2nd or 3rd edition?

Remove all ads!

You're right. 3E does not change any of the things you listed. And the fact that 1E was the beginning of AD&D - basic D&D did set the stage for much of 1E - it should have a special place in our hearts. But that does not mean that a improved upon set of rule can't be used. It's true that the DM does set the tone of the campaign, but giving that DM a better framework of work within is not a bad things.

I'm just saying without the DM creating tons of house rules, and this is not a bad things, 3E is a more balanced basic rule set than 1E.

 

For those who haven't played 1e your really missing out...and just make the changes you want in your new campaign. With a good DM there's no reason to buy an expensive set of new books. Use your brain instead of your wallet...

 

Ok--now that I have read the 3rd edition PH about 20% (and I have read the 1st edition about 200 times), I can at last make an educated opinion:


The 3rd edition rules are an extensive and successful attempt to create a balanced game and explain every action in terms defined by rules. I think examples are the best way to describe this:


1. balance


a)In the first edition rules (and later supplements), some classes were cleary stronger. for instance,Rangers had distinct advantages over plain old fighters and the justification was that you needed a higher initial ability roll(s) to be able to make your character a ranger. the same goes for monks, illusionists, druids, etc.

furthermore, ability rolls, if played strictly, were not augmented--- you took what you got.. and you had to live with them throughout the life of you character

of course, each DM and player group could interpret the rules for themselves. and I am sure most did--- 4d6 rolls, intention gross modifications, etc. ... this of course made it tougher for small groups to interact as they likely were playing very different games


b)3rd edition rules can also be modified (clearly) but a painstaking attempt has been made to make the rules very balanced from the beginning. i.e. fighters are no less than rangers, etc. Furthermore, they allow your character to fundementally change throughout his/her/its life

2. details

3rd edition tries to make every action logically played out with skills/feats.. so if you want jump over a wall, do a backflip and cut a throat, you now have a way of doing this within a set of parameters... in the 1st edition, the DM may have made some rolls behind his/her screen, but clearly the success of actions like this was very subjectively decided.

3. 3rd edition decided to allow people much more freedom/many more options in character race/class/multiclass, etc. No longer are you a ranger for life... no longer are elves capable of multiclass but humans are not.. I see this as an evolution. Kind of like the difference between basic D and D (which I also had and read about 100 times) and AD and D.. they reason AD and D was so much more interesting


Conclusion: from a old-time 1st edition fan (and former 3 edition sceptic), the 3rd edition rules are fantastic, interesting and very very playable... for hardcore roleplayers and powergamers alike

(but I will always hold on to my 1st edition books)
...

final note: buying 3 books (MM/PH/DM guide) that cost about 75-100$ 20 years apart seems like a very small cost for alot of enjoyment..

 

Cotman68, I TOTALLY agree, but just replace 1E with 2E in my statement. I'm glad you took the time to exam the 3E rules. I felt much like you did at the start, but I've been playing 3E for around 9 months and it's great. It's all about the fun. We want to encourage more people to be quality role-players and expand the RPG world.

Game on!

 

Well I am one of those people. I have been talked into playing Pnp. I've bought the PHB and Monster Manual, and so far I love them. They are fantastic reading, and even though it seems quite overwhelming at first to dive into so much information, after reading most of it, it isn't that hard to figure out. Even though my exposure to 2nd edition has come through a little reading and some crpg, I personally like some of the changes I'm seeing. I like the idea of raising skills at certain levels. I like the feats at least (I could very well live without the skills as they have been done). Multiclassing is a nice blend of multi and dual classing. And for the most part I like the way all the classes have been done. I don't think the price is terribly bad. (though I wish I could get by without the DMG) I'm happy with what I've seen so far. I vote that third edition is good. Is it better than the others. I can't say, but I do like what I see.

 

I don't know how to say this but I'll give it a shot.
Althou i play D&D3E almost every friday night. I don't exactly like the rules in D&D. Never have. The rules are just to simple. It got better with 3E, but still there are something that's not right.
My favorit system must be Runequest i think it was called. I played it 3 or 4 times but I loved it from the start.

 

Kerric, What do you mean 'to simple'? I think 3E is more streamlined then 2E but I don't think they left out anything. Do you think 2E is to simple? I've never played RuneQuest, what does it have that AD&D does not? Do you want more rules? And if so on what type of stuff? When you use both the basic rules, the class sourcebooks, and the campaign book - like FR - you have a large amount of rules. What's missing?

 

After spending more than a week reading the PHB off and on, I think there are more than enough rules. There's tons of info in there, and it's taking me a while just to digest it all, let alone try and recall it all when I'm in the middle of battle and I'm trying to remember if I get an attack of opertunity on a player who bullrushed me while tryign to figure out what penalties he gets for that and what attack bonuses I get. But that's just me. I've never played PnP before, so this is all still new. What types of rules is D&D missing?

 

Voltric: As I said in 3E things got better. But I find the rules for combat, Armors and the like fuzzy, there is something missing. In Runequest you can make your own armor, with Breast plate, arms of Chainmail and mayby leather leggings and that kind. And if you want you can have chain with leather on the inside. And I never liked the hitpoint system, Normally you can kill a guy with one or two good hits. In D&D you need 2 or 3 20 in a row on the dice. and thats like 1 % chance or something. Off course it should be hard for 1st lvl fighter to kill a 20th level barbarian, But in D&D you need a shit load of luck. In runequest you don't have levels, you just get better, by fighting or training, casting spells or whatever you want to get better at.
And by the way Casting spell in D&D it to easy i think, I think there should always be chance of failure even without armor. No 1st level wizard can cast spell each time without failure once in a while.
I don't say 3E is crappy, but I find something missing that's all

 

Kerric, I think you are talking about high vs. low fantasy. D&D is high fantasy where the hero don't get killed by on sword stroke. This maybe unrealistic but that's the style of the game. In D&D you can kill a commoner (0 level) person with one sword thrust but not a 20th level fighter.

If you're looking for a realistic game go play GURPS were one roll of the dice could mean your death. But most people are not interested in low fantasy because they are attached to their PC and rather not have to make new ones ever other gaming session.

And on the armor issue it doesn't really make sense to have armor like you discripe since D&D does not use hit locations. I perfer hit location but again that's not the nature of high fantasy. But no hit points? I don't think I've ever seen a game beside Amber that did not use hit points. How does RuneQuest handle damage?

 

Other problems with 'low fantasy' games:

they are enourmously tedious. I played the runequest rules for awhile--they looked incredible. very realistic. but so hard to play.

If you are a wargamer at heart (or a chess player), then grab a low fantasy game. If you enjoy roleplaying a hero (or antihero), grab a high fantasy game.


two extremes of high and low fantasy:

1. high fantasy: champions .. that game is major high fantasy--you are literally a superhero and the rules reflect the cartoon genre (like they should.. high fantasy taken to the extreme)

2. low fantasy RPG-- traveller. that game was.. err.. painful to play. fun to think about. so many rules that you almost played the game in real time (light years.....hehe).

of course the ultimate low fantasy GAMES are war games. but that is another story.

 

Voltric: You a got a point there. And did I say no hit points, in that case I'll correct my self. You DO have hitpoints, usually 10-15 total hitpoints before you die. And 4-7 before that part of your body is useless. And if you have 5 hitpoints on your right arm and you get 10 damage there, your arm is cut of or is forever useless. And in Runequest armor don't prevent getting hit, it prevents damage, Chainmail prevents about 5 damage.

 

OK, now that makes more sense. I agree with you armor should not only make it hard to hit you. I think it's primary ability should be to prevent damage. I like the GURPS system, which sounds like RuneQuest. In GURPS armor has both passive defense (PD) and damage resistance (DR). PD helps a PC avoid getting hit but not be much. The whole glancing blow or deflected bullet thing. The main use of armor is DR which absorbs damage so the PC doesn't get hurt.

I always found this armor system so much better than the D&D protection system.