influences character choies. I fail to see how any of that is considered bad.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
Secondly about too much xp. Having played 3rd ed and Dmed it for six years or so pc's level ups are way too fast. Play on a regular basis for a year and you've got yourself an epic level campaign (18th by my recollection). I tried to slow this down as a DM by halving monster xp but in a matter of less than 3 months the group was all at least 5/6th level. These players only received monster xp. Fact: characters in 3.0 3.5 fly through the levels.
Counterpoint: having run 2ed since 2007, the first campaign lasted from March/April 07 till about July 2011. Only two of the original 4 pc's were still alive and had just reached 10th level. I estimate that 50% of the xp garnered was from role play/magic item aquisition/quest completion.
Like I said earlier, there's more than one way to dole out XP. If halving monster XP still gains characters too much XP then perhaps it'd have been better to just find an appropriate time to level them up as the story unfolds, pacing it on the fly instead of hard-coded mechanics. OR you could just increase the amount of XP it takes to level up AND halving monster's XP. For example, instead of level 2 being 1,000 XP, you'd make it 2,000 XP or 2,500 XP or 3,000 XP?
Additionally, what prevented you from giving out XP for roleplay and magical item quests? I don't see why you couldn't do it with any system or why 3E didn't promote it where 2nd Edition did.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
Now to buy your advocacy of d20 I must accept that you like a system that spells out every rule for virtually any concievable happen stance on the dry erase map or magic item creation or spell use but you throw away all of the intrinsic rules for one of the most important and basic concepts of the game dating back to the dark ages (70's): xp.
This doesn't make sense to me. How are post 2E systems throwing away the intrinsic rules of XP? As far as I'm concerned with rules, I appreciate clarity in areas of danger (namely combat) but don't need them for nearly everything. Magic Item creation might be helpful, but I'm ok with winging that along side 90% of everything else. Combat, to me, is the area whre the rules are needed to be spelled out pretty strongly as to lessen any confusion. I do agree that 3E went TOO far in the attempt to codify each and every situaion that could arise in any given campaign, but I never felt compelled to actually use them as-written.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
As far as spells are concerned I'm not sure what you are talking about (literally). I never had any problem blowing anything up in my way in those days with the spells provided. In fact all of the spells I created were either effect or defense spells. Frankly, I was so damn powerful I could have soloed a Deity. With no special items or DM favour.
I had commented on how you claimed they removed all but the most basic spells that blow stuff up or heal. I pointed out that those sorts of spells are low on the "power" curve and thus, are under optimized when compared to non-direct dealing spells, which there are a lot of. Espically where 3E is concerned. But I have to laugh as you just claim to hate how fast PCs level and become powerful then say you have a character than can solo-kill a deity with no items/DM help, which is ridiculous IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
I admittedly only played Pathfinder a couple of times and really liked the skill system compared to 3.0 ( not saying much). You are correct in saying that the art/asthetic/style is totally subjective. I prefer a bit of realism. You can keep your 5 foot swords ( you keep nasty chips!).
Different strokes for different folks and all that. Skills were an ok addition, but when people went overboard with trying to break the game with them, it got to be a bit too much. That and I hated skill point allotment. It was the worst part about character creation, espically for Rogues. I like the Trained ways of 4e and possibly D&D:Next.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
I have never cracked the spine of a 4th ed Realms book so I have no opinion on contemporary Realms vehicles. However, the Spoony one speaks forth about this so called edition of dnd, and I take his review with a bit of weight. He is an old schooler and doesn't just sleight 4th ed out of ignorance as you accuse me of doing. He gives the ups and downs of it and is quite fair. However, he quite appropriatly deems it not dnd. It is simply a dice and paper game spawned from MMO's , much like the first gen of computer rpg's were rip off's of dice and paper dnd.
Yea, it's D&D regardless of his/her opinion specifically because it says Dungeons and Dragons on the book. Now, that doesn't mean his/her opinion isn't valid, but I don't see it holding any more water or weight than say....mine or any other scribe here. And I'll be the first to say that I'm not a fan of 2nd Edition's mechanics, finding them to be wonky, unfocused, and extreamly disparaging in it's approach to RPGs. But I'm not elitist to think that it's not D&D, because....well it says so right there on the book. It may not be my preferred edition to enjoy D&D, but it is just that, none-the less.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
I don't know what game you are playing if you think d20 paladin is in any way superior to previous incarnations of the class. Gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I would highly encourage anyone interested in this childish tiff to read the seperate PG's. I'll take your dislike of the bard as a win as well.
So, let me get this straight- d20 (being 3E/4E) promote overpowered classes and games yet you don't see how these paladins are superior to older versions. That's sort of a contradition isn't it? But just to reiterate why I think the paladin is more "powerful" in d20-systems, I'll just say the word: Feat. Feats single-handedly made the paladin better by sheer versatility. Well that and alternate class features like Charging Smite. I'll take Charging Smite every time over a Special Mount just because dealing 3x Smite damage on a charge attack is more universal than using a mount 25% of the time in any given campaign. Furthermore, Paladin spell lists have become something of their own, having their own flavor and dynamics in addition to the stuff they pilfer from Clerics. Their Turn Undead class feature can be used to fuel Divine effects like giving everyone in a certain radius a bonus to overcome Damage Reduction or Resistances to evil creatures. They can also use this feature to add more damage to smite attacks or to gain a bonus to their armor.
This sort of versatility is what makes the paladin pretty darn good up through about 12th level. After that, well it's a spellcaster's paradise and they rule the near epic levels alone.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
As far as my critique of d20 Realms books, I own enough of 1st/2ed/d20 to more than compare. Also, I do understand that authors do not have 100% creative control over their released product, so please spare me the hateful emails now. Now, 1st/2ed products are primarily for DM's. There are exemptions from this. But the product is clearly labeled so. "The complete fighters guide" is clearly for pc's who play fighters. Even so there is quite a bit (half) of info useful to dm's, plus the kits. Core Realms products of 1/2ed are totally of the DM's sphere. The knowledge of said info by pc's is punishable by instant death from the +5 VorpalAnvil! This change in d20 and we all know why. Not going to talk about here. But when 2/3 to 3/4 of every damn book is new spells/items/prestige classes for pc's and I get 15 pages of semi useful Realmslore I get kinda pissed. I mean can you even imagine a Volo's guide getting published today!? My point was not to demean fans of contemporary product. But as a fan of history and I would like to think that if you play a game as involving as dnd that you are intellectually motivated, that you might want to investigate old product. If all you have ever been exposed to is more recent stuff you will be shocked at the difference in scope and quality, I think. Yeah, you're mistaken.
I've seen the 2nd Edition Realms stuff, and it's pretty cool. Personally, I like it when my players get involved with the books as they share in the same lore as I do. I see nothing wrong with that and I freely share the DM seat so I see no reason for separation of DM and PC where the books are involved. When it comes to published adventures, I tend to keep those books a little closer to the DM screen, but will share when it involves magical items or specifics that the PCs need to keep track of. Perhaps I just don't gain enjoyment from the DM vs. Player mentality that seemed to be so prevalent in older editions. I like telling stories and creating epic adventures for my players to survive through, not a vengful DM who feels like God on a power trip. |
Edited by - Diffan on 20 Aug 2012 11:06:01 |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 09:29:59
|
| Enjoying the sparing match. I'll respond when I have the time to do so. Until then, "Well met." |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 09:23:07
|
| All right Diffan. I was about to reply last night when I came across another thread on this site where the same basic debate is taking place. Guess who is arguing the side of d20 versus a host of opposition: you! I am all for a good conversation but it seems to me you are just one of those people who like to argue for the sake of doing so. So here's what this humble DM is going to do. Open another "Old One Eye", read the forums for game research, and cease arguing with idiots lest I be mistaken for one. I said good say sir! |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 12:02:57
|
For what it's worth, Diffan is asking legit questions of your criticisms. Your inability to articulate a well-reasoned response shouldn't inform the need to "cease arguing with idiots"...
>_> |
Edited by - Matt James on 06 Sep 2012 12:03:24 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 14:58:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
All right Diffan. I was about to reply last night when I came across another thread on this site where the same basic debate is taking place. Guess who is arguing the side of d20 versus a host of opposition: you! I am all for a good conversation but it seems to me you are just one of those people who like to argue for the sake of doing so. So here's what this humble DM is going to do. Open another "Old One Eye", read the forums for game research, and cease arguing with idiots lest I be mistaken for one. I said good say sir!
Vorpal, we really don't need that kind of antagonism here at Candlekeep. Consider this your first warning for breaching the Code of Conduct. Additional procedures will be followed-up via PM. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 06 Sep 2012 14:59:33 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 20:55:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
All right Diffan. I was about to reply last night when I came across another thread on this site where the same basic debate is taking place. Guess who is arguing the side of d20 versus a host of opposition: you! I am all for a good conversation but it seems to me you are just one of those people who like to argue for the sake of doing so. So here's what this humble DM is going to do. Open another "Old One Eye", read the forums for game research, and cease arguing with idiots lest I be mistaken for one. I said good say sir!
Would you care to link or site what the other thread was? I ask sincerely since I can't think of another instance I was arguing against a host of opposition on the likes of d20 vs. another system (or something similiar)? Additionally, I feel I've been extreamly respectful of your posts and attempted to approach your concerns and criticism with an eye towards understanding your own side. At no time did I say you were wrong or an idiot or really bash 2E (I'm assuming your preferred system). I gave reasons why I had some dislikes (which, I might add were ALL mechanical of that system) but I also attempted to show some positive sides of other systems too.
Furthermore, when I asked for some clarification of your views I got references to past-age charts from decades old Dragon Magazines and some guy who wrote a review on 4E at some point from some place which spun it as "not D&D". So yea, of course I'm going to say you should come up with your own personal ideas of how games work because you should never judge a book by it's cover. But I'll just assume that you'll not bother to respond to this post, yet what the hey? I'm a fan of arguing so it's just my nature. |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 08 Sep 2012 : 00:53:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
To get back to brass tacks: I had the fortunate experience of playing in second grade(not 2ed) in the mid 80's. My buddy Steve was really creative but not too book smart so I would get our class assignment done in 10-15 minutes and the teacher would let us play in the coat closet. No books, No dice, etc. Steves' dad was a big fantasy fan and Steve consumed it all with zeal and had the innate ability to be a natural storyteller. We spent every spare minute of inclement weather playing a one on one organic game in second grade.
Fast forward to 1989,1990. My friend were all video game nerds in a time when playing video games was certainly not cool or mainstream like it is nowadays. My dude Jeremy was a few years older and suggested D&D, and with my fond memories I seconded the idea. 2ed was new and I spent all three years of junior high with the same group of friends, mostly with the same characters. In retrospect, how you can play D&D in thirty degree weather for 12 hours is beyond adult me. Then, like many of us I'm sure, no action in high school. Forgot about it, grew up, etc. Till one day in 2000 or so some guys I worked with were talking about "3rd ed" I mentioned a history and interest, and here I am in 2012 having been running a 2ed game for 5 years now.
So, I've a bit to comment on this topic. 3rd is a good system for young kids to learn on. If youn can grasp the basic idea/spirit of the rules you can with 99% accuracy infer the correct ruling of any other rule. But the players are too damn powerful, too much xp is for killing stuff, and every aspect of role playing from race/ class restrictions to spells that don't blow things up or heal stupid players has been removed. It is the first real move towards the video game culture we see in 4th ed. Pathfinder cleans it up a lot, especially in the skills area, but a pinto is a pinto even with a blown 429 cj. Also how you can compare the obvious talent of the Lakey's realistic art with the likes of W.A.R.'s comic book style is beyond me. Even the art of 3rd ed is just too over the top and ridiculous!
I have never played 4th ed but this forums comments speak for themselves. It appears to be WOW on paper which defeats the purpose. I can play some mmo any time without real people.
So all that remains is the old school. As 2ed is as sensible an update to 1st ed as pathfinder is to 3ed/3.5 2nd wins. Especially given the PO books that clean up the base clunky combat system that make combat a race to 0 hit points in the base system, and was clearly a marker for many of the ideas in 3rd. Some of the writing is near brilliant in both of the old editions, and anything is easily transferable from 1st to 2ed. Spells are as unique in nature as are classes. No, it isn't balanced. If you want balance look at the disaster that is the 3ed ranger, paladin, and bard. At one time special, different, and hard to obtain classes, were reduced to generic, underpowered, irrelevant after birth forgotten by anyone who diligently read the rules. Guess what? If you are a fan of the realms, which you probably are if you are reading this, the game world was made for rangers and bards! How in the nine hells should a Paladin be significantly less powerful than any regular jack off who can range from trained soldier to mob muscle is beyond the pale.
I digress. Anyone here who is really a fan of the setting really owes to themselves to read the old source material and see the inherit brilliance, creativity and forethought put in as compared to the low quality of materiel put fourth in recent years.
Mod edit: Adjective removed. Let's be a little more careful with our adjectives, please. We have those who would be offended by the adjective you chose for decribing an MMO.
I’m going to respond to this, simply because I may be the only blind person here and as such some of what I may say might be specific onto obsordity, but still something worth mentioning.
If you can’t see, second edition can be a bear to learn.
3.5 doesn’t have wonky tables, that require page jumping in order for you to match things up. The way the material is modular means that it was both easy for an open source system and for screen-readers to deal with. Second edition, not so much. Path finder is equally great in this regard, but that’s for similar reasons that made 3.5 easy to work with. Now, I’m still trying to learn 2nd edition, it’s just that my brain is starting to bleed until I get there.
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 12:12:53
|
| Yes Mr. James, Diffan has made several good points against my arguments. I rather enjoy the passion he has for his game of choice,and the largely informed way in which he makes his arguments for them. I wish that I could find as much well thought logical discourse on a regular basis about all of the hobbies, ideas, philosophies and pursuits I engage in during the course of my day. However, I believe him to be one of those people who will simply argue the opposite side of an issue that you believe in simply to entertain themselves or give their brains a nice cardio session. He is or was in truth engaging in a similar conversation elsewhere on this forum. It is somewhere in the many millions of posts in said forum. I found it by pure chance. I have as much desire to find it as I do to search through my 200 odd issues of knights of the dinner table to find the article Diffan asked about earlier (pc power increasing through editions). As you can see, I do not have 2,000 plus posts or 28,000 plus posts here at Candlekeep. That means that I can remember the location and the context of the majority of my posts here. It also means I spend significantly less time here (though I wish I could spend more and enjoy it immensely) I would rather be called a liar directly than be implied to be one. I did not however realise that this was a place for touchy feely one world Bob Marley Kumbayah bed wetting political correctness, where one cannot utter the word "idiot" but can freely talk about the occurrence and artistic value of a rape scene in a realms novel( which of course is a current thread here, somewhere). Yeah, I speak my mind. I sometimes lack that filter between one's mouth and brain that says " don't say that stupid!( boy, I hope you can say 'stupid' around here)". I cuss so much that in real life I make NecroVMX of youtube fame look like a choir boy. And sometimes I deserve to be reprimanded for that. But in all reality, I feel like you are all just ganging up on the new kid in school, so maybe I will read more and post less. Well met! |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 14:42:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
But in all reality, I feel like you are all just ganging up on the new kid in school, so maybe I will read more and post less. Well met!
No one is ganging up on anyone.
I, personally, am vehemently opposed to the 4E ruleset and to what changes were made to the setting because of that. I'm a huge fan of the 2E era Realms, and in my opinion, they should roll back to right after Cloak & Dagger and start over from there.
And I find that I very, very rarely agree with Diffan. That said, his posts have all been reasonable or respectful. The same can not be said for many of the prior discussions on 4E. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 16:05:26
|
Wooly, I am afraid I must disagree with part of your last statement. I would be very displeased if, and I don't believe they would do that, but I would be most displeased if Wizards rolled everything back to 2E. I personally like third edition, and while I'm not found of everything that occured in the timeline at that period, I do like a number of things that happened. Most noteably, the absecence of racial restrictions, when no good explanation on thos restrictions were ever given.
The dwarves dislike magic, is not a good reason for why there are no dwarvan wizards. It doesn't hold up under the most brief of logical examination. I am saying this, as I feel that it is something that was kind of missing in 2ed.
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 18:43:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
However, I believe him to be one of those people who will simply argue the opposite side of an issue that you believe in simply to entertain themselves or give their brains a nice cardio session. He is or was in truth engaging in a similar conversation elsewhere on this forum. It is somewhere in the many millions of posts in said forum. I found it by pure chance.
I probably was, as I have engaged in many heated edition arguments and discussions over the past 4 years. Manly because I feel discussion on ideas, impressions, biases, and feelings about such things help others understand another's reasonings and opinions. And sure, I find debate a fun engagment *shruggs* as well as discussing things about D&D and the Realms specifically. Since we're all different and like different stuff, there's bound to be arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
I have as much desire to find it as I do to search through my 200 odd issues of knights of the dinner table to find the article Diffan asked about earlier (pc power increasing through editions). As you can see, I do not have 2,000 plus posts or 28,000 plus posts here at Candlekeep. That means that I can remember the location and the context of the majority of my posts here. It also means I spend significantly less time here (though I wish I could spend more and enjoy it immensely) I would rather be called a liar directly than be implied to be one.
I hope you don't feel that I've called you a liar because that certainly wasn't my intent. In all honesty, i never even heard of the Knights of the Dinner Table until you mentioned it here. But I freely admit that I didn't purchase one Dragon or Dungeon magazine (or similiar things) until it became available on Dungeons and Dragons Insider. As for asking where I had argued on another thread, I asked because I wanted to see the context in which I was (which is probably totally true, lol). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 18:46:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Wooly, I am afraid I must disagree with part of your last statement. I would be very displeased if, and I don't believe they would do that, but I would be most displeased if Wizards rolled everything back to 2E. I personally like third edition, and while I'm not found of everything that occured in the timeline at that period, I do like a number of things that happened. Most noteably, the absecence of racial restrictions, when no good explanation on thos restrictions were ever given.
The dwarves dislike magic, is not a good reason for why there are no dwarvan wizards. It doesn't hold up under the most brief of logical examination. I am saying this, as I feel that it is something that was kind of missing in 2ed.
I was speaking of the lore, not the ruleset. I think 3.5 and Pathfinder are the best flavors of D&D to date. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 21:15:31
|
Flavour is a transient thing which gets dragged along in the Zeitgeist.
Once gamers liked fantasy inspired by Tolkien, Conan, and the Eternal Champion. Today gamers like fantasy inspired by Blizzard and ninjas and the Matrix. Well, Tolkien and Conan are still around - again - but they're influences which have been influenced.
I'm somewhere in the early-middle period ... I like "classic" elves and dwarves and orcs, don't mind the "original" (now forgotten/unpopular) versions of drow and fiendspawn, I'm all for Vancian magic and Gygaxian tables. Though I also like genasi and planeswalking and other things which were once avant garde fantasy. I'm not saying my preferences are "right", just that they're my preferences. My vote goes to AD&D 2E for maintaining "best" flavour. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 22:27:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Flavour is a transient thing which gets dragged along in the Zeitgeist.
Once gamers liked fantasy inspired by Tolkien, Conan, and the Eternal Champion. Today gamers like fantasy inspired by Blizzard and ninjas and the Matrix. Well, Tolkien and Conan are still around - again - but they're influences which have been influenced.
I'm somewhere in the early-middle period ... I like "classic" elves and dwarves and orcs, don't mind the "original" (now forgotten/unpopular) versions of drow and fiendspawn, I'm all for Vancian magic and Gygaxian tables. Though I also like genasi and planeswalking and other things which were once avant garde fantasy. I'm not saying my preferences are "right", just that they're my preferences. My vote goes to AD&D 2E for maintaining "best" flavour.
For the record, when I said 3.5 and Pathfinder were the best flavors, I was using the term incorrectly -- I use flavor interchangably with version, or other similar words. 
I know that's not proper English, but my preferred way of talking is to use an odd mix of modern, mangled, and slightly archaic English. And I try to type the way I talk. I rarely use proper English, unless the situation warrants it -- it's simply my preference, unlike a great many other folks with English as their native tongue!
Between my way of mangling the English language for my own amusement, and my wife's use of odd words she and her mom invented, my son is going to have an interesting vocabulary! |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2012 : 08:33:36
|
| My favourite flavour is scotch. |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2392 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2012 : 11:53:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
The dwarves dislike magic, is not a good reason for why there are no dwarvan wizards. It doesn't hold up under the most brief of logical examination. I am saying this, as I feel that it is something that was kind of missing in 2ed.
I don't know what you mean under "logical examination", but there can be a lot of in-universe good reasons for this. Starting from the canonical one: they simply cannot, due to being so non-magical that even magic items fail to activate on them.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Once gamers liked fantasy inspired by Tolkien, Conan, and the Eternal Champion. Today gamers like fantasy inspired by Blizzard and ninjas and the Matrix. Well, Tolkien and Conan are still around - again - but they're influences which have been influenced.
It's an aberration of distance, or a nostalgia filter, if you will. Maybe the situation was slightly better "when computers were big and we were little" but not all that much. All those DC / Marvel comics, Thud and Blunder books, etc are a good evidence of that.
It's just that then there was a trend involving variations of Conan Whose Manliness Is So Great It Diffuses Around (far enough to cover the fans, or so they hope)... and now there is a trend involving Emo Conan With Two Scimitars And One Hell Of A-a-angst.  Unless you're desensitized to one, both trends are about equally hilarious.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
My vote goes to AD&D 2E for maintaining "best" flavour.
IMO, settings should not be allowed to creep into a good core. Neither flavour, nor even smell. Going with this was one of problems with 3e - and the reason why OOC became more MUD-like and prominent.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I use flavor interchangably with version, or other similar words.
You don't happen to type this under the blessing of the yellow-beaked Holy Penguin?.. Because it looked suspiciously like something a fellow posixoid could let slip.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
Edited by - TBeholder on 25 Sep 2012 11:55:24 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2012 : 02:06:58
|
quote:
Just talking about the rules changes, not about any setting changes. These have always been separate things at my table; the setting remains just what and where the setting is, it is not arbitrarily altered to accomodate, introduce, or explain different rulesets. I've often wondered why many people say that they love something from one edition, something else from another, and vehemently declare their hatred of elements from both ... yet refuse to just adapt all their preferences into a selected house blend ... or why they might revile canon changes while stubbornly insisting on maintaining canon integrity. My logic is to just take the setting I like and rules I like, play the game, quit whining, and have some fun.
This is what I've done. I adopted the new skill rules and feats from 3e and reduced a round to 6 seconds as well, otherwise playing 2e. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2012 : 09:23:38
|
| In reference to round time, the Players Option: Combat and Tactics treats rounds in much the same way. I love the phase system. I think its a great happy middle between the base 2ed rules which are far too simple and the over complexity of the new Hackmaster rule set. |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
|
|
|
diogrigor
Acolyte
21 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2013 : 23:20:27
|
I took my first steps in 2nd edition. The feeling was spectacular. Role -playing an epic character. Someone who mattered in a group of sword wielding - spell hurling heroes wannabes. Well, actually a lot of fun and precious moments with good friends. All in all, 2nd edition had the best plots (Four from Cormyr), the spiciest rulebooks (Secret of the Magister, Necromancer's Handbook), the very definition of FR.
However, soon after I became a DM (out of necessity), I realized that the rules were not as specific and as flexible as they should be (we never played with racial lvl limitations). Soon, we ended up playing a so modified 2E, that 3E came as an official confirmation for our "illegality". 3.5E was just a necessary patch.
I always look up my 2E archive when I'm out of plot ideas, NPCs etc. I care nothing for the WotC opinion on the FR history. I implement what suits me, what I find interesting, whatever I think my players will enjoy (no Mystra is going to die in my world, ever!).
Now 4E is another matter. It's just the merchandise that WotC (aka HASBRO) wanted to sell. It has nothing to do with role-playing or d&d. It's the "how can we make the product appeal to 10-year olds" idea. I know there are experienced players/ DMs who are fans of 4E. I don't blame them. I just think they haven't seen the point behind all that yet. (Warforged? Really? In d&d? How about space marines and dark eldars? I like 40K too, but it's another story alltogether!)
I'm guessing 5E will be no more interesting than 4E. I've coursed through the playtest. D&D is a game written and played by romantics, who want to excel, without feeling that they are gods.
It's not Diablo my friends! and yes, Elminster, Larloch, Mystra, Bane they don't die, not because they can't, but because there's no point into it.
Hope I didn't make people angry. I just said what I feel about it. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2013 : 23:42:19
|
I am totally a AD&D "guy"...2e AD&D is good; but they removed some elements of the game that I really liked (Assassins being one, and old school Bards too!).
2e got magic "better" in that it unified Arcane Magic...but I still prefer the 1e method of open ended progression of spells (yes, fireball should not stop at 10d6 in my games!).
Having said that, I like how 3.x looks at skills also...
Over all, I'm a hybrid of 1e/2e/3.x |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2013 : 23:52:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I am totally a AD&D "guy"...2e AD&D is good; but they removed some elements of the game that I really liked (Assassins being one, and old school Bards too!).
2e got magic "better" in that it unified Arcane Magic...but I still prefer the 1e method of open ended progression of spells (yes, fireball should not stop at 10d6 in my games!).
Having said that, I like how 3.x looks at skills also...
Over all, I'm a hybrid of 1e/2e/3.x
2E definitely had assassin kits for rogues and fighters too IIRC. Assassins were always my favorite characters to play. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 05:33:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
I know there are experienced players/ DMs who are fans of 4E. I don't blame them. I just think they haven't seen the point behind all that yet. (Warforged? Really? In d&d? How about space marines and dark eldars? I like 40K too, but it's another story alltogether!)
Point behind what exactly? If it's the game, I was under the assumption that it was to have fun. If it's the mechanics, one set does just as good as another and of course people have preferences. SOme scratch a particular itch and some don't. Really not much more to say than that I guess. If it's for the story, again I don't see how mechanics has much in the way of changing this. They're just tools to fuel your imagination, help create immersion, and have fun.
RE: Warforged. I think they're pretty cool, espically in a setting like Eberron though I've ported them over to the Realms as well as 'Gondsmen, created in Lantan and a divine gift from Gond when he came down to Toril during the Time of Troubles.
RE: WH4K, funny you should mention this. I was just thinking how much fun a game like 40K would be with 4E mechanics and some reflavoring! To me, that's what mechanics are, a set of rules that help fuel your game and make it fun. I really don't feel like going into the hundreds and thousands of pages, books, and hours trying to run a 40K game with their supplements if 4E can be converted with reflavoring in 10-minutes with a decent plot and some quick know-how about the setting.
Good times!  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2nd edition forever
